back to article Apple loses iPhone patent lawsuit

A jury in the US District Court in Delaware has ruled that Apple infringed on three patents owned by MobileMedia Ideas LLC of Chevy Chase, MD. "We're very pleased," MobileMedia CEO Larry Horn told Bloomberg. "We think it's justified." MobileMedia Ideas, reports the Los Angeles Times, is a patent holding company formed by Sony …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Surely a mistake

    Apple would never use another's patents without proper license, why that'd make them almost a US version of Samsung .....wait a minute.....

    1. LarsG
      Meh

      I see it is time

      To make some apple juice.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Surely a mistake

      No mistake, each of the jurors left the court and were observed making calls on bright yellow phones. When confronted the jury Forman commented ," so it's a new Nokia win8 phone, I won it in a raffle, though I don't remember buying any tickets, but look 10 years worth of free calls!"

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Surely a mistake

      Ah finally Apple is getting a dose of its own medicine. Sweet.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Re: Surely a mistake

        "Ah finally Apple is getting a dose of its own medicine. Sweet." And just in time for Christmas! I hope the MMI team insist on a complete and immediate sales ban of all infringing Apple handsets until the fine and patent payments are set....

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Surely a mistake

        You forget they are ALL at it - the stakes are too high not to. Everyone wants to patent anything on the slight off-chance they can claim it's being infridged years later. Often they have not even used the technology - we might as well go around patenting most of the stuff in Star Trek as one day it may come true.

        1. DJ 2
          Pint

          Re: Surely a mistake

          Do you mean slate like portable input devices that can be activated by either touch, a stylus or by voice command?

          Or perhaps does that open automatically as you open them (with or without the swoosh noise).

          Or perhaps you were referring to the flat screen computer terminals that double as both display and input device.

          Replicator, One Guinness Cold.

        2. Dapprman

          Re: Surely a mistake - Star Trek

          Ah, but Gene Rodenbury did patent most the technology ideas and then bequeathed them to the general public in his will as wanted people to have the chance to deevlop upon them. Alas the look and feel are a different matter resulting in their holder (is it Sony or Time Warner) threatening anyone who make anything even close to resembling the look.

  2. Swarthy Silver badge
    WTF?

    Invalidated due to obviousness?

    As opposed to "Slide to unlock" which is pure genius, and had not been seen ever before, certainly not on fence gates.

    1. Bob Vistakin
      Holmes

      Re: Invalidated due to obviousness?

      Don't forget the stunning "turn page" patent, which freed the human race from thousands of years of bewilderment trying to figure out exactly how to use those mystifying pieces of paper bound together as "books".

      http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/19/3659382/apple-design-patent-on-virtual-page-turn

      And let's not forget their recent amazing innovation, surely at Nobel prize level in its dazzling breakthrough, again enlightening all mankind together by inventing the "leaf" - that's right, at last we have a name for those puzzling little things no-one had thought of before which covered trees.

      http://www.techtree.com/content/news/2227/apple-patents-leaf-patenting-rectangle.html

      Round corners? Fuck 'em - there's loads more of this hilariously desperate shit coming as Android eats their lunch.

      1. EyeCU
        Joke

        Hey books are complicated things

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

        1. Simon Harris Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Hey books are complicated things

          Upvoted for being one of my favorite sketches :)

        2. Wyrdness

          Re: Hey books are complicated things

          But Apple invented the book. Didn't you know?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkQkeKbTP_w

  3. BillG Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    The Irony

    The irony is simply delicious!

    1. J. R. Hartley Silver badge

      Hahahahahahahahahaha!!

      Karma!

    2. Ian Yates
      Stop

      Re: The Irony

      While this is certainly Apple getting a taste of their own "obvious" medicine and watching them lose at their own game gives a warm fuzzy feeling, the patents in question are still rediculous.

      The two regarding incoming calls basically boil down to: phone receives call and displays contextual tasks, user selects the task (accept/reject) to perform.

      True, Sony and Nokia land-grabbed these concepts in the 90's, but seriously, what else would you do with a phone that receivse incoming calls?

      I agree with the poster below that says that almost all IT patents are obvious or prior art. It's just land-grabbing and patent trolling. The system is still broken and this is still just irrelevant numbers being batted from one corporation to the next.

      1. Psyx

        Re: The Irony

        "True, Sony and Nokia land-grabbed these concepts in the 90's, but seriously, what else would you do with a phone that receivse incoming calls?"

        Get an engaged tone, like landlines have done for the last 70 years or more?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Obvious?

    Phone for an ambulance, I need my sides stitching up.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: Obvious?

      Unfortunately, it's currently tending to the deep wounds and irreparable injury (probably a kidney lost in a backalley organ heist) of MobileMedia Ideas.

    2. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: Obvious?

      Thank you for your call to the Ambulance service. We are sending an ambulance to your postcode using Apple mapping so just fuck off and die will you?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm not holding my breath

    waiting for the merry cans to realise that patent trolling is barbaric.

    After all, they still have the death penalty.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Let me get this right

    So Nokia sues Apple, Apple settles for millions, and then Nokia sues Apple again through another company they created together with Sony?

    Btw, for the others who are loving MobileMedia over this - get ready, your favourite company's turn will come soon. RIM is already in court with them.

    1. DN4
      Windows

      Re: Let me get this right

      > your favourite company's turn will come soon

      It won't... Unless Apple patents the use of a phone to make phone calls. While holding it normally. The first thing might have crossed their minds briefly but the second seems quite safe.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let me get this right

        Not only it will, it's already happening - MobileMedia already sued RIM too. A win against Apple now empowers them to go further.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: Let me get this right

          > empowers

          This being the War Of Patent Terror, you have to use the iconic verb "embolden".

        2. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Let me get this right

          At least this isn't a patent troll, as the companies behind its founding honestly hold the patents. More like a patent shill: a frontman for the companies involved.

    2. Chet Mannly

      Re: Let me get this right

      "Btw, for the others who are loving MobileMedia over this - get ready, your favourite company's turn will come soon."

      Unless that company is already doing the right thing and paying the licence fee.

      Not every company has the morals of Apple you know!!!

      1. Random Handle

        Re: Let me get this right

        >Unless that company is already doing the right thing and paying the licence fee.

        >Not every company has the morals of Apple you know!!!

        Doubtless many do or reach agreements - but this if this is the same Larry Horn of MPEG_LA, Apple are also using him to play the other side of the coin when it suits.

    3. Craigness
      FAIL

      Re: Let me get this right

      If Apple invented their own stuff instead of copying Nokia's ideas then they wouldn't get sued. There has to be some way of protecting innovative companies from cheap imitations made in China, you know!

      1. Ambivalous Crowboard
        Devil

        > There has to be some way

        When the patents are "saying yes to an on-screen message" and "saying no to an on-screen message" I think you'd be hard-pressed to do anything other than pony up your license fee.

  7. eulampios
    Megaphone

    How do you like it, Apple?

    99.9999% of all IT patents are idiotic or prior art. Those that you try to so ardently abuse are the worst and the most obvious. Got it?

    Enjoy, may you get fucked more and more in the course.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: How do you like it, Apple?

      So say we all!

    2. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: How do you like it, Apple?

      So is the 0.0001% a genuine software patent - I'd love to know a genuine one just so I can start taking the pills again.

  8. andreas koch

    Pity . . .

    that those 'merkin courts don't seem to talk to each other.

    Like this it will take decades until all judges had a case of overwhelmingly obvious morosity and learned to just kick them out.

    Mind you, I did snigger a bit at the creators of the leaf-adorned-rounded-corner-device-unlocking slider having a taste of their own medicine.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Smelly in here

    As usual we get the brainfarts from the same people who don't know the difference between a patent troll, a non-praticing entity who only holds pieces of paper to sue others with - and a company suing to protect the products and features they do have on the market.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Smelly in here

      No - I think you'll find we know the difference between a patent troll and a company suing another company over completely obvious and trivial patents that should never have been granted... there isn't one.

      IF Apple's patents were really novel and non trivial then they might get more support... I suggested the notion of changing pages of a electronic newspaper by swiping with a finger at a Science Fiction convention in 1988... there is now way anything as obvious as that should be patentable.

    2. Chet Mannly

      Re: Smelly in here

      "people who don't know the difference between a patent troll, a non-praticing entity who only holds pieces of paper to sue others with "

      Yeah because a joint venture between Sony and Nokia is obviously nothing but a fly by nighter patent troll. After all its not like Sony or Nokia would have any products that might use those patents would they?

      *slaps forehead at the stupidity of fanbois*

      So you notice every room you walk in smells of brainfarts from the ignorant? Those brainfarts are your own - please get a clue and stop stinking up the conversation in here...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Chet Mannly

        "Those brainfarts are your own - please get a clue and stop stinking up the conversation in here..."

        While the brainfarts may be his or not - there is no conversation in here. This is so far all just apple bashing. (This may be deserved, but don't kid yourself).

        "In a communication terminal device, the connecting state of a call can certainly and easily be controlled without learning troublesome operating methods which are different depending on the connecting state of a call by providing controller for displaying processing items available to a call a display and controlling the call into the connecting state corresponding to the processing item which is selected and determined by the user's operation of an input unit, the user can control the connecting state of the call by merely selecting the desired processing item. "

        Have you read that first patent? How about that being thrown out in '96 because it wasn't even written in english? No time for me to moan about the others... that train isn't going to catch itself.

  10. Ken Hagan Gold badge
    Facepalm

    That call rejection patent...

    ...is not only obvious, but probably also the only sane way to do it.

    It's worth following the link. The patent describes a system that examines the caller's ID, compares it against a list provided by the phone's owner, and rejects the calls coming from people the owner doesn't want to talk to.

    OK, so if we accept that this isn't the most obvious implementation possible (a big if) then presumably the court feels there are other criteria for rejection that phone manufacturers can use instead. Perhaps they could reject every third call, or calls from numbers with a 6 in them, or all calls on Wednesdays, or...

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: That call rejection patent...

      Welcome to innovation in the 21st century.

      1. JetSetJim Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: That call rejection patent...

        > Welcome to innovation in the 21st century.

        The call rejection one was filed in 1998, for starters.

        Prior to this, the 8110 (Banana/Matrix phone) was released (my first phone). In it you were allowed to assign profiles to entries in your contacts list - among the profile types was "silent" - i.e. you wouldn't know they were calling. Personally, I'd put the rejection patent as a potentially obvious extension of this - although it reads as if the patent is actually on a standards implementation of a feedback mechanism to the calling party within the paging response on call setup attempt, I'm guessing it's an IE in a call setup reject message and so doesn't fall into the scope of a standards essential patent.

        Having a quick rummage on the 3GPP standards website at standard 04.08 (the GSM standard detailing call setups and whatnot) and you can find that there was already a cause field prior to the filing of this patent that would specify a call is rejected by the end user - I'm guessing historically this was activated manually by pressing the "hang up" button when you received a call.

        The specific field is:

        "H.1.9 Cause No. 21 "call rejected"

        This cause indicates that the equipment sending this cause does not wish to accept this call, although it could have accepted the call because the equipment sending this cause is neither busy nor incompatible"

        In context, combining the "silent" profile with this aspect of the standard gets you this patent - personally I would agree with Apple that it is a tad obvious as all you are doing is automating an existing process. But then IANAPatent Examiner, merely a lowly telecoms engineer.

        I agree that it is rather delicious that Apple are suffering this way, though... Their petard seems to be a bit hoisted.

        1. Philip Lewis
          Headmaster

          Re: That call rejection patent...

          A "petard" is a sort of bomb. One is "hoisted" by it due to it "going off".

          It is not like a flag which gets hoisted - not the same at all.

          1. JetSetJim Silver badge
            Unhappy

            Re: That call rejection patent...

            Oops - just noticed I got it the wrong way round, too. Oh well

            <insert moan about lack of edit facility>

        2. PatientOne

          Re: That call rejection patent...

          "The call rejection one was filed in 1998, for starters.

          Prior to this, the 8110 (Banana/Matrix phone) was released"

          This would be the Nokia 8110, then. That would be the same Nokia that then patented the call rejection system, yes?

          You do realise that turning the ringer off isn't the same as rejecting the call, don't you? Well, obviously not, but still: They aren't even close. With the former, the connection is still made and you can't make or receive other calls until the existing call is ended. The latter rejects the connection so your phone is available to be used.

          Doesn't validate the patent: This is just to correct a misconception.

          1. JetSetJim Silver badge

            Re: That call rejection patent...

            I'm not saying it's the same thing, merely a logical extension of existing functionality.

            Actually, with both systems the connection is made in the control plane. The difference is in the rejection plane the phone signals an explicit reject with a particular setting to the Cause information element in the paging response message.

            Also, you are still able to take calls with a call up - it's called "call waiting" and it's a feature that's been around for just as long

        3. Ken Hagan Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Re: That call rejection patent...

          "The call rejection one was filed in 1998, for starters."

          Just a few decades after people started using "rules" to deal with spam in other communication systems, then. How depressing.

    2. Jordan Davenport

      Re: That call rejection patent...

      I'm not going to defend the validity of the patent since I have rather mixed views on patents, especially with regards to software. Though to be completely fair, before the phone system became at least partially digital, there was no way to screen calls prior to answering. I only glossed over the abstract of the patent, not the full explanation, but there is a bit of novelty to the patent in being able to reject a call without first answering it.

      That said, I personally do not agree with any sort of software patent and feel that software should be protected by copyrights and trade secrets alone. But eh, what's my opinion worth?

      1. peter 45
        FAIL

        Re: That call rejection patent...

        was no way to screen calls prior to answering

        Usually called the Secretary who held in their hands a list of people allowed to talk to the boss. Oh wait. Just because you have replaced a know function with the same function, but with new technology, thats worth a patent? Suppose it must be true, 'cos how else would Apple get a patent on a slide bolt.

    3. croc

      Re: That call rejection patent...

      After Ogg invented the wheel, Magog protested that Ogg's idea was obvious...

  11. Darryl
    Thumb Up

    So can we expect a ban on imports of the infringing devices?

  12. ZillaOfManilla
    Devil

    Can I just say

    I absolutely fucking love this

    1. mccp

      Re: Can I just say

      Because the fat cat lawyers get fatter?

      How do any of these software patent cases benefit the end user of any device?

  13. JaitcH
    Happy

    Damages, you say?

    I like round numbers, as does Apple, Let's settle for USD$1,000,000,000, plus triple damages and costs?

    Happy Christmas, Cupertino.

    (Bet Apple appeals - tainted jury, etc., etc,)

    1. Dazed and Confused Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Bet Apple appeals

      > (Bet Apple appeals - tainted jury, etc., etc,)

      What you mean flagrantly copy Samsung

  14. W.O.Frobozz

    Snort

    So much whine over a so-called 'patent troll.' So soon we forget Apple, Microsoft and RIMjob buying Nortel's patents, and then running to set up the uber-troll called the Rockstar Consortium specifically to attack android.

    Case, point, match.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm just happy to discover

    there's a town in existence called "Chevy Chase".

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: I'm just happy to discover

      Apparently named after the Ballard of Chevy Chase. Likewise, the nickname "Chevy" for the actor, Mr Chase, named so by his grandmother, a fan of the Ballard of Chevy Chase.

      At least that's a what a short paper chase through wikipedia claims!

  16. elreg subscriber
    FAIL

    Mutually assured destruction is now assured

    One day they (all of them) will all realize how badly broken the patent system is.

    And then billions of dollars eaten by patent attorneys and patent trolls, will finally be free to be used on real products and innovation.

    1. Jason Hall

      Re: Mutually assured destruction is now assured

      Yes. This please.

    2. fawlty
      Pint

      Re: Mutually assured destruction is now assured

      Beer and upvote for this, starve the patent world of oxygen. Regardless of the result of this one case, patents are clearly no longer serving real, original creators of novel ideas in the way they should.

      Ever since companies started counting number of patents registered as a marketing tool has this been broken.

  17. Mitoo Bobsworth
    Meh

    ' he believes that amount should be "substantial." '

    Which only adds to my conviction that it's not really about the patents - just the money.

    1. Alex Rose

      Re: ' he believes that amount should be "substantial." '

      Of course it's only about the money - what the hell else do you expect it to be about?

      Whether they get the money by stopping Apple using the patented technology which enables them to sell more devices, or whether they get damages or whether they agree a back-dated license arrangement it's still always only about the money!

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There was a story of two cowboys...

    ...riding on some road back in the days of Wild West.

    - Jim, I bet you wouldn't eat your horse's dung for a hundred bucks!

    - For a hundred bucks, John, I betcha I would!

    So he does, getting his buck... and they continue riding.

    - John, I bet a hundred, that ya wouldn't eat dung yourself, now would ya?

    - Course I would!

    So he does, gets 100 bucks and they continue riding.

    - Eh... Jim... don't you think we just ate dung for nothing?

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: There was a story of two cowboys...

      Nice, but they are called lawyers to day. They never take any part in inventing or developing anything in the big firms they work for. They are so well paid that those big companies feel they are important. They are well dressed good speaking, honest (sorry) and they feel they (rightfully) have to do something important to earn the money they get. But, as the modern cowboys they are, they never eat dung. Dung is for you and me and the companies who have become so dependent of them.

      As for modern, I am not so sure though. Was it Swift, perhaps, who wrote about this (fairly) poor woman who had five cows. The bastards too three and her lawyer took the rest.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There was a story of two cowboys...

        Of course, I referred to companies as cowboys in this parable. Lawyers would be horses then (in the best case), and dung would be software patents. The sooner the companies realize they get no net long-run profit from eating... sorry... abusing software patents, the better for them (and us).

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sooooo....

    When will Apple patent breathing? Or have they already got that one?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sooooo....

      It doesn't matter. The Legislature of the United States of America has already passed a bill to allow the IRS to investigate and by extension implement the taxation of breathing.

      It won't matter who holds any rights, the IRS will be able to tax it.

  20. Simon B
    Happy

    Love how Apple they say the patents are not invalid "due to obviousness", after they made a song and dame about a rectangle neimg their shape and property. PMSL I hope this is one of many eat Karma bitches that Apple receive.

  21. Asher Pat
    Thumb Up

    "Taste of its own medicine" comes to mind...

    "Taste of its own medicine" comes to mind...but when Apple is on the receiving end, MSM calls the other side "patent trolls".

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shoe is on the other foot. Now boot Apple up the arse!

  23. Ben 54

    Apple are trolls normally, but..

    I just looked at this companies website - they are obviously bigger trolls than apple! Someone should reform this insanity!

    1. Philip Lewis
      FAIL

      Re: Apple are trolls normally, but..

      Let me see, so Apple is a "troll" because they assert the right to patents they have registered and actually used in shipping products that have made Apple the richest company on the planet??? The business model of Apple is to sell a gajillion units of desirable gadgets to consumers and make a lot of money.

      I think you have it all wrong.

      A patent troll in any common sense view, is a company that acquires patents and asserts their ownership via litigation against companies that actually produce things that use said patents. In other words, the business model of a patent troll is monetising patents.

      It requires a perverse Apple hatred to conflate "Apple" and "patent troll", but as usual, it is frothing away here at the register, where the decline in average intelligence of the human race is on show for all to see.

  24. Piro

    Apple wants something dismissed when it's obvious

    But a rounded rectangle, that's not obvious?

    Sliding something to unlock (exactly like a bolt lock).. that's not obvious?

    So on, and so on..

    1. LPF

      Re: Apple wants something dismissed when it's obvious

      Ohh FFS ho wmany times is this idiot phrase going to be repeated?? Apple did not have a patent on rounded corners, they have a patent on the design of the iphone as a whole! which the s2 blantanly copied !

      1. Piro

        Re: Apple wants something dismissed when it's obvious

        Because it's fun to troll!

      2. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
        Headmaster

        Re: Apple wants something dismissed when it's obvious

        Apple did not have a patent on rounded corners

        Congratulations for not letting facts interfere with you opinion.

        Patent D670286, granted 6th November 2012. CLAIM: The ornamental design for a portable display device, as shown and described.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Apple wants something dismissed when it's obvious

          Grrrr, the USPTO obviously have some kind of deal with Apple. Why do I need Quicktime installing to view an image?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Apple wants something dismissed when it's obvious

        If you think that SII looks blatantly like an iPhone then I suggest that you procure professional support from Mssrs Dolland and Aitchison, Specsavers or that ilk.

        If you'd like to get a true definition of blatant, I suggest that you review the following, note even the textured back:

        http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/samsung_galaxy_s_ii_official.jpg

        http://teletimesinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Huawei-Ascend-P1-2.jpg

        1. Philip Lewis
          FAIL

          Re: Apple wants something dismissed when it's obvious

          In the first 10 seconds I notice a dozen separate design elements that are different.

          These two devices are "copies" of each other only if you are blind in one eye and cannot see from the other.

          Try harder, though that seems like a request unlikely to be able to be honoured.

  25. tojb
    IT Angle

    We are paying for marketroids, legal, finance: everything except the product

    Has anyone done a serious analysis of how much e.g. microsoft, apple actually spend on producing their software/hardware vs:

    - filing/contesting perverse patents like these ones

    - advertising

    - astroturfing

    - leveraged buyouts of firms that used to do something useful

    - tax dodging

    - blah whatever those dudes in suits are supposed to be doing

    I mean seriously, I could have re-skinned debian and ordered a crate of dell laptops painted white from some chinese factory in like, a week..... (cf psystar)

  26. chiller

    An ounce of sympathy for apple in the house? ...............

    ............ tumbleweed.....................

  27. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    No one not noticed the obvious?

    Apple have gone so litigation bonkers, they are now suing themselves?

    " holding company formed by Sony, Nokia, and MPEG-LA "

    MPEG-LA Members.... in alphabetical order:

    Apple Inc.......

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Headmaster

      Re: No one not noticed the obvious?

      Can I down vote myself for such a poorly worded title?

  28. gkroog
    Go

    The fact is that Apple violated patented IP

    Troll or not, Apple has infringed patents held by someone else.

    And this isn't the first time. A while back, they had to cough up money for using the patented intellectual property of a Swiss photographer, the Swiss railways, and a company called VirtnetX.

    And it came out in the VirtnetX trial that Apple's engineers and designers develop Apple shiny without a single care about other people's IP.

    You said it's wrong to steal, Mr. Cook?

    Then you won't have any trouble with the courts agreeing to that against you.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The fact is that Apple violated patented IP

      ...Apple's engineers and designers develop Apple shiny without a single care about other people's IP.''

      Blame the US courts for that state of affairs. Sadly a court (not SCOTUS) held that by doing a search one became an "intentional" patent infringer, rather than merely an infringer. Or some such rubbish ...

  29. CyberCod
    Megaphone

    What goes around comes around

    Its time to do away with the patent system, or at the least, revamp it.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019