Slashdot Mirror

You overreacted, spending the $3500.

Should have handled this UDRP defense yourself. Even the most out-to-lunch single-person panel would never let this one get through. If the unthinkable happens, you can still go ahead and stick a lawyer up their ass and keep your domain, but it won't come to that.

Scandalous about NAF keeping your money, though.

PS, Canadian corporate info is available online , but I was unable to find a Tobacco.com, Inc. Is it possible they filed a trademark application on behalf of a non-existent entity? By the way, 401 Queen's Quay West is Harbour Terrace (luxury condominiums), so they may have assets worth going after. Canada has an advanced legal system, after all.

PPS, Your domain tobacco.com may not be worth as much as you think... e-commerce or even advertising is a complete non-starter in today's climate. Suggestion: put up tobacco lawsuit resource info (class action lawsuits, ambulance-chaser lawyer ads, etc), and the tobacco companies might find it cost-effective to pay you a million to take the domain off your hands (after all, literally hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake).

First Seattle, then Quebec City. Boring. Protestors can't come up with any more interesting arguments.

Even older news: Most of the industrialized world's leaders signed treates in 1996 (!) to enforce copyright law and property law. The FTAA has little to do with these treaties that were signed yonks ago.

I wish the Jihad here would find a way to quash the myth that the open source movements are about taking property rights away. You are behaving exactly like they say you are and it isn't helping you any.

All you need is 2 nodes for a network.

I would comply, but probably be looking at real estate in Canada or some country that actually lets people run thier own lives.

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures...

i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority;
ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.

I was also very hopeful when I first read this, but I still thought it was absolutely necessary for me to send in a thought-through email, as I urge EVERY Canadian here to do.
Go to http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01099e.html (same link as parent message) and read particularly section 4.2.
Next, go to http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html and read through it, and then send email to copyright-droitdauteur@ic.gc.ca
Please note that the email link on that page DOES NOT WORK (it links to the wrong email address), though the text of the link is correct.
If you are a Canadian computer professional, this is IMPORTANT. It doesn't seem like a helpless situation, either, as you will see after you read that paper (or the parent message for the highlights). Send an email and soon!
Just think, if we can keep Canada a friendly place for programmers to work, we can possibly end, or even reverse the brain-drain that's been going on for here for years and years.

I was also very hopeful when I first read this, but I still thought it was absolutely necessary for me to send in a thought-through email, as I urge EVERY Canadian here to do.
Go to http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01099e.html (same link as parent message) and read particularly section 4.2.
Next, go to http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html and read through it, and then send email to copyright-droitdauteur@ic.gc.ca
Please note that the email link on that page DOES NOT WORK (it links to the wrong email address), though the text of the link is correct.
If you are a Canadian computer professional, this is IMPORTANT. It doesn't seem like a helpless situation, either, as you will see after you read that paper (or the parent message for the highlights). Send an email and soon!
Just think, if we can keep Canada a friendly place for programmers to work, we can possibly end, or even reverse the brain-drain that's been going on for here for years and years.

How is it that governments throughout the world are now considering measures similar to the DMCA without waiting for chalenges in the US and to see what the effect of public outcry will be here before risking the same thing in their countries?

Is it that these issues aren't getting enough visibility in other countries (or parhaps not getting enough visibility in the US) or is it that corporate proponants of the DMCA foresee that it will be ruled unconstitutional in the US and they want to have similar legislation enacted in other countries before it goes down in flames in the US. This way a portion of the market control aforded by the DMCA can be maintained by international corporations who have operations in countries where DMCA-like legislation was enacted before it was deemed unconstitutional in the US - with the assumption that after it is ruled unconstitutional in the US, getting backing for similar legislation in other countries would be untenable.

This brings us back to the point of presenting a unified front in opposition to such things as the DMCA. There was an editorial on K5 mostly discussing .NET but that souhed on this issue of lack of coordination of the groups opposing various corporate and government initiatives (mostly Microsoft Hailstorm but it applies equally to our response to the DMCA).

I have been sugesting in various places that our reliance on the EFF and other such organixations to fight these battles should be re-evaluated and was planning on writing an editorial on the subject but it looks like I was beaten to the punch.

On the bright side, at least the canadian covernments is soliciting public comment before proceeding with their legislation.

--CTH

The Canadian page makes no mention of the DMCA so hopefully not use it as a template, but from reading the site and linked sites, I highly doubt it.

It should be submitted as "What not to do when making digital copyright laws" but it not the source of the problem. New WIPO treaties are the source.

The WIPO treaty (signed by many contries, someone already posted a link to them) requires laws to be put in place for the following:

1) create a new exclusive right in favour of copyright owners, including sound recording producers and performers, to make their works available on-line to the public

2) prevent the circumvention of copyright protection (i.e., as technology is developed to protect copyright, circumvention of such protection would be made illegal

3) prohibit tampering with rights management information.


Canada has signed this treaty and said it will honour it, so we will have the Canadian DMCA.

There is a link on the Canadian site to the framework for the law that will be passed.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01101e.html

From the framework:

The Government is committed to ensuring that copyright law promotes both the creation and the dissemination of works.

This sounds like the reverse engineering portion. Say bye to free Satalite television soon.

Other parts seem to cover some of the other issues brought up on here before:

by allowing specific exemptions to aid users such as libraries, schools and archives to fulfill their vital institutional roles in Canadian society


Hopefully they do this part right, and we don't have corporations going after libraries, etc, but I have no faith in my elected officials.


Copyright lasts only for a defined period of time. In Canada the term of copyright, in most cases, is set at the lifetime of the author plus fifty years after the author's death. The issue is whether or not the term of protection ought to be extended to life plus seventy years


It will be extended, there's little doubt about that. The United States and the EU have both already increased theirs to this, Canada will follow suit.

I do not expect all of this to come in under one law. That's not how the Canadian government works. It will create a law that's tolerable. Then they will begin ammending that law. It will mutate over time and will become the DMCA.

I'm moving to Russia, the new land of the free.

Domestically, some copyright stakeholders have indicated that in the absence of a prohibition against the manufacture and traffic in circumvention devices, would-be infringers can legally access the means that enable infringement. With respect to the possibility of sanctioning acts of circumvention alone, these stakeholders have also expressed the concern that attempts to seek legal recourse on the basis of such acts are costly and may not always be effective in providing a strong deterrent to infringement in a globally interconnected world.

The departments acknowledge the concerns of these copyright stakeholders, but must consider these concerns within the framework of Canadian copyright law, where certain uses of works and limitations on copyright protection are recognized as serving legitimate and important public policy objectives. Such limitations are evidenced by the finite term of copyright protection, the fair dealing provisions and the exception provisions. These elements of our copyright law have been the outcome of extensive debate, consultation, jurisprudence and legal obligation, both domestically and internationally. Any attempt to affect that balance may require a reconsideration of the current extent of the exceptions provisions.

The departments have considered the possibility of restricting or prohibiting the traffic in circumvention devices, while at the same time permitting devices that have, as their primary purpose, an activity that qualifies as legitimate, such as the enjoyment of an exception or access to material in the public domain. The difficulty is that devices which are suited to infringing uses are, by and large, equally suited to non-infringing uses. For example, a device used to circumvent a measure that prevents unauthorized copying will not distinguish between materials that continue to benefit from copyright protection from those that have fallen into the public domain.

Under these circumstances, the departments question whether it is possible to establish a legal framework which, on the one hand covers virtually all activities that undermine the use of technological measures, but at the same time continues to reflect the policy balance currently set out in the Act. Such a change in the Copyright Act could potentially result in a new right of access, the scope of which goes well beyond any existing right, and would represent a fundamental shift in Canadian copyright policy. It could serve to transform a measure designed for protection into a means of impeding legitimate uses. In essence, a change of this nature would be tantamount to bringing within the realm of copyright law, matters (e.g., restrictions on use) which may be more properly within the purview of contract law. Given the rate at which the technology underlying protection measures is changing, it is difficult, under present circumstances, to evaluate the public policy implications of such a step. Perhaps the role of technological changes warrants a careful study to examine what will be the dimensions of the intersection of anti-circumvention measures with the current Act.

Note that the Canadian government is looking for public comments on these new proprosals... (see article for details)

I believe you all know what to do...

Note that the Canadian government is looking for public comments on these new proprosals... (see article for details)

I believe you all know what to do...

In 1995, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) had filed a proposed tariff (Tariff 22) whereby ISPs were asked to pay royalties for the communication of the musical works in SOCAN's repertoire over digital networks such as the Internet. In its decision of October, 1999, the Board asserted its jurisdiction to certify such a tariff. The decision is currently under review by the Federal Court of Appeal.

In 1995, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) had filed a proposed tariff (Tariff 22) whereby ISPs were asked to pay royalties for the communication of the musical works in SOCAN's repertoire over digital networks such as the Internet. In its decision of October, 1999, the Board asserted its jurisdiction to certify such a tariff. The decision is currently under review by the Federal Court of Appeal.

On July 17, 2001, the Government of Canada released a series of papers detailing a framework and roadmap for new Copyright law. They are asking for comments, and we have until September to respond.

Details can be found here or

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html

for the anchor paranoid.

Lets stop the DMCA from undermining our rights north of the border.

Legal so far but maybe not much longer. Check out Canadian Copyright Reform Process Page and get your comments in by Sept 15, 2001 if you don't want the same disaster to happen here in Canada as it has in the US.
-Vulcana

The IP policy homepage leads to this page about the copyright reform process. All Canadians can submit comments by September 15 by mail or fax, or electronically in HTML, Wordperfect or Word format. Comments on the submissions are due October 5. Time to start a draft...

FYI, and as a followup to the general "why doesn't X move to the Great White North", Canada's IP policy is slowly taking shape. It seems that there's going to be a contrast to the US model. How long the difference will/can last has yet to be seen.

The Globe and Mail article.

The government agency itself.

us canucks have WAY better Broadband-for-All goodness than the americans. have you hugged your national broadband taskforce today? :)

The reason this didn't work is because the amount of people with dialup modems is inversely related to the amount of mini dishes being nailed on houses, you just can't see it well.

the only people who have no better option than a dialup anymore live in buttcrack sask... but have no fear... buttcrack will soon have a big phat pipe too

if people can afford a couple grand on their PC they'll pay to have decent net access. the reason this didnt work is becase free dialup is for poor people, and poor people don't own computers.

Yes, but the draconian laws of the CRTC DO hold sway in Canada, and according to the Radiocommunications act, it is illegal to decode any signal in Canada not authorized by the CRTC

(see this link for more info)

From the Radiocommunications Act here section 9(c),
"(c) No person shall decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed"

Incorrect.

It is illegal in Canada to use equipment to decode programming distributed by anyone other than dealers authorised by the CRTC.

DirecTV broadcasts are not authorized for distribution within Canada, and as such cannot be legally decoded. (see this link for more info)

From the Radiocommunications Act found here:
Section 9
"(c) No person shall decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed"

I know a number of fellow Canadians who are misinformed on this point and gloat about how they can receive cheap DirecTV broadcasts without breaking the law. Unfortunately, you really can't. Due to the archaic and Orwellian nature of the CRTC, there is NO way to legally receive DirectTV in Canada.

But you're gonna get one soon, so watch out!


--

Why stay in the US with oppressive when you can come to Canada with oppressive taxes! You can't lose. Plus you can relocate to cities which aren't a permenant shade of brown and still be near major centres. NB: I'm not talking about Vancouver.

Hell, if you were large enough, relocate to some of the more remote major centres of Canada(Yellowknife, Whitehorse, Iqaluit) and get *major* tax breaks from the governments.

A full explanation of Canadian Copyright law can be found here (PDF).

Other interesting Canadian laws relating to intellectual property and online privacy are:

• Trademarks
• The Privacy Act (privacy between individuals and the federal government)
• The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) (privacy between individuals and the private sector

The last one is a new law, and a very good law. I strongly advise all Canadians, plus those interested in privacy to read it. Essentially, it now means that the individual legally has complete control over his or her own personal information and over what organizations may do with that information.

I've tried to get a story posted about this, but to no avail. There are so many good things about this law that I haven't been able to shut up about it for weeks.

I'll hop off my soapbox now.

A full explanation of Canadian Copyright law can be found here (PDF).

Other interesting Canadian laws relating to intellectual property and online privacy are:

• Trademarks
• The Privacy Act (privacy between individuals and the federal government)
• The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) (privacy between individuals and the private sector

The last one is a new law, and a very good law. I strongly advise all Canadians, plus those interested in privacy to read it. Essentially, it now means that the individual legally has complete control over his or her own personal information and over what organizations may do with that information.

I've tried to get a story posted about this, but to no avail. There are so many good things about this law that I haven't been able to shut up about it for weeks.

I'll hop off my soapbox now.

the first page is simple and offers a choice of english or french

the next page has the search and index prominantly displayed

There is a crap load of information on there

Broadband is going to be big in Canada. Big. The federal government announced last month (via the Ministry of Industry) that all communities would have access to broadband Internet by the year 2004. The initiative is called Connecting Canadians.

A good press release, issued last month, can be found at here
. Definitely something I want to see progress, although if the CRTC gets into it too deeply, things will probably go awry.

J

First, there is no such animal as a "North American Patent" there are Canadian patents, and there are U.S. patents, but there are no "North American patents."

Second, you can not get a patent for "a secret formulation", since in order to obtain the patent, the formulation must be disclosed.

Third, I did a search of the U.S. Patent Office and of the Canadian Patent Office, and found no patents issued to Jocelyne Piret.

So, the above data is obviously wrong. Hope you didn't get all riled up.

I do expect that there is a patent application pending for this. However, that is not necessarily a problem, if the patent is licensed, either for a nominal fee or free. So, don't get annoyed before you have all the facts.

Thalia

Speaking as a Canadian citizen who grew up *after* Canada went Metric in 1976-1977, yeah, it's screwed up.

Metric is wonderful. It's easy to cope with, it's the measurement system embraced by science everywhere, it's clear and logical and not based on a dead king's body parts.

I never learned the English system in school. Never. It was briefly discussed, primarily in history classes, but that was it.

And yet, I'm 6'4" tall. I weigh 180 lbs. I have a 33" waist. I have *no idea* what those are in meters, kilograms and centimeters.

Nor can I look at someone and estimate their height in meters. In fact, whenever I estimate the length of something, it's in inches and feet. My 1976 Dodge Ram is about 21 feet long. My penis... Well, let's just say that it's proportional to my height.

Yards escape me, and meters I just can't eyeball.

My old Dodge is a Canadian model of the Ram. The only difference between it and an American Dodge Ram is that my '76 was one of the very first vehicles in Canada to have a Metric speedometer and odometer.

Now, even though my speedometer is in kilometers an hour (with little numbers for MPH, it's just the reverse of an American speedo), I think of speed in miles per hour. But to really mess things up, I think of distance in kilometers.

When I'm working on a car or truck (one of my favorite hobbies), I can always look at an SAE bolt and grab the right wrench to fit it. 7/16", 1/2", 9/16"... no problem. And yet, while with Metric bolts you don't have to do that "which is bigger" fractional conversion in your head, I still can't look at a valve cover bolt on a Chevrolet Cavalier (all recent cars are built with Metric fasteners) and say "that's 12mm" or "that's 13mm".

My truck has a 400 cubic inch engine. To convert that to liters so that I can really intimidate the jackass in the whiny little Honda with the tinted windows and the puny 1.5L engine, my 400 CID V8, converted to Metric, has a displacement of 6.6L.

Fluids? I think in liters. I know what 8 ounces looks like, but I pour gasoline into my truck by the liter. It takes 70L to fill my tank. Divide that by four (approximately), that's almost 18 gallons.

And finally, despite all that, I have no idea how many L/100km my truck takes. But I do know that my truck get about 8 miles per gallon.

So, I'm a mess. Do I feel handicapped by the fact that I mix the two measuring systems? No.

One of the few compelling Canadian politicians of all time, former Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, was perfectly bilingual. He spoke English and French with equal ease. And he was once asked by a reporter which language he thought in. Mr. St. Laurent's reponse was that he thought in whichever language he best knew the subject.

And this is a fairly good approximation of how I switch back and for between measuring systems.

How do I feel about the Metric system?

I love it. I wish I used it for everything. It *is* legitimately easier.

But if there's *anything* that has to be remembered about this is that while it seems like an easy switch on the surface, I'd still plan that it will take several generations to make the switch.

The importance of a .CA name is that it indicates strictly Canadian content. To register a .CA domain one had to have offices in two provinces, or be federally incorporated, or have a trademark. Even so, only one domain name was allowed per organization. And the process takes well over a week.

Finally, after many years, this will change as of November 1st 2000 when any Canadian resident can register as many domains as she or he wants. Still, what about companies that did meet the requirement? Can you explain why (until recently) more Canadians bought books across the border from Amazon.com than from Chapters.CA? That has to do with marketing, plain and simple. Amazon was first to market and has built up an excellent user experience. I still go to Amazon for the reader's book reviews before buying from Chapters.

Perhaps more important that domain names is the issue of payment. Canadian banks have been slow to offer online credit card merchant account systems. Small companies just couldn't open a site and sell strictly to Canadians in Canadian dollars. Only the large bricks-and-mortar stores had the resources to implement online payment.

It's not an issue of consumers being scared away from online payments, either. Look how Canadians have taken to debit cards, telephone banking and online banking! We're ready to spend, but there's nowhere to go!

Regarding the observation that most US stores with Canadian locations don't have Canadian websites, don't forget that the Canadian operations are different entities, and make their own decisions independently from the parent company. It would be a poor business practice for a multinational to attempt to force its branches to be exactly like the US parent company, including selling online.

As the issues are addressed, I think we'll see more Canadian online e-tailers. Be prepared to invest in Canadian banks as they start to rake in more profits by offering easier online payment systems in the form of turnkey solutions for startup web companies.

David

One aspect of patent law that should be re-examined is the duration of patent protection. Why, for instance, do all patents remain in force for 20 years (or 17 years, if your jurisdiction hasn't caught up to it's WIPO treaty obligations). Some companies may need more time than that to make enough to make a product profitable (though it's hard to imagine). But many companies are laughing all the way to the bank. "Hah!" they say, "I've paid for my investment in the first year and the next nineteen are gravy."

Because there is no variation in the length of patent protection, those who anticipate patent-fattened revenue are forced to demand the maximum duration possible from legislators. No patent holding organization would argue to reduce the patent duration, so the only force exerted against political inertia is to force the patent term upwards.

If the object of patents is to secure a public good, then we should make some attempt to grant a length of time proportionate in some way to the benefit which the public receives. Inventions which are more beneficial (by some measure TBA) would receive longer patent terms.

Another possible attenuation of patent protection would be to evaluate the patent applicant's business plan the way a bank does, and set the patent term to be just long enough (no more and no less) to allow the R&D investment to be recouped plus a reasonable profit margin.

Do these suggestions seem like totally unrealistic pipe-dreams, or do they seem practical? Not being a patent lawyer or a drug manufacturer, I don't really have a sense of what would be possible.

Dan Quayle probably couldn't spell Beowulf either...

One of the major issues which has everyone up in arms is the ability for companies in today's environment to patent genes as soon as they isolate them. If they get there before the Genome Project, they can patent the genes and use them to extract royalties, in the event that researchers (who they don't pay for) discover a use for the gene. See this article for just one example. Before you think they did hard work to get large profits off of this gene, listen to the spin-doctoring:

"It was one of many genes that we found very early in our discovery program. Experiments confirmed that the CCR5 receptor played a key role in the biology of the immune system and as an AIDS virus receptor."

There is some IP which is worth protecting: that which is demonstrably detrimental to being released into the public. This IP would include certain information being held by those protecting our country, and other information which would hurt individuals or their rights. As much as some here don't like it, there is information which should be held tightly, including IP held by some commonly bashed organizations, since the information is being used for your benefit. Information that is tightly held only because it benefits some multi-billion dollar corporation, and could benefit everyone if had royalty-free, on the other hand, shouldn't be patentable in the first place.

I think there should be a moritorium on patents issued for gene isolation. Even if a private firm isolates a gene, they are doing research which will eventually be duplicated by the Genome Project, and that information should be released into the public domain, license-free. If they want to aid the cause, that's fine, go get a government grant. If they want to develop subsidiary products based on a particular gene, that's OK too. Conventional products and procedures which are limited by, among other things, ingredients and physical restrictions, such as complicated and novel processing requirements, are completely covered by today's patent process. IP, on the other hand, should be free for everyone.

For more information about IP in the gene patent area, check out these links:
Property Rights and Ownership
Genome Research and Traditional Intellectual Property Protection

Dave Blau

Canada has no such policy against software patents.

Although the last conference that I attended had a Canadian patent agent that claimed that the courts were much more favourable towards copyright infringement than to patent infringement in software cases, and usually advised his clients to pursue registered copyrights on their software than the costly application for a patent.

But if you don't believe me you can download the Canadian laws regarding patents from here.

Essentially software patents are nothing more than flow charts of logic and are more similar to business method patents than "normal" patents.

Here are some other related links:

The Economics and Management of Technological
MIT: Technology Strategy/Scott Stern
Advances in Global High Technology
Technological Innovation and International Competitiveness
IMD Discovery Events
Related Misc.Books and Articles

Insightful? more like flamebait.
US space program was built by europeans
Really? A few ex-Nazi rocket scientists captured from Peenemunde do not a manned space program make.

Damn straight North American brother!!! Sure a few of the basic ideas for getting things going came from those German guys. But when the chips were down and the Apollo program needed to kick it up a notch to catch up with those blasted ruskies the US knew where to turn to... that's right Canada. Dief took the order from his yankee masters and the Arrow program was scrapped.

Jim Chamberlain, Owen Maynard, John Hodge...the list goes on and on...

Avro Employees and NASA
Post-Arrow Brain Drain from Canada
Canada's Gift to NASA
Owen Maynard

A quote from the book Apollo - The Race to the Moon
"As the Space Task Group's burden was threatening to overwhelm the entire project, the Canadian government unintentionally gave the American Space program its luckiest break since Wernher von Braun had surrendered to the Americans...while little public recognition was ever granted the Canadians their contribution was incalculable to the people within the programs. One of the group's top American engineers even claimed that the Canadians had it all over us in many areas ... just brilliant guys ... bright as hell and talented and professional to a man."

Hey I'm not saying that the Canadians did it all and there weren't any great and brilliant Americans working on the projects. Obviously there were. But no nation got into space by it's own efforts alone. America included.

The specifics on the particular patent in question can be found here.
In addition to this patent, see others granted in the US (and one jointly registered in Canada).

System and method for processing date-dependent information which spans one or two centuries

System and method for modifying and operating a computer system to perform date operations on date fields spanning centuries

Method and apparatus for recording and reading date data having coexisting formats

Two-digit hybrid radix year numbers for year 2000 and beyond

System for converting programs and databases to correct year 2000 processing errors

Canadian patent: System and method for identifying and correcting computer operations involving two digit year dates. This patent is also registered in the US as Patent #5,808,889.

The Federal TM database can be searched in person at 2900 Crystal Drive, 2nd Floor, Arlington, Virginia. No online version is available yet. Many law offices keep updated copies on CDROM.

Canadian trademarks can be searched over the web at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca /cgi-bin/trade-marks/search_e.pl.

For other countries, I have no information. A web search might reveal more options.

As a European, yes, you can have your domain seized. Network Solutions is bound by US law, as per their agreement with the NSF.

Time and time again, I get to think, "Yay, I live in Canada". Here is an excerpt from John Manley (Canada's Industry Minister) outlining his governments crypto policy:


The policy allows Canadians to develop, import and use whatever cryptography
products they wish and does not impose mandatory key recovery requirements or
a licensing regime. "This policy is good for the Canadian economy," said Minister
Manley. "It supports the increased use of electronic commerce products and
services in Canada, as well as the export of Canadian information technologies to
other countries."


Wow! A consumer/industry friendly approach! The full article is here

Dana