Slashdot Mirror
Multitouch Gesture Patents Could Prevent Standardization
ozmanjusri brings us a Wired report on Apple's efforts to patent the multitouch gestures used on their laptops, smartphones, and tablets. The article discusses concerns over how this could affect the standardization of certain gestures in developing multitouch technology. We've previously discussed the patent applications themselves. Quoting Wired:
"If Apple's patent applications are successful, other manufacturers may have no choice but to implement multitouch gestures of their own. The upshot: You might pinch to zoom on your phone, swirl your finger around to zoom on your notebook, and triple-tap to zoom on the web-browsing remote control in your home theater. That's an outcome many in the industry would like to avoid. Synaptics, a company that by most estimates supplies 65 to 70 percent of the notebook industry with its touchpad technology, is working on its own set of universal touch gestures that it hopes will become a standard. These gestures include scrolling by making a circular motion, moving pictures or documents with a flip of the finger, and zooming in or out by making, yes, a pinching gesture."
I say they all deserve a middle finger gesture if they can't work out a sensible standard. Apple should especially be chastised for trying to patent this stuff. It's like patenting an 'x' for denoting closing a window.
It makes sense for competitors to collaborate on certain things to move the industry as a whole forward.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
License the gestures from Apple for a small per-device fee.
If there's a company that stands to lose from having a non-standard input scheme, it's definitely not the one that has >90% of the desktop market. I mean, if you not only have to learn a new OS, new shortcuts, in some cases new applications, and now a new input scheme, it seems that Apple would be erecting a new barrier to Mac adoption, not encouraging Mac adoption. If Microsoft implements gestures of its own (like what it has said it'll do in Windows 7), I'd bet those are more likely to become the standard than Apple's gestures.
The upshot: You might pinch to zoom on your phone, swirl your finger around to zoom on your notebook, and triple-tap to zoom on the web-browsing remote control in your home theater
Isn't there a "non-obvious" patent test or something? I mean, c'mon... multitouch is a logical extension/derivative of the trackpad... I don't see how stuff like "swirl your finger around to zoom" can be considered anything other than totally apparent to anyone presented with the multitouch technology and given three minutes to come up with unique gestures for using it.
I bet a quick Ask Slashdot for prior art in 50s pulp scifi would bust almost all of these patents. ("Romulon 7 swirled two webbed fingers across the vid-screen. His home planet appeared.")
Swirl around your head to pan? WTF??
Anyone else think we have gone way overboard here and need to return to a much simpler time?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> that it hopes will become a standard. These gestures include: scrolling by making a circular motion and move the finger up and down to turn the picture? Come on!
Why isn't there a Borg Steve Jobs that accompanies this story?
Dont New Your Cabbies have proir art?
Whatsistoyou! BaddaBing!
Two fingered mouse gestures are a fad that will pass.
Ctrl +, Ctrl - has worked fine for zooming in and out for years.
Various CAD tool vendors tried to get people to use mouse gestures for years, but people stuck with the mouse+keyboard because it is a much more definite form of input.
Evil people are out to get you.
The original multitouch demo used pinch to zoom in and out on images and on the workspace. How can Apple patent it after that?
The licensing should be low-cost and go to a research company, to fund more cool inventions!
dictate how I can use my hands!
I think "Kids In The Hall" have prior art here.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
My first thought was that this is a great way to avoid the submarine patents that seem to be around nowadays.
At least if they get a patent, they have the PTO behind their claims of originality.
And yes, patenting gestures is double-plus stupid - yet another sign of the need for reform.
In the 1980's, Apple tried to claim ownership of all modern GUIs; they lost on a technicality.
Multitouch as an input method goes back a long time; it wasn't put to much use because the hardware was expensive and GUI library developers were still coping with bigger issues.
Apple shouldn't be allowed to monopolize multi-touch, in any shape or form: not only would it be bad public policy, Apple simply didn't invent this stuff. Pretty much the only patents that should be valid in this space in 2008 are patents on better multi-touch hardware and low-level firmware.
Didn't the microsoft surface have a bunch of the same gestures as the iPhone? How can they say their ideas were original?
Why isn't it just another setting? Sure, the defaults could be generally agreed upon. But why make everyone use the same set of pinches and twirls? I thought this new technology was supposed to obsolete rigid things like keyboards.
I don't know why somebody modded it as troll, all he was doing is pointing out that the parent was a troll.
It probably wouldn't kill device manufacturers to make the gestures on their devices customizable. That way, if you are used to the Apple gestures, you can use them; otherwise, you can use the defaults or whatever else you prefer. That would make Apple's patents irrelevant, as well as leave Apple at a disadvantage with its One UI to Rule Them All philosophy.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The Apple patents are good for business and the rest of the computing arena, as they will spur creativity and growth as a work around to the patent issues, assuming no one wants to license the patents. After many years of being in the Slashdot community, I am really struck by the number of members who still chant 'It should be FREE, it should OPEN, bring this GOOD to the masses...' I can see the case for intellectual property protection and for open standards. Fine, then if people like Apple's intellectual property enough to make it a standard, then pay the licensing fee until the patent expires. There's no harm done in that, and based on the number of iPhones and iPod Touches that sell, it appears that the masses approve of the device and its technology. My point is that we live in a free market economy, people, nerds especially who have developed personally enough to have familes need to make money from their ideas by working for big business. You're not going to make money writing code for free / developing a 'new human interface standard' for free by living in your dark, damp, parents' basement. We all have to grow up, developed, and become a cog in the machine. Of course, one always can be a big cog or a little cog, sometimes we can choose that too, other times the choice is made for us.
This submission was made on an iPod Touch.
They didn't patent the single click. They patented a process that was initiated by a single click. The process (method) is the point.
Hitchhiking Gesture Patent
:)
The thumb is positioned in an erect manner with the rest of the fingers clenched into a fist. Optionally the forearm can be successively pivoted at the elbow joint.
If any of you want to go hitchhiking you will have to invent gestures of your own that do not violate my patent. Perhaps you could do a sort of Egyptian walk to attract attention instead, although it is possible that the Bangles have a patent on that particular gesture. I will of course licence you to use my hitchhiking gesture at a fee that renders the whole purpose of hitchhiking completely pointless
Jeff Han in his multitouch TED talk/demo said they invented the pinch gesture as it made sense
if it wasnt for Jeff and his high profile work, Apple touch products (and MS surface) wouldnt even exist as nobody was interested in multitouch (avail since 197x) till his modern demo came along applying an old idea to new tech
now everyone thinks AAPL are multitouch pioneers ? they just saw the hype and ideas jeff did and ripped him off with no credit
fanboys of course have no idea who Jeff is but AAPL execs sure as hell should
Have we forgotten Apple's "look and feel" lawsuits over 20 years ago where they tried to claim that they owned windows and icons? OK, maybe not that far, but they tried to block Windows from the market over claims that it violated Apple's patents. Never mind that Apple copied the Xerox PARC GUI almost verbatim.
That nonsense seemed to fade away after Komrade Jobs released NeXTstep in 1988 which cleverly replaced the trash can with a black hole, therefore "was totally different".
Apple is at least as evil as Microsoft, and I will contend that Apple is more evil. Many (but not all!) of the bad things done by Microsoft can be attributed more to incompetence rather than malice.
That's right - these same laws that are obstructing innovation and progress are intended to have the opposite purpose.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I am surprised nobody mentioned that those other companies (RIM, Nokia and Synaptics) also hold spurious patents that could block iPhones? It seems Apple is just joining the fray by carving its own territory. Hateful but oh so typical of the industry.
In a sense, the industry uses patent minefield in the same way that France used the Maginot line. When someone blitzkriegs around it with a paradigm shift, everyone is in a hurry to dig new trenches and claim new territories.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Trying to become the new Microsoft by patenting its way to obnoxiousness.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
What company, in their right mind, wouldn't patent multitouch gestures and protect themselves? I'd much rather see a company patent this and actually use the technology than a troll come along and assert their litigation power on every company who adopts a defacto standard.
Nothing to see here, move along.
People using html in email should be shot.
You could just provide a gesture system, like the one(s) for Firefox, and allow the user to define their own based on the gestural primitives, or whatever you want to call them. Sites could pop up (not literally - that's annoying) with handy presets to mimic the iPhone's settings etc.
DNA structure can be patented. If that can be done, what do I really care about the rest?
Easy. Design device so that gestures are trainable. I will train every device I own the same way....
Yes but is it intellectual property? I mean is "the pinch" to zoom in/out is intellectual property? Or is this just the natural progression of human/machine interface. I would guess most engineers or engineering groups when given a flat surface as a machine input would naturally gravitate towards such gestures within the first day or week.
I see this more like Apple wanting to patent color. When all monitors where black and white would it be appropriate to patent the use of color in visual displays? Maybe a new method to generate color pixels, but not the use of color - the use of color in monitors was just the natural and obvious progression.
Maybe linux should patent "sucking" gestures as it sucks perfectly right now.
This is one case where an industry standard is the only thing that makes sense. Make the gesture set standard and allow people to patent specific implementations (physical not software) which offer new features.
Unfortunately, in my experience it's the marketing and sales departments who, because of their competitive mindset, don't understand the benefits of collaboration in growing the overall market. When they do turn up at standards meetings as observers, the results are sometimes laughable but usually cringeworthy for the engineers from their companies. Microsoft XML is a case in point. I confidently expect these people to continue to act as a brake on the wheels of input mechanism progress.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
I'm working full time on a Multi-Touch Linux Distro (MT-OS) based off of low cost FTIR tracking. So Apple and Microsoft can bite me with their standardized hand waving. They can't see it, but my fingers are curled and I'm jerking them away from my crotch in their direction. That's what I have to say about that.
7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
Besides swirling, the zoom gesture can be done via touching the corner of the display or photo's window edge and dragging towards the opposite corner. If it's done from the top corner that can be shrink, if from the bottom corner that can be zooming in (expanding). Or vice versa (maybe top to bottom can be expand?) Actually this is in some ways better than pinching/unpinching cause your finger has a longer way to move so you can zoom in or out more than what pinch would allow. Also, it probably should detect acceleration (kinda like a mouse) so that the amount of zooming can increase if the finger moves faster.
To move or slide about the image itself, touch the center area and it will "stick" so you can drag around the image.
If a gesture is patented and incorporated into products, and these gestures are found to cause carpal tunnel syndrome, who get sued?
I'm willing to bet that Apple doesn't want to patent this but HAS to. Apple's been burned in the past with frivolous lawsuits based on some dickwad taking out a patent for technology that Apple has been using for years. Apple has had multitouch computers since around the time the MacBook and MacBook Pros came out so it's nothing new but to avoid needless litigation they've had to patent the multitouch system. Look at how many technologies Apple had developed that it did not patent and then how many court cases came from it (anyone remember Creative?).
My god man, how come you fell for the nimp.org link? New on the internet ? :)
In that case, I've got some urls you should burn into your retina before continuing...
Just because something is patented doesnt mean people cant use it, and companies wont license it.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Apple does something, then Microsoft copies it and it will take off. Just like the Zune right?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
What moron makes the patent system such that patent holders don't HAVE to license their patent. I agree that if you come up with an idea, you should get a share of the revenue if other people use your idea in a product. BUT, the law should be this : you MUST license your idea to ANYONE who asks, as long as they pay the royalty. (you can deny license to people or firms who consistently neglect to pay patent royalties to other patent holders). Second, the royalty is capped to a FRACTION of the gross revenue for the product. The exact percentage should depend on how significant a feature the patented item is, or what percent of the product it is composed of.
So, if you patent a "back scratcher", and basically the patent covers an entire product, then you should get a significant fraction of the gross revenue from selling the product. 10-20% tops. On the other hand, if the patent is for a method to control a touchscreen by "pinching", then the patent royalties should be about 0.1% of the gross revenue, since this feature is only one of thousands that the product has.
Just so everybody knows, the technical term for the zoom out gesture is "pinch", and the term for zoom in is "goatse".
Apple users will be using one set of gestures and the other 95% of the population will be using another set. So kids will grow up knowing the gestures almost everyone uses and they will not choose Apple products because of the foreign user interface. This guarantees Apple's failure in the future.
Jeff Han: Unveiling the genius of multi-touch interface design
Feb 2006 talk. Publicly posted Aug 2006. No "Patent pending" anywhere.
Don't underestimate the power of default.
God Bless US one and all, they fyck themselves, they fyck US where we fall.
... we can sling shit to communicate, until it is patented and controlled by American Standard, Kohler ....
Eventually a patent on the conversation in a call will end this silly bullshit once and for all.
Silly, how we have gone in this new global corporate-socialist economy from capitalism/meritocracy by innovation to corporate-communism where normal human verbalizations, gestures, and movements are patented for profitable oppression of Citizens.
I guess, if they ever patent vocal commands/conversation
All present IPR Laws are abominations to justice and humanity, but in reality justice and humanity are not associated with institutions, governments, businesses, religions, sociopaths, and amoral people (like most politicians).
Always remember for totalitarian states, the law is the law, and for EU and US we are damn by transient legal interpretation not any transcended personal intention. The State Rules as the public drools stool.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I wonder if there is any chance that these patents could fail on the basis of obviousness.
I figure that the better the gestures are for doing specific tasks, the more obvious they should be. I don't have a problem with patents on the technology behind the touch and multi-touch sensors, but I have to say that it would be a bad idea to use patents to prevent people from moving their hands in a particular way. Otherwise, you might get in the situation where you have a multi-touch sensor on a computer, but only the licensee of the software is allowed to use those gestures.
More Caffeine. NOW
My favorite keyboard ever was the Touchstream LP from a company called Fingerworks--it took a couple of weeks to learn all the gestures but it helped cure all my wrist and finger issues immediately. I tried to buy a second one a couple of years ago but found out that Apple had bought the company and immediately shut them down. I decided then to stop using the keyboard and find another solution. But it was fun to have people would walk by my cube and just be amazed at how I seemed to be communicating in sign language with my PC.
Holy mother of God, talk about cheap karma...
For all we know, he could have posted it himself, but even if he didn't, a score 5?
Have you seen their touch-screen stuff? It's just awful.
It's not like patents ever stopped the Linux crowd anyway.
Apple isn't trying to sell standardized products, it's trying to sell distinctive products. The ipod isn't just a MP3 player, it's a player with a distinctive user interface, with a distinctive design. It's something that others want to copy. Patents make sure that simply copying the ipod in its entirety isn't possible.
Indeed.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
That says it all.
I would like to punch Steve Jobs in the face and patent that. Is that patent possible?
I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
at least their website is still up, just checked. Sounds like a cool device actually.
No, they are not. They are patenting gestures. Don't make this more magical than is necessary.
What bothers me is that they prattle on and on about this kind of interaction being "intuitive." If the gestures are "intuitive," doesn't that by definition mean that they are already "inside" every person? That is, the gesture-as-representation-of-information, if it is "natural," is something discovered, and not invented. If this is not the case, then it's not "intuitive." So which is it?
If I develop an interface that interprets "waving goodbye" as "turn off computer," can I patent "waving goodbye?" Can I make it illegal for everyone else to use this very "intuitive" gesture?
Since software patents aren't valid in the EU, they'll be inventing circles around America's ass.
That's where the patent system has failed - it's turned into a playground for patent trolls to look for things that are already in the market, then patenting the idea, and then suing - but settling before it hits the court system, as their lawyers are probably in on it.
Isn't the complaint here that Apple is patenting only the gestures?
With this logic, couldn't you also patent something like "to move cursor to the right side of the screen, use hand to move mouse to the right of the mousepad?" In this situation the competitors are free to implement "to move cursor to the right side of the screen, use hand to move mouse to the left of the mousepad." Actually, only the first person to patent that gesture gets to use it.
This is abuse of the patent system.
having seen the non apple demos, I would guess that the basic zoom and slide to scroll stuff would be covered by 'prior art', not to mention MS's efforts. I should also mention that about 15-17 years ago apple did some demos of gestures in the finder, which used a mouse instead of your finger and there are gestures in the 'ink' pen interface which they may translate into finger gestures, and the already have scrolling in their touch pads. So if you replace 'finger' with 'pointing device' apple has had stuff around for a while.
I see many rich lawyers ahead...
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Soon, all deaf people will have to pay Apple in order to talk.
Brilliant!
All the gestures used by iPod are used in American Sign Language (ASL).
Funny, I wasn't aware that words were patentable.
Although going through the patent application I missed something. I didn't see:
a) any reference to ASL as a prior art,
b) any wording that led me to believe that they are patenting gestures.
But it's a long boring self-redundant document, maybe I missed something.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was pinching things years before I got an iPhone... just ask my wife!
[signature]
Only specific implementations in hardware are becoming widespread. Costly and less practical implementations have been around for a long time; before that people were designing the stuff without hardware. They can own an implementation but not the concepts which have been around for a long time; in which case, there are alternatives--- Sony has already developed an alternative screen to the Apple owned touch screen in the iPhone.
Given the SAD mess the system is in today I'm surprised Apple didn't try to own the concept of a portable device with touch screen input conceptually. They might have gotten that as well.
NOTE: There are pressures to mess up the USA patent system worse by switching to a 1st file system instead of the 1st invented principle we have today. If we reform the system NOW we risk them making it worse, better clean up government some more...
Imagine if prior work didn't have as much or any impact!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
True. (and I don't mean to imply you don't also think this is ridiculous, however...) abusing the patent system requires that you are actually granted the abusive patent, and therefore the patent office is complicit in every abuse of the patent system. The whole point is that these people are not supposed to grant patents that do not "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
How backwards would software be had something like the drag-and-drop gesture been patented? You could pretty much kiss Adobe goodbye and the entire DTP revolution along with it in that world.
As title.
I can't help thinking this sounds like saying, "so-and-so really has an edge with this mouse thingy," in the early 80s. Every product will absorb this, and people will just come to expect that all the stuff they buy has some kind of touch interface. None of us will care which company shipped their touchable tchotchke nine months ahead of everyone else.
Apple got protection for the touch wheel on the iPod, but if they don't get protection for gestures, this will probably not be enough to differentiate their product. They'll have to go back to pushing thinness as the measure of all things.
*feeds the troll*
...it simply mapped the standard key commands Apple had originated-including the familiar Command S, Z, X, C, V for save, undo, cut, copy, paste-to control key combinations on the PC. This was another shortsighted PC mistake that would become an unsolvable annoyance for users.
... Microsoft...
Note, all quotes are from http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/11/how-apple-keyboards-lost-a-logo-and-windows-pcs-gained-one/
Microsoft's contextual menu key is also typically placed on the right side of the keyboard, making it even more puzzlingly useless for right handed users. They'd have to hit the right side of the keyboard with their left hand while pointing the mouse with their right. What was Microsoft's Chief Architect thinking?
*Some* of us prefer keyboard navigation. Having the "menu" button on the keyboard lets me access my "right-click" menu while typing. I don't even have to move my hands from the keyboard! Also, if I'm in a text input field, I get a "right-click" menu at the position of my text insertion cursor, not my mouse cursor. No awkward keyboard slapping occurs here!
Microsoft also added a special key for opening contextual menus, featuring the icon of a pointer on a menu. The key simply acts like the right mouse button; it's not only superfluous and clumsy for PCs using two button mice, but also less elegant than Apple's convention for using control-clicking to bring up a menu with the mouse.
This is a "user interface familiarity" argument. You lose.
It seems they don't understand why it is useful to draw a distinction between control-C, used to cancel an operation in a terminal environment, and Command-C, used to copy content in a desktop setting. There is no difference in Windows.
Most Windows users never use ^C to terminate a program. MS-DOS folks did, but -last time I checked- COMMAND.COM didn't have a built-in clipboard, so there's no hotkey overlap.
I assume that this is related to the preceding quote? I don't think that that axe is sharp enough. Go on back to your grindstone.
A year later in 1987, IBM released its new vision of the PC, called PS/2; it only offered a standard port for the mouse and another identical but unique port for the keyboard, a mistake that would plague PC users for the next two decades.
If the 'plague' is the lack of distinction between the keyboard and mouse ports, PC97 addressed this... in 1997[1]. So, this plague only lasted a decade.
Most Windows PC users are unaware of the use of either the Windows key or the contextual menu key, and some PC hardware makers refused to add the keys to their keyboards, the most notable being IBM.
Maybe IBM et. al. had a zillion keyboards in their warehouse that they needed to sell, before they started creating ones with new keys on them? Just sayin'.
and since non-technical users had no way to guess that the Command key is represented by an Apple logo and a propeller, the latest keyboards now simply have the word "command" on them.
If you replace 'non-technical' with 'Mac OS newbies', this statement will be palatable. However, why not leave the key as a "propeller" or "cloverleaf"? The symbol is language-neutral. Seems like changing the icon for the key was a step backwards.
[Two "useless" keys are] certainly not the only example of the unsolvable issues for PCs created by
What other "unsolvable" issues are there? Can we get a bulleted list? (I'd rather not slog through the more sensational portions of your blog posts.)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PC_System_Design_Guide&oldid=192070503
I don't want to discuss the patent itself, but the notion in the summary that if would prevent standardisation if the patent were granted.
Because, you know, just because someone has a patent to a way of interacting with a computer doesn't mean everybody else has to find different ways. I'm sure the keyboard is patented, as is using a mouse.
If Apple would get said patent and provide a set of gestures that gets widespread enough to be considered standard, I'm sure Apple would like the extra cash that licensing the gestures would put into their pockets.
So if you're wondering who tagged the story 'justfuckinglicenseit', that was me.
Because, I'm sick and tired of the industry finding excuses for being unable to put together standards nowadays.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
I'm going to be rich!
My money is on this being blown out of all proportion by one of the companies (Microsoft, IBM etc.) who themselves file literally dozens of applications for "obvious" patents each week.
Presumably quite a few of you will have used an iPhone or iPod Touch. The user interface is absolutely marvelous, has been well designed, is very intuitive from a mass market consumer product point of view, and no doubt Apple spent a significant amount of money developing it. Yes, as a technology multitouch has been around for a good while, but nobody's managed to use it for anything other than high end kit or tech demos. Apple should be congratulated and rewarded accordingly for turning the promise of intuitive multitouch user interfaces into reality. They're the ones who have made this happen, certainly not those who did the original research which is already covered by applicable patents.
It's therefore only right that Apple take steps to prevent all its hard work just being ripped off and used in competitor's products without any recognition or benefit to themselves. They've single-handedly all but perfected and certainly popularised the use of multitouch in small screen consumer products, and other companies can just license the technologies covered by such patents anyway, so it's not going to prevent standards from being established.
Unless you require something that is functionally different from what Apple have done, why waste your R&D time and money trying to re-invent the wheel and have to work around the fact that someone else has done it well before. It's this sort of behavior, not the actual patenting of work like this that leads to multiple standards and the lack of standardisation.
You also have a situation where as a company producing a new product, by licensing you would already have a leg-up and your product could shine on it's own innovations, rather than reviewers being disappointed with your user interface and you missing out on sales of what otherwise might be a good and innovative product. If you genuinely think you can come up with a more intuitive way of controlling a device like the iPhone than Apple have already done, then have a go, but be realistic and don't just do it for the hell of it. It may well end up costing you significantly more than just licensing what you need from Apple would have done.
As far as I can tell, this is just the patent system working as it should to protect the hard work of one company or individual from simply being ripped off by others. Nothing more.
Hey, it worked so well to unify and enlarge the public's love for handhelds (starting at the Palm Pilot)...why not lock-down such a great idea?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
that type of interaction was shown in Minority Report in 2002. If only Tom Cruise was not in that movie...
/. dogmatist have the privilege to rate me troll/flame.... /. frequently troll indicates truth rejected.
/.) wasted a point they could
/., because no /. users
Reality on
The real troll (as always on
use on promoting acceptable comments of others, by troll
pointing to reject a possible/probable truth.
A point wasted is always the real troll on
points would provide more negative impact. Note: On
can set their point filters for or against troll/funny....
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I want to subscribe. It looks like you know stuff. Thanks for burning what had to be a lot of time on a very informative post.
Help stamp out iliturcy.