
White House Sides with Oracle, Tells Supreme Court APIs Are Copyrightable - dengnan
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-sides-with-oracle-tells-supreme-court-apis-are-copyrightable/
======
rincebrain
It's not obvious from the LWN article, but the reason it says "White House" is
that lawyers from the DoJ have filed an Amicus Curiae ("Friend of the Court")
brief informing them of their stance on the topic. [1] [2]

[1] - [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-
sides...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-sides-with-
oracle-tells-supreme-court-apis-are-copyrightable/)

[2] - [http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/google...](http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/google-oracleverrillijr.pdf)

~~~
TallGuyShort
Is the term "White House" often used to refer to anything within the executive
branch? I have always assumed it meant the office of the President and perhaps
his cabinet...

~~~
eropple
It's called metonymy.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy)

~~~
andrewrice
See also synecdoche.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche)

------
Joky
I've always wondered if there is not a general conspiracy of lawyers to
protect their "industry". They have all interests to keep the current patent
system, as well as extending copyright protection to anything: it keeps the
demand for lawyers high.

Of course you have the same view of software and/or system engineer, who build
broken systems just to justify billing more maintenance :)

~~~
rhino369
Judges are pretty far removed from the actual legal industry to give a shit.

But there are definitely lobbies that exist to further the legal industry. The
trial lawyers lobby is HUGE in the democratic party. Probably the most
influential because they have money but also direct connections. They were
sorta behind killing the patent reform act from 2013 because it had "fee
shifting.

The more appropriate charge is that lawyers overvalue the law and litigation
as a whole and it creates a bias. But the recent courts have given away a lot
of power that they didn't' have to. Courts uphold arbitration terms in
contracts, SCOTUS made it harder to sue in a series of civil procedure cases,
they give deference to administrative agencies.

I work in the patent industry, mostly on the defense side, and a lot of my
coworkers really really hate patent trolls. They see first hand how shitty
these trolls behave. I recognize their behavior is paying off my student
loans, so I don't get so angry. I'm sort of shocked how personally they take
it.

But professionally they attack patent troll ferociously. Many big firms wrote
amicus briefs supporting crack downs on the trolls even though they'd lose a
lot of money if it actually works.

------
sambeau

      "declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of 
       the API packages are entitled to copyright protection." 
    

Would this apply to REST APIs too?

Someone needs to explain to them that that would be like being able to
copyright how files are organised in a drawer, how books are organised on
shelves in a Library, how a book is indexed, how departments in a company are
named, how streets are numbered, how campus room numbers relate to floors and
buildings, roads, flights, cashier tickets, ...

~~~
pron
> Would this apply to REST APIs too?

I wouldn't think so. REST APIs are just called APIs, but they're really
communication protocols. As those don't have a fixed description (i.e. you can
describe the same protocol in different words) -- unlike APIs -- they are not
copyrightable.

For good or bad, APIs aren't _just_ a description of how to do something. They
are fixed. If you write down how files should be organized in a drawer, then
that specific _text_ might be copyrightable; the method itself isn't. APIs
(though not protocols) are both a description _and_ a fixed text.

~~~
stdgy
Perhaps I am missing your point, but aren't all APIs simply definitions that
describe how to communicate to an underlying system?

An API, by itself (By definition of being an interface), does nothing. It's
just a description of how one would ask the system to perform some function.
It may be written in a way such that it describes what the system will do to
produce a result. But that's merely descriptive, not functional.

~~~
pron
> aren't all APIs simply definitions

Isn't all text simply a description of something? But what can be copyrighted
isn't the something, nor is it any description, but that particular text. A
REST protocol isn't a specific text while an API is.

~~~
stdgy
All text is a description of something, but not all text is copyrightable. I
would hold that an API is a textual definition of processes used to interact
with a system. I don't think that kind of rote technical description is
covered by copyright.

I guess I'm confused over what you refer to when you say REST protocol. I'm
imagining a textual description of endpoints, arguments and expected return
types. Just technical details. Maybe you're talking about the actual
implementation?

~~~
pron
I didn't say all text was copyrightable; I said anything that _isn 't_ text --
or any other fixed form -- isn't. A REST protocol (i.e. a REST API) doesn't
have a fixed form. You can describe the very same protocol using many
different texts (i.e. documentation) -- something which you cannot do for an
actual API, which _is_ text. While each of those documentation texts may be
copyrightable in itself (technical documentation is very much copyrightable),
the REST protocol _itself_ isn't. It is only a mechanism, whereas an API is
indeed a mechanism, but it is also a text. Since it is a text, it _might_ be
copyrightable, and since a REST protocol isn't a fixed text -- it is certainly
not.

------
JoshTriplett
On the one hand, this would have serious implications for compatible FOSS
reimplementations of proprietary APIs, such as Wine, libc, emulators, etc.

On the other hand, this would make it _far_ easier to enforce copyleft
licenses like the GPL.

I'm one of the people who provided text and examples filed in the EFF's amicus
brief against, and on balance I'm not a fan of stricter copyright like this,
but it's interesting to consider how this ruling could be used positively.

~~~
billsix
I'd be curious to hear RMS's stance on the issue, but I'm guessing he would
agree with Oracle.
[http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-...](http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-
CLISP-is-under-GPL)

~~~
marcosdumay
That's not the same issue.

He's talking about distributing code that is not functional unless linked with
a GPL library. Not about distributing code that replaces such GPL library.

Oracle is basically saying that you can not write a compatible implementation
of Java.

~~~
comex
It's partially relevant to the plan Mr. Haible had to get around the GPL by
putting the onus on the user to combine readline and CLISP:

> I built a libnoreadline.a that can be linked together with lisp.a, replacing
> libreadline.a .

> I will reorganize the distribution into 2 independent parts: > * clisp.lzh
> containing lisp.a and libnoreadline.a, > * readline.tar.Z containing
> libreadline.a and its source.

> The first one is enough to build a CLISP executable. It contains no GNU
> parts.

If readline's API were copyrighted and unreimplementable, this would still be
infringement. However, this is not actually the argument rms used; rather, he
said:

> The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has only
> been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is that the one
> part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the other part.

Who knows whether that would hold up in court or not.

Incidentally, these days (well, since 1997 or so?) we have editline, which,
rather than being a sort of low-effort dummy implementation like the proposed
"libnoreadline", is a full-fledged BSD-licensed readline replacement which
provides a readline compatibility API. One possible outcome of this case, in
which Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, would make it
arguable (not certain - Java is _much_ larger than readline) that editline is
infringing the GPL, which would be amusing.

------
stormqloud
Another win for lawyers.

Unfortunately now the USA is goign to try to push this ruling all over the
world with TIPP
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investm...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership)).

It's not enough that the USA destroys their own entrepreneurial spirit but
everybody else as well.

~~~
fapjacks
Worry not, friend. It will implode under its own weight soon enough. It is not
sustainable.

------
briantmaurer
Programming is in this odd position somewhere between the structure of math
and the creativity of writing. Some things feel as obvious as basic addition,
which clearly should not be copyrightable, while other things feel as clever
as complex poems, which clearly should be copyrightable.

I am not a copyright expert, but in my opinion APIs usually fall closer to the
structured math half of programming.

ex. GET, POST, PUT, or DELETE to the following:

/users

/messages

/comments

/login

/logout

/signup

/payments

etc.

Who gets those copyrights?

~~~
josho
When I lived in Java based environments I would have agreed with you. But,
having moved on and seen C#, Ruby/Rails, Objective-C, etc. Seeing how
differently APIs have been implemented I have an appreciation for the
creativity possible in API design.

But, there seems to be a balance, is the API of a single class copyrightable?
No, probably not. Is the API of a large system like Java's copyrightable, I
really do think so.

Having said that, I disagree with the protections an API suddenly gains once
we say I have a monopoly on its use and license. E.g. This verdict likely just
made every emulator an act of copyright infringement. Does intel own the API
on the x86 instruction API and can lock out AMD?

~~~
0x0
The entire reason the PC business exploded was because the IBM BIOS (an API if
I ever saw one!) was reverse engineered, documented, and then clean room
reimplemented by Compaq

------
suprgeek
A Stunningly bad idea if this were ever to stand. A really idiotic move by the
Whitehouse - increasing the scope of the Copyright law is probably the last
thing people thought of with the whole "Hope & Change" thing.

Something like WINE would be in a whole mess of trouble not to mention that a
decision of such magnitude would enrich the Lawyers and decimate the Software
industry.

------
btilly
Entirely predictable.

Obama's VP was one of the strongest supporters of all things copyright in
Congress during his legislative career. Obama's administration has clearly
been on the side of Hollywood etc as well. Given that fact, on any issue you
can depend on this administration to come down on the side of the strongest
and most expansive possible interpretation of what should be covered by
copyright.

In this conflict, Oracle wants copyright to cover more things. Google wants it
to only cover what it has historically covered. Therefore this administration
will back Oracle.

~~~
throwawaykf05
* In this conflict, Oracle wants copyright to cover more things. Google wants it to only cover what it has historically covered. *

This is incorrect. By most reasonable readings of copyright law, API's have
always been covered by copyright, unless deny that API design holds any
modicum of creative expression. So it's more Google that's trying to reduce
the scope of what's protected rather than Oracle trying to expand it.

~~~
btilly
We can argue what readings are reasonable until the cows come home. But most
lawyers had thought this area of copyright law settled. Creative expression is
copyrighted. Functional expression is not. In cases like
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade),
use of copyrighted material where necessary for functional interoperability
has been ruled fair use.

See
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1323818](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1323818)
for some of the history about how this came about.

~~~
throwawaykf05
I am somewhat familiar with the history of these cases, and I would disagree
that most lawyers thought it settled because this case is subtly but
significantly different. The Sega etc. cases were about _binary_
interoperability, which I'd agree is well-settled law. The thing that most of
us programmers get confused about is, APIs are for _humans_ to design systems
that interoperate with other systems. They are not necessary for binary
interoperability, at least for Java.

To understand what I mean consider this: You can design an API for file
handling that looks nothing like the Java API and yet compiles down to exactly
the same JVM bytecode. Case in point: Jython and JRuby. It is the byte code
level interfaces that cannot be copyrighted because they are purely
functional. The human readable Java API on the other hand are just one form of
expression of that underlying functionality.

------
codecamper
ridiculous. copywriter apis will breed a whole new class of lawsuits making it
less feasible for smaller companies to compete.

What about POST to /login who copyrights that one first?

Of course there is the right to parody. I wonder if we'll see parodies of APIs
as a way to sidestep copyright.

------
discordianfish
I think this will cause a lot people to move away from java and ultimately
harm Oracle most, causing other companies to not follow their example. Let's
just stay away from java, there are plenty of free languages.

~~~
iolothebard
I'm doing everything I can to kill Oracle at my organization. I work for the
State government too. One success story will breed many more is my hope.

------
bch

      s/^\([a-zA-Z_]*\)(\(.*\))$/ggl_\1(\2)/  ??
    

This ruling sounds horrible... very curious to hear point-of-view of people
who think otherwise.

Edit: my regexp joke is mangled by markup, but who cares ?

Edit: fixed regexp display (not that it affects joke).

~~~
dunstad
I don't know if I'm failing to read regexes or failing to see the humor. Can
someone explain/kill the joke for me?

~~~
bch
The API is just a signature for calling the function -- I was joking that
instead of

    
    
      screen_draw(int x, int y);
    

what Google could do is:

    
    
      ggl_screen_draw(int x, int y);
    

and say "New API -- they've got screen_draw(), _we_ have ggl_screen_draw()".

~~~
dragonwriter
Copyright protects deivative works, not just literal copying, so if copying
the API is a violation, so is such a direct transformation.

------
VaidasC
I don't follow this too much, so might be talking nonsense, however I don't
understand where all this fuss is coming from.

From the start of this I interpreted situation this way - Java's goal was "run
everywhere" (wherever it succeeded or not is for everyone to decide, but its
irrelevant here). Java JDK follows this goal with main license requirement -
you can implement your own SDK, but you should take all APIs, not part of it -
all or nothing deal. Goal being that programs from main JDK should run on your
new SDK.

This principle was violated by Google and I just don't see why anyone would
support Google side from rational point of view (not talking about morality,
innovation or whatever).

------
angersock
What can we do? Is there a place we can (as an economic sector) throw money to
make this happen?

Fucking hell.

EDIT:

Thanks Obama!

 _" The Justice Department is weighing in on the hot-button intellectual
property dispute between Google and Oracle, telling the Supreme Court that
APIs are protected by copyright.

The Obama administration's position means it is siding with Oracle and a
federal appeals court that said application programming interfaces are subject
to copyright protections. The high court in January asked for the government's
views on the closely watched case."_

~~~
schoen
The current posture of this case is a petition for certiorari (Google asking
the Supreme Court to hear its appeal). These are not merits briefs (about who
should win) because the Supreme Court hasn't agreed to hear it yet. They might
decline to hear it and then it would go back to a lower court for further
proceedings in the underlying case, but with arguably an adverse precedent out
of the Federal Circuit on the books.

While I think it's now too late to file amicus briefs on the cert petition, if
certiorari is granted (as Google hopes and the Solicitor General just argued
against), anyone can file amicus briefs on the merits. Companies, trade
associations, nonprofits, individual experts.

I don't know exactly whom people should write to in the government expressing
their displeasure with the Solicitor General's position. (It's supposedly a
completely nonpolitical decision, so it's unusual for people to openly lobby
about it or express opinions about it to elected officials.) You can certainly
write to Congress saying that you want to see legislative clarification that
APIs are noncopyrightable.

~~~
Natsu
Slight correction regarding the part saying that 'anyone' may file one: "An
amicus curiae brief may be filed only by an attorney admitted to practice
before this Court as provided in Rule 5."

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_37](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_37)

~~~
schoen
Sorry, that's quite right. I should have said "through an attorney" to avoid
the possible interpretation that you could personally write and file a brief.

That rule is stricter than other Supreme Court rules related to filings by
parties. If you're a natural person and not a corporation, you _can_ file pro
se pleadings before the Supreme Court in your own cases. Just not in other
people's cases.

~~~
Natsu
Yes, that's how I interpreted it, but I thought I should point it out to avoid
confusion. I also thought I remembered this being a fairly recent rules
change, so there's that too.

------
drkrab
If APIs are copyrightable, then so are protocols. Hmm.

------
antimatter
Silly question. Is there any potential for Google to move off of Java (perhaps
to Go) for Android development as a result of this?

~~~
elpool2
Seems unlikely, since the article mentions that Google has already stopped
using the code in question.

~~~
comex
Google stopped using a bit of code from the OpenJDK that they accidentally
copied wholesale. The main claim is on the basic concept of reimplementing the
Java standard library, which Google can't stop doing in a hurry.

------
arihant
A parallel question - who owns copyrights to community written APIs of MySQL
that Oracle so conveniently sells?

------
username3
Every API function name should have to be trademarked instead.

------
username3
Naming things is one of the hard things in Computer Science.

~~~
angersock
The other hard thing is collecting royalties, apparently.

Fuckers.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Not nearly hard enough, apparently.

------
fian
So, if the Supreme Court rules that APIs are copyrightable, then wouldn't that
mean that someone could use AWS with some, for example, Java code generation
tools that created classes with method names comprised of randomly selected
words from a dictionary - effectively performing a "million monkeys with a
million typewriters" attack on the entire possible API naming space?

Publish the generated code on Github. Early on, you would need to test the
generated code against publicly published APIs to ensure you didn't publish
code infringing on existing APIs, however, over time you could "own" the
remaining API naming space.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, while you might get a copyright that way, copyrights aren't patents. They
only protect against actual copying and derivation. Independently authored
works which happen to be similar, even identical, to some subset of a corpus
are not a copyright violation. You don't get ownership of the naming space,
just exclusive right to copy from your own work.

------
seizethecheese
This thread is overwhelmingly against this stance by the DoJ, with a few
"mixed" reactions. Whenever I see threads like this I wonder about opposing
viewpoints...

Does anyone think this is a good thing? If so, why?

~~~
empthought
The appeals court overturning Posner's decision about the general
copyrightability of APIs and the amicus brief are both good things, because
they are based on the correct legal rationales. Assuming your position is that
copyright protection should apply to software at all, that is.

The fact that the existing fair use exception language is not clearly and
explicitly permitting Google's use of the API is a bad thing.

------
yonran
What is the motivation for the Solicitor General to put out such a brief? Is
he required for some reason to make statements about matters he does not
understand? This brief repeatedly claims that programmer familiarity was the
sole reason for copying the JDK APIs and completely rejects the fact that
compatibility with existing libraries (such as Guava, apache commons) was a
technical goal, on the absurd grounds that Android does not implement ALL of
the JDK (e.g. java.awt, javax.swing).

------
datashovel

      Oracle ... said the appellate court's decision was a
      "win for the entire software industry that relies on
      copyright protection to fuel innovation."
    

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/supreme-court-
ask...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/supreme-court-asks-doj-to-
weigh-in-on-google-oracle-api-copyright-flap/)

------
datashovel
It seems obvious at this point that no matter where the government draws the
line, the open source movement will fight through it until all software that
should reasonably be freely available is freely available.

For this reason I really think it's a moot point.

The unfortunate aspect of this is every hour / day government employees
continue to debate this is another hour / day those government employees could
be doing something useful.

------
comex
(To rehash what I said on Twitter...)

I don't think this is as bad as the headlines make it sound.

Here's a direct link to the brief in case you can't find it in the article (I
couldn't):

[http://computemagazine.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/Google...](http://computemagazine.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/Google-v-Oracle-Solicitor-General-Brief.pdf)

While the DoJ does fully agree with Oracle on the question of
copyrightability, the brief goes into some length about its belief that
interoperability issues _would_ be appropriate and relevant to a fair use
argument - fair use being the question that was never decided in the original
trial due to a hung jury, and AFAIK would be subject to appeals regarding the
legal standard anyway. For example, it states: "Interoperability and lock-in
concerns like those raised by petitioner can appropriately be considered as
part of fair-use analysis."

Now, if you're FOSS Patents, you take the one sentence where the DoJ
uncritically repeats a claim about interoperability that's been made several
times in the record and never really contested, as part of its restatement of
the facts, and you extrapolate it into something "damning" for Google's entire
fair use argument:

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/05/us-dept-of-justice-
finds-...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/05/us-dept-of-justice-finds-
googles.html)

The claim is: "The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but
petitioner purposely designed Android not to be compatible with the Java
platform or interoperable with Java programs." I'll get to that in a bit.

Mr. Mueller argues that the discussion on the relevance of fair use is just
window dressing and that "the U.S. government has also concluded that Google
can't make a 'fair use' argument based on compatibility or interoperability
because of the specifics of this case". Based, as far as I can tell, only on
that sentence (and a repetition later), never mind that the brief also
explicitly mentions that Google's argument about programmer fluency (i.e. even
if Android isn't compatible with Java _software_ , it avoids lock-in by
letting programmers use their existing skills) is relevant to fair use... or
the fact that the issue which is supposedly pivotal is only mentioned in
passing... or that the appeals judgement which Google is trying to get
overruled already states, and the brief quotes, that there are not yet
"sufficient factual findings" regarding the questions involved in fair use -
for the DoJ to actually be rejecting Google's fair use argument, it would have
to be supposing that there are already sufficient findings, without actually
saying so.

So much for that.

But let's get back to that statement, about Android not being compatible with
Java programs. If you're like me, you found it absurd on its face when it
first showed up in the appeals judgement, because while Android is not
compatible with _entire JME applications_ , it is compatible with many Java
libraries and with non-UI code, which in reality is extremely important if
you're trying to port your Java codebase to Android. I think (correct me if
I'm wrong) that Google can't really start an argument over it, because Oracle
made these contentions at trial and Google did not contest them then. I fail
to understand how Google's lawyers allowed such a misleading claim to reach a
jury when it did - maybe, as non-programmers, they didn't fully understand the
issue either. But in any case, if the Supreme Court rejects Google's case and
there is a new trial on fair use, Google will have a chance to start fresh
with the whole line of reasoning.

It will arguably be better for all of us if the Supreme Court accepts the case
anyway and decides Oracle has indeed failed at the first hurdle - that Google
has not copied something copyrightable in the first place - because the more
uncertainty there is around clean room reimplementations in general, the more
people will be discouraged from working on such projects, decreasing
interoperability. Also, fair use is _partially_ a question of fact (as opposed
to law) and thus for a jury, and while I wouldn't trust judges these days to
truly understand the facts and actual practices around software issues, as
opposed to making analogies that act like a funhouse mirror... I trust
randomly selected juries even less. But in reality, the applicability of
copyrightability vs. fair use is a relatively arcane question that will be
decided in part by however the statute happens to be worded, and Oracle
getting to the next hurdle instead is not the end of the world.

Also, even if the lack of compatibility with entire applications is
(implicitly or explicitly) found critical in such an argument, projects like
Wine which _are_ more principled about compatibility and _do_ run entire
existing applications will have some wiggle room. So don't despair...

------
codecamper
If the federal government cannot figure out how to protect people's tax
returns from hackers (yes the IRS was hacked by "criminals" recently), and if
it spends hundreds of millions (billions?) on re-coding the IRS only to fail
every time, then it certainly has no business trying to regulate APIs.

------
nastygibbon
Can someone give us an ELI5? Pros/Cons etc.

~~~
rodgerd
Con: all the BSDs and Linux are now owned by whoever most recently picked up
the POSIX APIs. ReactOS and WINE are now illegal. SQL is the private property
of IBM.

Pro: I guess if you hate Google because you love Steve Jobs or something it
looks like a win.

~~~
oldmanjay
Quick question - do you feel the need to associate this to Apple because of
your deep personal hatred for that company, or for your deep abiding love for
Google?

Or was it neither, and you just like using rhetorical devices to bolster your
weak points?

~~~
laumars
You're reading _far_ too much subtext there. He's "pro" was just a flippant
way of saying " _there isn 't any positive to come from this aside the super
shallow brand-loyalty reasons_"

------
w0rmwood
Eternal facepalm. Expected better than this.

------
gamesbrainiac
What does this mean for android?

~~~
marcosdumay
If the White House position is successful, it means Android as open source
software is finished. It may go on as proprietary, maybe.

It also means SQL, C, C++, POSIX, and more stuff that I can count are forbiden
land for open source, and every company making products that include or
derivate from them own a non-negotiable unknow amount to some party.

~~~
gnud
Note: In the US. The rest of us have less crazy copyright laws, at least until
we're forced to adopt yours through TTIP.

~~~
marcosdumay
Of course, at the US, at least at first.

My country is not even a party to the TTIP, but I bet once it's there, we'll
import it somehow.

------
Splendor
This link should probably be changed to point directly to the Ars post:
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-
sides...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-sides-with-
oracle-tells-supreme-court-apis-are-copyrightable/)

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we updated the URL from
[http://lwn.net/Articles/646160/](http://lwn.net/Articles/646160/).

------
curiously
Oracle finally showing their true colors...

------
shit_parade2
Why do people care what the supreme court rules?

The US is no longer a country ruled by law. If anything the more ridiculous
and barbaric the government becomes the better as it will only swell the ranks
of those who realize the government is illegitimate.

~~~
elif
Are you saying people should also ignore the lawsuits that come as a result? I
don't think that strategy works usually.

------
thrillgore
Traitor!

