EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

04.10.17

These Terrifying Comments From Patent Practitioners Suggest They Too Believe UPC is Intended to Make EPO Virtually Obsolete

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Filing centre (de facto registration), not a patent examination office… as we had warned for years, even before SUEPO did

“When asked by Ars, the EPO’s spokesperson mentioned the imminent arrival of the unitary patent system as an important reason for revising the EPO’s internal rules…”

Dr. Glyn Moody

Summary: EPO stakeholders too believe that the EPO is heading towards a collapse, whereupon they press for action although it may be too late (the crisis is deep and many EPs have been granted in error)

TEAM UPC is a truly dangerous bunch. It is pushing the same agenda as Battistelli — to the point where earlier today we joked that if IP Kat does yet another UPC lobbying piece (lots of that recently), then we can call it “Katistelli”.

Some of the biggest forces behind the UPC have just promoted their own people’s actions (the so-called Committee which is actually wolves guarding sheep). “The UPC Prep Committee has published the latest draft Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court,” one of them said and Kluwer Patent Blog joined in, spurring the following new comment on it:

Kluwer Patent Blog; new RoP UPC:

New blog post about the UPC Rules of Procedure.
The new draft ‘is yet to come under scrutiny by the European Commission on the compatibility of the Rules of Procedure with Union law´…
Really, all allegations that the UPC is not a EU legal construction are difficult to believe when reading that the Preparatory Committee is running its provisional papers along the European Commission for approval.

Yes, these people get paid for improving all they can before the start of the UPC, but they must feel like riding a dead horse. With the BrExit running, their work looks like it’ll never be used…

More interesting comments, however, are coming out of this series from Thorsten Bausch (also at Kluwer Patent Blog), whose latest and last part has attracted some truly nuclear comments about the UPC. We believe that every EPO employee must read these to better understand what is going on at the EPO these days. Comments are copyrighted but assigned to their posters (typically anonymous), so we have decided to reproduce them below with emphasis added:

Readers I offer two possible explanations, A and B, for the bizarre behaviour of the EPO President.

A: in the interests of the Paris-based UPC getting a flying start, he wants to disable Munich-based DG3.

B: Currently, the Americans are re-stocking the numbers of judges at the USPTO, with staggeringly large numbers involved. But an Enarque can show the Americans what business efficiency looks like, and BB is the man to do it. Every time there is a meeting of the Group of 5, the bosses of the world’s 5 biggest Patent Office, BB is there with ever more impressive statistics to show the other four how, but only during his watch, the EPO has squeezed more output out of the Organisation, with ever higher “quality” and at the same time, ever-reduced costs.

Is there anything in explanations A or B?

Here is a response to that:

To me it is more option A which is valid (80%), whereby option B is not to be neglected as it pushes the ego of mr president ever higher.

In any case it is disgusting to transform a well working and reputable institution in a work floor churning out patents in a form and in a way which is not desirable for its users.

EPO looks more and more to industry as it was known in the former Eastern European countries! Ignore what the customer desires, but adhere to the plan as strictly as possible. We all know were planned economy led to.

I do not wish the EPO to end up in a disaster, but with the present management it will sadly end up in a disaster.

A good friend of the Boards wrote:

It is an absolute disgrace that the backlog in appeals has, by the own figures published by the Boards, increased. The reason is due to a chronical understaffing of the Boards. This chronical understaffing is a deliberate action of the president by not presenting to the administrative council new members and chairpersons in order to replace those leaving. Even the renewal of actual members was put on hold….

Here, like in DG1, emphasis is made on quantity and not on quality. For the president the members of the boards are simply too lazy and need a good push. Have you seen in any country the judges being obliged to give a minimum number of decisions per year in order to retain their job? This is what will happen with the new rules for renewing the contract for members.

The carrier of member of the boards has also been made unattractive, as there is no salary increase in the five years of a contract. A renewed contract will only be granted, and a corresponding increase in salary given, if the performance of the member has been considered “adequate”, not to use a worse word.

I fully agree that the sending of the Boards to Haar will not improve the situation in the slightest. On the contrary it will degrade it. The reason is very simple: the building is too small since it does not have enough rooms for the Boards to hold oral proceedings on the premises. Especially the number of rooms with simultaneous interpretation is anything but commensurate with the needs. So the boards will have to come back to the Isar building in order to hold their oral proceedings. Where is the gain in efficiency?

By now it should abundantly clear that all the actions against the boards and especially the sending of the boards to Haar is a nothing more than a revenge of the president over the boards. The enlarged board has not accepted to simply dismiss a member of the boards as the president wished. It has not accepted that the president has simply disregarded the separation of powers. This is however a basic requirement of any properly working society, which is not governed by an autocratic leader.

In this respect the administrative council, at least some members of it, have been truly accomplices of the president’s endeavour. When one looks at the vote in the administrative council, it is a majority of countries filing hardly any European applications, and hence having hardly refusals or oppositions, which made it possible to take the decision to change the carriers of the members and on top of it to send the boards to Haar. One wonders why?

That some boards apply the rules of procedure, or remit under Art 111, in way which allows to raise eyebrows, has however also to be said. But they are in a similar position as the examiners, and their position can be understood.

That in any system, a judicial institution is not in a situation to cover its costs, should not be taken against the boards of appeal of the EPO. The idea of simply increasing the appeal fee to ludicrous levels is also an attack on the users of the system. If the fee is too high, then the number of appeals will decrease. Is this rendering justice?

The boards of appeal are not any longer allowed to decide on their rules of procedure. The rules of procedure can only be adopted by the administrative council after the Boards of Appeal committee (comprising no members of the boards) has approved them and the President of the EPO had an opportunity to comment……. The only body in which members of the boards are represented is the presidium of the boards, and this body merely advises the President of the Boards of Appeal on proposals for amendments to the Rules of Procedure. Is there more to say?

I can only encourage readers of this blog to have a good look at the changes of the structure of the boards. On the paper, they look more independent, but on reality the contrary is true.

In my opinion the whole attack on the boards, is part of a long strategy. It is to weaken them so that in the long run everything will be dealt with by the UPC. Examination will consist in a quick look at prior art, followed by a quick grant, and any dispute afterwards will come before the UPC. The boards of appeal having more or less disappeared, there will also not be any risks of conflicting case law. Is this not wonderful?

By acting like this the president of the EPO and its followers are not only cutting the branch on which the staff of the EPO is sitting, members of the boards included, they also cut their own branch, and more worrying, they are cutting the branch on which the whole profession is sitting, at least as far as prosecution is concerned. Those firms also doing litigation will suffer much less. And look at the firms who have pushed the UPC through. No surprise…..

A sceptical one writes:

Of course, another way to help reduce the rate of growth of the backlog would be to improve the quality of decision-making at first instance. I don’t mean the EPO’s much-trumpeted “quality” ratings, but *real*, high-quality decision making. Speak to any attorney in private practice and you will find anecdotes by the bucketload confirming the increasing frequency of rushed, slapdash search and examination reports, incomprehensible or unreasoned objections, and opposition decisions taken by evidently inexperienced Opposition Divisions. I have the utmost respect for the EPO examiners and know that they are capable of doing a very thorough job, but it seems that the current focus on conflating speed with quality is severely detrimental to the real quality of work. Bad decisions lead to more appeals: it is as simple as that.

I am sceptical about the rumours that the Boards are being deliberately downgraded to pave the way for the UPC, however. For inter-partes proceedings the UPC can indeed, in principle, take the place of the boards. But the UPC will not have jurisdiction to review ex parte cases in the event of unjustified refusal of a patent application.

In response to that, notice what is said (honestly) about SMEs:

I agree with you about the fact that ex-parte procedures might be reviewed by the boards which cannot be the case of the UPC. But then, it should remain accessible also from a financial point of view.

Why should the appeal fee steadily grow up to a few thousand € just because some manager has decided that the boards should be self-sustaining? In no contracting state of the EPC the judicial authorities are self-sustaining. On top of a high appeal fee, there are also the costs for a representative.

It can become rapidly prohibitive for a SME, but no, the whole system is to help the SMEs, isn’t it?

Here is a very important observation by “Observer”:

‘Appointments’ this time was actually a single external legal member (MC?) appointed to the EBoA. All others announced were re-appointments.

Thorsten Bausch himself was stunned by this, as apparently he was not aware; he had been misled by the Liar in Chief. He then wrote:

Whow. What a big disappointment. So if this true, even the language of the communiqué (“The Council made a number of appointments (…) to the Boards of Appeal”) is wrong and misleading. I would really like to know what is going on in this “Administrative Council” and why they do not care more about a functional European Patent Office.

The UPC will clearly not be a solution to this problem. Firstly, it will be unaffordable for and has not been designed to serve the interests of SME. Secondly, the territorial scope of its decisions will not nearly match the territorial scope of an EPO decision, which covers all EU members without exception in addition to several important non-EU member states (Turkey, Switzerland, Norway to name but a few).
Why do the AC members of at least these states not stand up and protest against the President’s inactivity?

Thirdly, if the UPC had to deal with more than 1000 new cases per year, as the BoA currently have to, the entire system would very quickly break down completely. We cannot allow this to happen.

Then it veers off in another direction:

Slarti thinks that top quality decisions at first instance (ED or OD) will take the pressure of cases off DG3. I disagree.

However good the decision at first instance, whenever the case is important the loser will appeal (and then perhaps try harder to settle with the other side). No way is there going to be any diminution of the flow of new cases to DG3.

In England only one in three losers appeal though. How can that be? I say it is for reasons that don’t apply in civil law jurisdictions like mainland Europe.

What are those reasons. Fact-finding under English law is not usually appealable. With judges at first instance who do not get the law wrong, and with the facts not alterable on appeal, it is pointless. In addition, it’s horrible expensive.

And watch the response:

With respect, Max, I disagree to some extent.

Let me say at the outset that I completely agree that the understaffing and excess pressure on the Boards is nothing short of a complete scandal and it is both baffling and concerning that the AC continues to tolerate this.

However, let’s take as a proposition that many European patent applications are being (erroneously) refused due to undue pressure on the Examining Division leading them to cut corners and fail to consider applications properly. I’ve had several where I’ve been through a frustrating round of prosecution where the Ex.Div. simply keeps reiterating old objections without telling me why they disagree with my counterarguments. In such cases a final refusal can be expected and the only way to get the case looked at properly is by filing an appeal. If the pressure on the Ex.Div. and the “managerialism-by-numbers, high turnover equals high quality” is dropped, fewer applications will be wrongfully refused and so there will be no need to appeal against such refusals.

Finally, there’s this:

Slarti, you say nothing about oral proceedings before the ED. Some say that this is the first time that the work of the First Member gets scrutinised properly. Engage with all three ED members? Does that ever work?

But I am inclined to agree with you, that management these days in DG1 thinks that efficiency dictates making the decision (allow or refuse) early, indeed when issuing the EESR. Then, if it is to be a refusal, one should get the case out of DG1 and onto DG3’s docket as soon as possible

“Michel” said this, in the absence of criticism from stakeholders until it was too late to salvage the EPO:

You are perfectly right, but your complaints come much too late. Why did you not put pressure on the German representative before the vote? Germany did not vote against this disaster, did they? And, incidentally, why did epi not protest at all?

Unbelievable as this may seem, whenever I discuss with German attorneys, they appear to discover that there might be a problem. Is the whole profession asleep? You get what you deserve.

They too recognise that this system is rotting if not collapsing. Who would suffer as a result? It’s almost a rhetorical question. This is why we spent so much time covering these scandals.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

8 Comments

  1. john said,

    April 11, 2017 at 4:06 am

    Gravatar

    A slight tangent here.

    You know that Minnoye retires as vice-president. You may also know he will not be replaced by a new vice-president, but with a different structure. The structure puts in place 3 “chief operation officers” in place of the vice-president. This is official.

    (The less official parts is that the present management structure will be dismantled. Directors are sent back to examining and Principal directors will be essentially powerless. The COO are recruited from outside.)

    Battistelli did not ask the Council their opinion. He said they are only entitled to elect the vice-president, but since there is none, he does as he pleases. That is the way he is running the office. Do you think he will be stopped by applicant’s opinion about the UPC?

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    He is violating the EPC again. Applicants need to organise and consider a boycott or some other form of sanctions.

    john Reply:

    He is acting as if the EPO and the EPC with it are dead. And maybe they are. It is now a pure question of power. Let me explain.

    Just check: the 3 new COO will be replacing the vice-president this summer. The Council did not object in their last meeting and now it is a “fait accompli”: the tender to hire them is out and the council can do nothing until their next meeting in June, when it will be too late anyway. In June, they won’t have the time to replace Minnoye by another vice-president any more.

    The council was told in March, that this change was a temporary measure and that it is better to elect the new vice-president with the new president. The council thinks that Battistelli will step down in 2018. Of course he won’t.

    Except that the COO will be on a 5-years contract, which is not “a temporary measure” at all.

    There is a system in Battistelli’s strategy. As I know a bit about what is taught at ENA, I can say that this system is exactly what is taught there. Going from fait accompli to fait accompli is telling.

    What I can also say, unfortunately, is that nobody at present has enough power to stop Battistelli. And power is the only think which is important at this point: the EPC or whatever law you want to apply does not count, as Battistelli does not respect it in complete impunity. The lobbying efforts of techrights, ipkat (nice people there, contrary to what you believe), or Kluver are wasted, since the readers do not have the power to force Battistelli to do anything. Suepo and any semblance of trade union are out of the game. The efforts of the council are blocked by a minority. What is there left?

    I wish I had a better idea how to stop this systematic dismantling of the EPO, but I am at loss as to what to do.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    I still think that collective action by the applicants is necessary now. They are, after all, what keeps feeding this monstrosity, which enjoys a monopoly it no longer deserves.

    john Reply:

    I forgot: about a boycott from the applicants. That won’t work. Think fait accompli again.

    The UPC will happen. Without the UK because of Brexit, but nevertheless. It does not matter than the UPC is not good for SME, they are not part of the decision process so that they are, in effect, powerless. When Germany and Spain will be presented with the fait accompli they will face a simple alternative: ratify or don’t have a patent system at all (and maybe destroy the EU in the process). Not palatable, as an alternative.

    The applicants face the following alternative: apply for patents or don’t. But the one kind of applicants who will continue to apply en masse are the patent trolls. Practicing entities will need more patents than ever to defend themselves, here again: no real alternative.

    Next on the line will be the attorneys. With the examiners out of the picture, they are the only ones left in the picture. The obvious solution to crush any resistance from them will be to change the requirements under which the new Patent system accepts to register them as european patent attorneys. I would expect that to change in the near future as well.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Applying for patents would not protect anyone from patent trolls, so either way, we need to highlight the issues associated with the UPC, the issues with low patent quality, etc. We should not accept the UPC as inevitable, either. I’ve fought many battles over the years and one thing I’ve learned is that induced or learned helplessness (or defeatism) is the most powerful weapon of our idealogical rivals.

    john Reply:

    I am not a defeatist. I am convinced that Battistelli can be stopped. I just have not found how yet.
    I am not a defeatist when I point out the ways which have been tried for the past years and which are effectively blocked. For example, there is little use in pointing out that Battistelli does not respect the EPC, because the EPC has effectively been rendered irrelevant in recent times.
    OTOH, the main weakness I see in Battistelli is that his strategy is becoming clearer. We now have a pretty good idea of what is in store for the EPO in the next two years. Replacing the vice-president by 3 chosen COO is a telling move. That, and the fact that examiners will run out of files within 2 years. And you could also ask how many DG3 members are near the age of retirement, Haar may be bigger than one thinks soon.
    Anyway, I’ll live the discussion at that. I am not here to convince you, you already are convinced that the situation is serious. Take care.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Thank you for the thoughts and the input.

What Else is New


  1. Links 22/2/2018: Qt Roadmap for 2018, Calculate Linux 17.12.2

    Links for the day



  2. As Expected, Bristows and Others Already Lying About UPC Status in Germany, But Doing This Anonymously (to Dodge Accountability for Lies)

    In their characteristic fashion, firms that created the UPC for their self-enrichment purposes, along with publishers/writers who deem it their role to promote the UPC and set up lobbying events for the UPC, look for ways to downplay if not intentionally distort what happened in Germany yesterday



  3. Further Attacks on EPO Staff and the Appeal Boards; Former EPO Boards of Appeal Member Speaks About EPO Scandals

    In the process of devaluing EPO workers and perhaps preparing them for a large round of layoffs information is also revealed about further repressions against the independence of the Boards of Appeal



  4. End of the UPC Lobby and Withdrawal of UPCA May Seem Imminent

    The Unitary Patent fantasy (of mass litigation firms) is coming to an end; in fact, the German government and courts (Bundesverfassungsgericht to be specific) now deem the complaint to be admissible and thus likely legitimate in spite of many attempts to shoot it down



  5. EPO's Board 28 Spikes Article 53 in CA/3/18, Apparently After Battistelli Withdrew It

    The latest plot twist, as odd as that may seem, is that the attack on the rights of thousands of workers (many of whom are rumoured to be on their way out) is curtailed somewhat, at least for the time being



  6. Links 21/2/2018: Apper 1.0, New Fedora ISOs

    Links for the day



  7. Rumour: European Patent Office to Lay Off a Significant Proportion of Its Workforce

    While the Administrative Council of the EPO praises Battistelli for his financial accomplishments (as laughable as it may seem) a lot of families stuck in a foreign country may soon see their breadwinner unemployed, according to rumours



  8. The Patent Trolls' Lobby, Bristows and IAM Among Others, Downplays Darts-IP/IP2Innovate Report About Rising If Not Soaring Troll Activity in Europe

    Exactly like last year, as soon as IP2Innovate opens its mouth Bristows and IAM go into "attack dog" mode and promote the UPC, deny the existence or seriousness of patent trolls, and promote their nefarious, trolls-funded agenda



  9. Links 20/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.5, Qt 5.11 Alpha, Absolute 15.0 Beta 4, Sailfish OS 2.1.4 E.A., SuiteCRM 7.10

    Links for the day



  10. Replacing Patent Sharks/Trolls and the Patent Mafia With 'Icons' Like Thomas Edison

    The popular perceptions of patents and the sobering reality of what patents (more so nowadays) mean to actual inventors who aren't associated with global behemoths such as IBM or Siemens



  11. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Distorting the Record of CAFC on PTAB

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which deals with appeals from PTAB, has been issuing many decisions in favour of § 101, but those aren't being talked about or emphasised by the patent 'industry'



  12. Japan Demonstrates Sanity on SEP Policy While US Patent Policy is Influenced by Lobbyists

    Japan's commendable response to a classic pattern of patent misuse; US patent policy is still being subjected to never-ending intervention and there is now a lobbyist in charge of antitrust matters and a lawyer in charge of the US patent office (both Trump appointees)



  13. The Patent Microcosm's Embrace of Buzzwords and False Marketing Strives to Make Patent Examiners Redundant and Patent Quality Extremely Low

    Patent maximalists, who are profiting from abundance of low-quality patents (and frivolous lawsuits/legal threats these can entail), are riding the hype wave and participating in the rush to put patent systems at the hands of machines



  14. Today, at 12:30 CET, Bavarian State Parliament Will Speak About EPO Abuses (Updated)

    The politicians of Bavaria are prepared to wrestle with some serious questions about the illegality of the EPO's actions and what that may mean to constitutional aspects of German law



  15. Another Loud Warning From EPO Workers About the Decline of Patent Quality

    Yet more patent quality warnings are being issued by EPO insiders (examiners) who are seeing their senior colleagues vanishing and wonder what will be left of their employer



  16. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  17. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  18. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  19. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  20. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  21. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  22. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  23. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  24. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  25. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  26. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  27. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  28. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  29. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  30. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts