12.28.19
Posted in Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 10:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Self-censorship and overt censorship (like the EPO censoring us since 2014, blocking the site to prevent staff getting exposed to facts and leaks) would be one example of the political nature of scientific things, such as patents

Summary: We must allow ourselves to explore and to speak out about politics even in the workplace or in the context of our careers; As Richard M. Stallman once put it (and Stallman was right, as usual): “Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won’t leave you alone.”
“Value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history. ‘Don’t bother us with politics’, respond those who don’t want to learn.”
Richard M. Stallman said that a very long time ago and it became memorable/popular among many people.
“Microsoft and Bill Gates use that foundation as an instrument of power/influence (sometimes bribery), not just tax evasion.”The last and concluding part of the Thierry Breton series will come some time soon. The previous part talked about Benalla/Macron (related to Battistelli) and 3 days ago we explained how that related to the European Patent Office (EPO) and to software patents in Europe — a subject that impacts all software developers everywhere in the world. Everything is connected.
“Whether Richard Stallman was left temporarily homeless because of the millions of dollars paid by Bill Gates to MIT (through Epstein, who has since then died mysteriously in prison) is a noteworthy question.”Those who read all our articles closely enough certainly noticed the political machinations of the Gates Foundation when it comes to software. Microsoft and Bill Gates use that foundation as an instrument of power/influence (sometimes bribery), not just tax evasion. Failing to speak out about such issues, including bribery of politicians and overt tax evasion, would easily lead us astray. Whether Richard Stallman was left temporarily homeless because of the millions of dollars paid by Bill Gates to MIT (through Epstein, who has since then died mysteriously in prison) is a noteworthy question. Those things are difficult to prove indisputably, but assessing the probability based on evidence is possible. It’s only possible if we’re exposing ourselves to broader contexts of pertinent stories. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 9:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
🗺 domination. But whose?

He founded GNU in the early eighties at MIT

He released Linux in the early nineties in Finland, became a US national, and decided to take it commercial with the corporate Linux Foundation
Summary: Double standards can be seen in the way corporate media treats ‘cool’ insults and ‘rude’ criticisms (the former being Torvalds’ and the latter Stallman’s)
THE BIRTHDAY of Linus Torvalds is today. He’s a grown up man. He’s 50 now. Stallman is nearly 70 (or getting there) and he’ll soon be giving talks in the UK. His ‘cancellation’ has apparently not worked (not fully; he’s still in charge of GNU).
For a number of years (nearly a decade) I’ve publicly complained about the way Stallman is treated in/by the media, especially corporate/mainstream media. Stallman is rarely rude (to the extent the average software developer is) and I’ve spoken to him several times this month. As noted here earlier this month, his ‘cancellation’ did not work and arguably ‘backfired’ in the sense that it served to demonstrate the unfair treatment if not mistreatment. As we shall show some time next month, it was Bill Gates who deserved ‘cancellation’. But he has more ‘media muscle’ (bribes to publishers worldwide) than Stallman. It’s just that Stallman neither pays the publishers nor does his message suit the owners of large publishers.
“…no ‘boss’ is perfect and almost nobody likes his/her boss. Stallman is, in relative terms, not bad and we’ve witnessed the FSF suffering somewhat without his presence.”Stallman is still doing reasonably well. His critics in the GNU projects have toned down the letters and now pursue improved transparency instead of removal of Stallman from GNU. No defacement of his Web site, no smears. They just want to better understand the GNU-FSF relationship.
Now, going back to Torvalds, compare the attitudinal concerns expressed about him and about Stallman. Consider what the petitioners from GNU have said about Stallman. Did they complain that he was rude? Intimidating? No.
“We maintain our position that if Stallman cannot retake his old position at the FSF he should at least be invited back to the Board.”As we said months ago, no ‘boss’ is perfect and almost nobody likes his/her boss. Stallman is, in relative terms, not bad and we’ve witnessed the FSF suffering somewhat without his presence. Since he stepped down two members of the Board have left. We heard from people who canceled their membership specifically because Stallman had left.
We maintain our position that if Stallman cannot retake his old position at the FSF he should at least be invited back to the Board. That would certainly address some of the above-mentioned concerns (from the letter signed by Ludovic Courtès, Andy Wingo, Carlos O’Donell, Andreas Enge and Mark Wielaard). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Bill Gates at 8:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
People’s reaction to the Gates-Epstein stories was rather revealing; it didn’t fit in with prior perceptions

Summary: We take note of peculiar timings of Gates Foundation CEO departures (causality is possible, albeit it might be coincidental); The media’s lack of participation if not ‘cover-up’ (lack of interest in some very serious affairs and a lengthy trial) is also noteworthy
PREVIOUSLY in this series (please kindly revisit part one, part two, and part three for some background) we explained why it was rather evident that Mr. Gates had tried hard to avoid media attention. The media did not mention the pedophilia case at all until a whole year after the criminal case had been opened (a case regarding pedophiles in Gates’ mansion). One of our members speculated that it might be related to Mr. Gates choosing to step down from various levels of duty… or being forced to. Based on court records, that seems not too improbable; it was in 2013 that the case was opened; the police alone — as we’ve hinted before — has more than 2,000 pages in its report — so much in there that they’re barely capable of opening the files (it is work in progress). That’s according to them. That’s just the police report, not court documents. So it’s not some minuscule and trivial case. It’s taking months just to merely process a public record request. We’ll say more about that at a later point so as to not interfere with the process or to overburden anybody.
“Those explosive reports later turned out to be true (corroborated by other publishers and Gates offering an admission, only with some shallow and unbelievable excuses for what he had done).”Today we focus on the Foundation and the next part will look closely at how media covered this case. I myself mentioned this in January of 2015, citing the very few media reports on the matter. Those who dared report on it have also published several exclusive reports on Gates’ connections to Epstein (and Prince Andrew’s). Those explosive reports later turned out to be true (corroborated by other publishers and Gates offering an admission, only with some shallow and unbelievable excuses for what he had done).
Quite a lot happened that year. See for example “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation CEO Sue Desmond-Hellmann to Step Down, Longtime Foundation Executive Mark Suzman Appointed to Role” (press release). That’s from earlier this month. “Interestingly enough with the Foundation,” as one member noted to us, “he was not CEO of that in May 1, 2014 or a while before that.”
2014 was the year of the trial. Yes, that was months after the criminal case had been opened and about six months prior to media disclosing the case’s very existence! As our member then added: “Since 2000 Bill Gates has mostly kept himself out of the CEO positions. But from September 10 2013 to May 1 2014 he was. So something is off there.”
“2014 was the year of the trial. Yes, that was months after the criminal case had been opened and about six months prior to media disclosing the case’s very existence!”That’s the period of time of the pedophilia case. As the member continued, having spent time researching the matter, “the current Foundation changeover of CEO is how you expect it to read, i.e. one CEO steps down and another appointed. That 2013 has no straight up appoint[ment means] it falls back to the Board.”
Something happened around that time; “basically,” as our member concluded, “it’s fishy and I would love to find a Jeff Raikes tell-all book about it.”
Here is the 2013 press release: “Jeff Raikes to Retire as CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Jeff Raikes retiring at the age of 55? That seems rather early…
Did he even retire? Based on Wikipedia, he and his wife are still active (as recently as a couple of years ago). So one might joke that it’s more like he evacuated/’recused’ himself from Foundation duties.
“I am not really finding more,” said our member, but he added that the “problem is that it only looks fishy, but fishy for what reason? Problem is, there could be many harmless reasons.”
“Jeff Raikes retiring at the age of 55? That seems rather early…”We’re not suggesting that the criminal case necessarily has something to do with the above; but it’s hard to ignore two CEO changes in about one year. And it’s that very particular year. Maybe a lawsuit would force the Foundation to divulge more information. As our member put it, “the fact Bill Gates is mostly not a CEO means that labour laws don’t apply to him like they did to RMS with FSF. It also makes you wonder if we should look at more detail at 1999. If there is anything there, why would Bill Gates have been forced out of CEO of Microsoft?”
When Gates stepped down from key duties at Microsoft Richard Stallman published this article at the BBC (which Bill Gates later bribed repeatedly, as we covered several times in the past). Here’s a key quote from it:
!['[Bill] Gates may be gone, but the walls and bars of proprietary software he helped create remain, for now. Dismantling them is up to us.'~Richard Stallman](http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/rms-on-billg.jpg)
We are still investigating some of these things, but that goes almost 2 decades back (if not more). “I don’t have time at the moment,” our member noted, “but I will at some point. Digging into history online from 1999 can be very hard… the 2000s are most likely harmless.”
Citing this article from 20 years and one month ago (CNN’s “MSFT ruled a monopoly”), our member said, “I would guess it linked to anti-trust that Gates was in charge of; when wrong things were done [...] so [he] stepped down in 2000 … so that [it] would be harder to come back.”
That November 5th (1999) article is one of not so many that survived so-called ‘Internet rot’ or ‘link rot’. “I will at some point dig around deeper in the 1999 records,” our member said, “but looking at the timeline I don’t think I will find anything linking to [the above case]. I will dig around 2013 a little more, but I don’t think I will find anything other than the question that not answered.”
“That November 5th (1999) article is one of not so many that survived ‘Internet rot’.”“This is September 10, 2013,” he said of the above. “It really seems odd with a CEO contract coming to end that another CEO was not ready… or current one had stating they were staying on.”
Just to clarify, in a crucial (or sensitive as per the timeline) one-year period the Foundation had (apparently, based on its public records) three different CEOs: Jeff Raikes (he came from Microsoft), Desmond-Hellmann and Mark Suzman. After 5 years Mark Suzman left (not even exactly 5 years), coinciding with a lot of negative press about Gates and Epstein. And there’s yet more we’ll come to in future parts.
When I first mentioned this in 2015 some people whom I don’t know (never spoke to him) tried to ridicule me. I instantaneously directed them to press reports on the matter — however few there were — to avert ad hominem attacks (trying to personify these reports, then focusing on the messenger instead). At the time I didn’t believe that it implicated Gates in any way (not directly anyway) because less was known about him and it was presented in a particular way. It was only in more recent months that I began to think Gates was well aware he can go down in history as another Michael Jackson (allegations of child abuse), except Jackson suffered most of the bad press posthumously. Both had mansions and those mansions are closely guarded and manned by loyal staff. So getting out the word — without personal risk — isn’t always easy (whistleblowers can be publicly mocked/discredited by other insiders who are more loyal to the mansion’s holder). Money helps.
“We invite further sources to contact us with additional information; it certainly seems like quite a few people are aware of things they’re frightened to speak about.”Our investigation of this is no longer a one-man or a one-site effort. There’s interdisciplinary and cross-site interest, us being the more technical folks (being familiar with technical aspects or legal aspects of Gates’ past and his father’s — a very powerful individual who mustn’t be considered in isolation, more so considering the massive firm he controls and the roots of Microsoft as a company). There’s legal mischief, lobbying, and potential clout in the court system. Don’t forget that Gates was once arrested by the police (for an actual crime) and then released by his parents using their great wealth. Connections too have helped. Gates’ huge ‘investment’ (bribes) in the media have also helped and we haven’t lost sight of that.
The next part will deal with how media covered it, removed material, then restored material (after complaints had been made). Something just isn’t right and we’ve thankfully accumulated and linked sufficient evidence. We invite further sources to contact us with additional information; it certainly seems like quite a few people are aware of things they’re frightened to speak about. Apart from risk of reprisal, some people don’t think they’d be believed (like Donald Trump accusers), especially when contradicted by a so-called ‘charity’ run by a supposed ‘Saint’. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Maximalists (patent, copyright, trademark etc.) and litigation zealots have taken over IP Kat, which has sadly become merely an amplifier of EPO lies (deliberate falsehoods) and propaganda

The ‘old’ IP Kat (several more key people have left since)
Summary: The tone of IP Kat has changed to the point where it’s very much part of Team Campinos/Battistelli — i.e. the very opposite of what it was prior to key departures and sanctions from the European Patent Office (EPO)
THE EPO is not an ordinary institution. I probably ought to know this, having covered it very closely since 2014 (I had covered it before that, albeit not as closely and without inside informants). Today’s EPO is bribing and threatening publishers (they tried this on us several times). Sheer corruption, sheer abuse, but these people enjoy immunity…
I’ve often read about practices such as these in Russia or sometimes China as well. Is Europe prone to tolerating the same? The corrupt people who have seized control of the Office are effectively killing every form of journalism (about patents) that dares criticise or even speak about EPO abuses. I spoke to some reporters and they told me stories. Giving the full details would likely reveal identities of publishers and therefore writers too.
“I’ve often read about practices such as these in Russia or sometimes China as well. Is Europe prone to tolerating the same?”The EPO may in fact be Europe’s most corrupt institution. This very much matters because it’s also Europe’s second-largest one. Why don’t more publications speak about it? Well, being Europe’s second-largest institution means a lot of power, connections and even budget (‘slush funds’). Therein lies a very big problem. Publications that used to speak of EPO issues refrain from saying anything at all. It’s not necessarily the case that they all paint a rosy picture; but when there’s a scandal they pretend not to see, they perpetuate the idea that it does not exist. I’ve witnessed similar things when Wikileaks published some bombshell reports/leaks, whereupon there were even (as recently as this month) reports about reporters who resign, having been denied — by the publisher — the permission to cover the story. 4 years ago I saw that at the BBC. They try to keep as ‘marginal’ as possible particular stories/developments, suppressing ‘inconvenient’ facts to guard an incomplete and misleading narrative. JUVE totally embraced that. Yes, JUVE… which used to provide splendid coverage back in the days.
Several years ago people reported to us that IP Kat had begun actively deleting comments — even entire threads — critical of EPO management. Moderators changed. They sought to police the tone, narrative, discussion etc. It was rather astounding given the low standards applied; totally polite comments were deleted as well (we made copies — where possible — before these deletions). Since then IP Kat has been pushing UPC lies every month or so. With AstraZeneca and Bristows in key positions it’s hardly surprising (consider their corporate agenda), which means that IP Kat has become ‘litigation industry’ blog. Also remember Stephen Jones; previously in charge, not just at CIPA, an integral part of Team UPC, he did photo ops with Battistelli. It was as if he chose to make photographic evidence of a complete coup.
“Several years ago people reported to us that IP Kat had begun actively deleting comments — even entire threads — critical of EPO management.”We could go on and on talking about the pro-software patents bias of IP Kat; it hardly deals with 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and a lot of the time it uses misleading propaganda terms that are technically and legally unsound. So what is this blog even useful for? When it comes to patents, it’s not scholarly at all (the scholars have mostly left), it’s a litigation lobby. Ask around the EPO (examiners); they might say the same. The difference is felt. Speak to former ‘Kats’ (if they dare speak out); they too might say the same.
This morning I saw this latest tidbit, preceded by the following introductory paragraph: “It has been a busy year for the Enlarged Board of Appeal. 2019 has seen four referrals from the Boards of Appeal and one decision. The more controversial of this year’s referrals (namely Pepper and Computer simulated inventions) have attracted a large number of third party comments. Other referrals (i.e. “Double-patenting”) seem to have dropped off the radar of even the EBA. Readers may therefore be forgiven for losing track.”
This is far from a balanced overview; we’ll get to that in a moment. Rose Hughes with her typically dismissive remarks about software patents critics (we covered her stance on software patents in Europe in the past; she’s no coder) isn’t quite surprising to us. We’ve become accustomed to it by now. Her outline does not mention at all those who oppose software patents, instead giving the impression that software companies are in favour (citing monopolies and law firms); they try to ‘vanish’ actual coders, letting legal departments of multinationals claim to speak ‘for’ them. She also mentions Campinos with his violation of the European Patent Convention (EPC) — the principle of separation of powers — but seems to see nothing wrong with that!
“Remember that Merpel is not an actual person but a pseudonym for several (they told me so themselves).”For those who wish to hear from critics of software patents (people who actually do software) there’s this talk tomorrow by Benjamin Henrion at CCC/36C3 in Hamburg (Germany). They’ve “Moved the Unitary Software Patents discussion to Sunday at 6PM”, he noted. It was supposed to be today. “Unitary Software Patents discussion moved to 6PM on Sunday,” he added later. We know that some of our readers will be there (but won’t name them).
Going back to IP Kat, notice what Hughes added in: “[Merpel: Whilst relocation of the Boards of Appeal was undoubtedly an unpopular move, was it really necessary to expend EBA time on such a question?]“
Remember that Merpel is not an actual person but a pseudonym for several (they told me so themselves). It wasn’t an “unpopular” move but an illegal one. But now they’re changing history and retroactively justifying the abuse. Here’s the full text about software patents and Haar:
Computer simulated inventions (G 1/19)
The patentability of software (which takes the form of computer “simulated” or “implemented” inventions under the EPO’s problem and solution approach) is a controversial topic. In the first of a couple of referrals in February, a Board of Appeal (3.5.07) sought clarity from the EBA on the patentability of computer-implemented simulations (T 0489/14): The patentability of computer simulated methods – another referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The referral was followed by comments from the EPO president: Comments from the EPO President on the patentability of computer-implemented simulations (G 1/19). The President appears broadly in favour of the patentability of computer-simulated inventions. The referral particularly relates to claims having both a technical and non-technical character. The referral asks whether the non-technical features of such an invention and/or the technical purpose of the invention can be considered in the assessment of inventive step.
G 1/19 has received a large number of amicus curiae from third parties. A number of the amicus curiae are from large software companies, who are unsurprisingly in favour of the patentability of this kind of software invention (e.g. Siemens, Philips and IBM). CIPA and EPI have also all given their view, which are in favour of including the technical purpose of a claim in the assessment of inventive step.
Clarity in appeal and is Munich in Haar? (G 2/19)
The second referral in February related to appeals procedure. The referral sought an answer to whether a clarity objection can be discussed in appeal oral proceedings. Clarity can not be raised in opposition (accept in response to a Patentee’s post-grant amendment). A clarity objection may be raised in examination by a third party (Article 115 EPC). In the case in question (T 831/17), in order to pursue a clarity objection after grant, a third party filed an appeal against the decision to grant the patent (EP2378735). The appeal was rejected as inadmissible. However, the Board of Appeal referred the question to the EBA of whether the appellant still has the right to oral proceedings even when an appeal is deemed inadmissible.
In response to the referral, the EBA decided that following an inadmissible appeal, a third party is not entitled to oral proceedings in order to discuss the third party’s clarity objections. The EBA therefore closed the door on the possibility that clarity may be discussed as a ground of opposition in appeal proceedings: Enlarged Board of Appeal releases full reasoning in G2/19. The opposition period for the granted patent has now expired.
The final question in the referral raised a collective sigh from many in the patent community. The question related to whether Haar could really be said to be situated in Munich: Where is Haar and how did it get there? Observations on Geography while Waiting for G2/19. In particular, did the location of oral proceedings in Haar contravene a party’s right to be heard? Rather unsurprisingly, the EBA decided that Haar was in Munich. [Merpel: Whilst relocation of the Boards of Appeal was undoubtedly an unpopular move, was it really necessary to expend EBA time on such a question?]
Wow, what a truly terrible remark, attributed to “Merpel”. In past years Merpel held exactly the opposite position, but the whisperer handle which is “Merpel” is now used to justify what happened to G 2/19. Sorry, “Merpel”, but now you’re contradicting yourself, you’re not even consistent!
Now that the blog’s founder has left — and later those whom he left in charge (entrusted so to speak) — who’s even in charge? We have a rough idea as it’s at the top of all pages in the blog (names but not employers). They try to give the impression that the blog is run by a vast and diverse team.
“Now that the blog’s founder has left — and later those whom he left in charge (entrusted so to speak) — who’s even in charge? We have a rough idea as it’s at the top of all pages in the blog (names but not employers).”Read again that last paragraph (above); to them, it’s almost as if it’s a waste of time to check whether the law is being broken (which isn’t hard to see, but they make it a political question and thwart it altogether). Remember that this decision was released not in English (intentional). As we explained and showed at the time, they googlebombed in every way possible to distract from what was happening. Read the first (and as of now only) comment: “Regarding G4/19, the written decision was handed down on December 20, 10 months after the hearing.”
By that stage will anyone care/notice/bother?
Days ago we also saw Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. wrongly assuming that the EPO respects the EPC (it does not, it's a rubber-stamping machine) when writing about bioinformatics patent claims. To quote:
This article discusses challenges in prosecuting bioinformatics patent applications before the European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO determines the subject-matter eligibility of bioinformatics patent applications under Articles 52 and 56 of the European Patent Convention. Article 52 governs what is considered patent eligible subject matter.[1] Article 56 governs whether a bioinformatics patent claim involves an inventive step.[2] While Article 56 is not directly related to eligible subject matter determinations, the EPO uses this Article to screen bioinformatics patent application for eligible subject matter issues. Four points of concern and consideration related to the subject-matter eligibility of bioinformatics patent applications in Europe are discussed below.
First, under Article 52, the EPO may incorrectly reject a bioinformatics patent claim as being directed to (1) discoveries, scientific theories, and mathematical methods, or (2) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers.[3] One way patent applicants can argue that a bioinformatics patent claim is not directed to either category is to explicitly recite a computer or physical step (e.g., tying bioinformatics method claim to specific technical equipment) to support technical character in the claim.
Second, under Article 56, the EPO may overlook a technical purpose of a bioinformatics patent claim. In response, patent applicants can argue that the technical purpose is the biological rationale for performing the bioinformatics analysis. For example, the biological rationale can be related to diagnosing a disease or assessing a particular physical property. Patent applicants should be cognizant that issues may arise when arguing that the features fundamental to solving the biological problem (e.g., aligning gene sequences) are the biological rationale. This is because such features may not be considered by the EPO to sufficiently provide the requisite biological rationale.
Articles 52 and 56 of the European Patent Convention won’t matter to today’s EPO management; because it routinely violates many other articles and it gloats about that mass violation having no consequences!
Last but not least, Kluwer Patent Blog is the latest of several to speak of “inventive step” (the EPO’s bizarre terminology, which includes “technical problem”) in the context of “hope” — as pertaining to T/83. Arianna Bartolini, Charlotte Richards-Taylor and Thorsten Bausch (published by the last of the bunch) say this:
As was rightly noted on this blog, the skilled person’s “hope” of solving the objective technical problem using the means that led to the (later claimed) invention, has disappeared from the Guidelines for Examination. What we are left with is the (perhaps) more objective “expectation of some improvement or advantage (see T/83)”. Interestingly, this expectation of “some improvement or advantage” no longer appears to be so closely linked to the objective technical problem than the language previously used in the Guidelines. Whether this will in the future give rise to more problems for applicants or patentees remains to be seen. In any case, it may be a good point in time to remind ourselves that even recognizing a problem and its roots can (at least sometimes) be an invention of itself.
[...]
Conclusion
Decision T 2321/15 thus came to the interesting conclusion that the discovery of a yet unrecognized problem may give rise to patentable subject-matter in spite of the fact that the claimed solution may be, once the root of a problem has been identified, retrospectively trivial and in itself obvious. As such, T 2321/15 is not the first decision of its kind, but rather follows a long tradition starting with T 2/83 itself, which was confirmed in T 764/12. It may thus be prudent for parties applying the problem-solution-approach to include the recognizability of the objective problem and its cause into their considerations.
Nothing is said about the lack of independence of the Board; this has, apparently, become the new ‘normal’; the EPO has managed to silence or ‘tame’ its critics and now everyone is supposed to accept that Haar is the permanent home of ‘justice’ — where judges are actively lobbied/pressured by Campinos himself to allow illegal patents.
“Articles 52 and 56 of the European Patent Convention won’t matter to today’s EPO management; because it routinely violates many other articles and it gloats about that mass violation having no consequences!”We certainly hope that more blogs will appear that the EPO won’t bribe or censor (or threaten). As it stands, however, even IPPro Magazine no longer covers EPO affairs (it did for a while and Barney did a decent job). Based on their site, they stopped publication about a month ago (prior to that they had significantly slowed down and only Becky Bellamy composed new articles, mostly PR and ‘puff pieces’ that resemble advertisements). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend