01.24.21

As Andrei Iancu Removes Himself From the Patent and Trademark Office All Eyes Are on Biden’s Next Nomination

Posted in America, Patents at 6:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Patent zealots and their front groups already lobby Joe Biden to put one of them in charge of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; we’ll soon see if Joe Biden “means business” or simply means monopoly/large corporations (and their law firms/departments)

ABOUT a week ago, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Andrei Iancu, resigned along with his deputy. He did not expect to keep his job under the Biden Administration, so he proactively removed himself. This is great news and a positive signal, which makes us hopeful that 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice (SCOTUS) will become “great again”, at the expense of corruption and nepotism like Donald Trump/Andrei Iancu. The above video explains the situation and shows how Patently-O covered the news while alluding to Watchtroll. Patent maximalists are very concerned that Iancu is now gone; this means that those of us who actually get work done are likely to be better off. That of course depends on who the Biden administration soon appoints/chooses to lead the USPTO, nominating and soon thereafter confirming based on corporate approval rates (they always choose those people for corporations, not inventors or society at large).

01.23.21

Chromium and Chrome Are Not Free Software But an Example of Microsoft-Fashioned Openwashing Tactics

Posted in Deception, DRM, Free/Libre Software, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 12:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: It’s time to reject Google’s Web monopoly (shared with other companies but still an oligopoly); removing its Web browser would be a good start

SOME people seem a little shocked that not only Chrome but also Chromium is a listening device (or “app”). Google didn’t create such a browser out of altruism or goodwill. It’s just an instrument of control — a piece of software that merely leverages Free software to develop something proprietary cheaply and quickly (while doing the minimum towards licence compliance), i.e. another Android or Chrome OS. Google has been trying to replace the underlying toolchain with something that’s not GPL (copyleft), but without success, at least not so far. The compiler, the kernel and so on are still Free-as-in-freedom software. The thing that sit on top is not. Mr. Torvalds and the Linux Foundation are fine with it. Serves them well enough (attracting many paying members that don’t necessarily contribute to software freedom in any way) because it fattens the budget irrespective of agenda/objective..

Bird on RopesThe above video deals with the patent trap that Chrome fast becomes whilst limiting people’s ability to remove antifeatures (there will be consequences or retaliation). As a prominent Slackware developer, who compiles (or packages) the Web browser himself, put it [1, 2]: “Google muzzles all Chromium browsers on 15 March 2021″ and “Chromium 88 removes Flash support,” (as mentioned in the media) albeit it leaves us all with EME/DRM instead.

It’s probably perfectly fair to say that Chrome (and Chromium) is about monopoly and monoculture, not freedom. The Web is becoming increasingly bloated, not for the sake of users but for the benefit of surveillance, which begets social control (class war). We really need to convince GNU/Linux users to gradually get away from Chrome and Chromium (the “lesser evil”).

01.21.21

Hey Hi (AI) is Just a Trojan Horse for Illegal Software Patents, According to EPO Management and Litigation Firms It’s in Bed With

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link (because video rebuttals are easier, faster, and nuanced)

Summary: The longtime pushers or the lobby of patent profiteers just carry on pushing for software patents, nowadays latching onto the inane and unwarranted media hype around Hey Hi (AI) — a hype wave that was co-opted by EPO management to grant unlawful patents

THE following mail was sent to a large number of people, urging them to “draft AI patent applications so that they fulfill what’s in the guidelines” of the EPO after Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos misused buzzwords to make software patents look like they’re somehow noble and so incredibly innovative that applications with Hey Hi (AI) in them should be accepted and then granted as patents. In the video I discuss the following message, which is disturbing for a number of reasons (he’s also pushing it all as a static video this week).

From: Bastian Best <mail@bastianbest.org>
Subject: Patenting AI in the EPO guidelines

Hi -

Did you know that the EPO’s patent examination guidelines have a dedicated section on AI and machine learning? But in my opinion they are too restrictive for a number of reasons. I’ll show you why in today’s podcast. At the end of the episode, I’m also sharing some of my best tips for how to draft AI patent applications so that they fulfill what’s in the guidelines.

WATCH ON YOUTUBE

You can also listen to this on your favorite podcast platform. Right now, it’s on Spotify and Pocket Casts, and other platforms will follow soon:

SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST

I’m excited for your feedback. Let me know what you think, and which topics you want to hear about in the future?
Talk to you soon,
Bastian

PATENTS FOR THE DIGITAL FUTURE
bastianbest.org • #TheBestPractice
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
Website
Copyright © 2021 Bastian Best, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up at bastianbest.org or because I know you personally and thought you might like it.

Mailing address:
Bastian Best
c/o BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Prinzregentenplatz 7
Munich 81675
Germany

The author of this is a longtime proponent of software patents, and not because he’s coding or anything. In fact, he ‘hijacked’ the handle “swpat” or “swpats” in Twitter, only to use that to promote this toxic agenda… even though that abbreviation (and hashtag) is typically used by critics and opponents of software patents. Gaining visibility by abducting the critics’ venues or avenues isn’t exactly an ethical trick.

bastian-best-ai

The Central Staff Representatives (CSC) of the EPO Are Petitioning to End the Assault on EPO Staff

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ice-covered sign

Summary: The EPO, just one month after the staff went on strike, is about to receive a compelling petition to stop the assault on EPO staff

The EPO’s staff union (SUEPO) and the Central Staff Representatives from the CSC are joining hands again to protect staff from the scams of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos. Of course the media is not mentioning any of this and so-called ‘news’ sites about patents are far too busy lying about the UPC (the EPO’s management issued a puff piece about Canada earlier this week, reaffirming commitment to litigation rather than innovation and presumption of innocence). In the meantime, however, we’d like to share the latest impending action at the EPO, which follows strikes and mass-mailing campaigns (end of last year).

“…they’re taking away money from existing staff and even old pensioners who are already stressed enough trying to avoid a lethal virus (lethal to their age group).”“Please do not forget to take part in the petition against the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure (SAP),” the Staff Representation wrote, stressing the importance of collectively opposing the SAP, which we shared a lot of documents about last year. The word “Adjustment” is a misuse of the term; in reality, they’re taking away money from existing staff and even old pensioners who are already stressed enough trying to avoid a lethal virus (lethal to their age group). Here’s some text from the call for participation in the petition — a call that was extended in the deadline sense:

Due to the current Coronavirus measures at the EPO, the partial lockdown (max 15% occupancy) in all sites till the end of January and the extra week of holidays allocated by the President from 4 to 8 January, the CSC has decided to extend the limit date to take part in the petition till the 31st of January.

For the second time in EPO history a new Salary Adjustment Procedure has been adopted without the consent of the Staff Representation and its implementation next year will have an unprecedented deleterious impact on the evolution of our salaries and pensions. Instead of an adjustment of about 3.8 % in July 2020 in Germany and The Netherlands (2.73% in Austria), EPO staff and pensioners will get 0.5% in January 2021 (0.36% in Austria). This does not even keep up with the living costs in our host countries (HICP Inflation: DE 0.80%, NL 1.70%, AT 1.10%) ! For more details about how the new SAP [...]

In order to massively show our discontent to the Administration, please join us in agreeing to the petition to the President and to the delegations in the Administrative Council against the implementation of the new SAP by sending an e-mail (content does not matter) before Sunday 31 January from your EPO-account [...]

The petition itself reads as follows and it’s dated one week before Christmas Day. We strongly encourage each and every member of staff to join this petition as the risk associated with doing so is little to none. There’s a lot that collective action can accomplish, even if the media looks the other way.

Munich, 18.12.2020
sc20190cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2

Petition against the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure

I note that

• for the second time in EPO history a new Salary Adjustment Procedure (SAP) has been adopted without the consent of the Staff Representation,

• the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure will have an unprecedented deleterious impact on my salary (and future pension), by not even keeping up with the living costs at my place of employment,

• I have a legitimate expectation that my remuneration (and future pension) keeps pace with the living costs at my place of residence, which were the conditions of employment in force when joined the EPO,

• I further have a legitimate expectation that my remuneration develops in parallel with that of civil servants in European countries, which were the conditions of employment in force when joined the EPO,

• the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure will impact staff far beyond the declarations of intent made by the President,

• the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure violates the principle of equality of purchasing power, which requires that the purchasing power of an entry in the salary table is the same irrespective of the country of employment or retirement.

I express

• my extreme disappointment and dissatisfaction regarding the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure by which the current Administration neglects its duty of care and will stop honouring my legitimate expectations that my remuneration keeps up with the living costs at my place of employment and that it respects the principles of parallelism and parity of purchasing power.

I urge the Delegations in the Administrative Council and the President

• to postpone the application of the capping mechanisms of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure,

• to maintain in the meantime the Salary Adjustment Procedure without capping,

• to reopen the discussions with the Staff Representation with a view to finding a workable agreement on an amended new Salary Adjustment Procedure which respects the principles of parallelism with salary evolution of national civil servants and equality of purchasing power in all places of employment taking into account in a commensurate manner the long-term sustainability of the EPO.

If the majority of the staff joins the petitioners (Staff Representation), and if the Delegations in the Administrative Council still ignore the petition, that will say a lot about the state of the EPO, where the Administrative Council has 0% (yes, zero, i.e. no degree of trust) among staff, based on last year’s survey.

01.19.21

Team UPC Keeps Pretending That UPCA Can Still be Resurrected (Even Without the UK, Which is Strictly a Requirement)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: The latest distortion of facts regarding the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement (UPCA) as seen from the lens of people who seek to profit from such distortion

IT IS flabbergasting, isn’t it? Team UPC refuses to move on. The lobbying, the lying, the distortion of reality, and malpractice (like giving their clients advice that they know to be bad).

The above video, based on [1-3] below, isn’t the most unique of things and we could probably do rebuttals to/about other nonsense such as [4-6] instead (though it would likely amplify FUD). Why is the media turning into such a propaganda machine? Because that’s just where the money is. There’s more to be gained (financially, not in terms of reputation) by lying to people than by informing them. In the EPO the best of liars literally get promoted; it’s like a job requirement. In the media people get berated by their bosses for exposing EPO abuses (I’ve heard stories to that effect). Why are liars being rewarded and why is the public tolerating that (by apathy)?

Items from the video (with commentary added):

  1. Bundestag’s response to the UPC constitutional complaints [Ed: The UPC lobby is becoming ever more desperate now]

    The Bundestag’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Consumer Protection has reported here the following from its meeting on the two constitutional complaints filed in the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht – BVerfG) against the draft legislation enabling Germany to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and its Protocol on Provisional Application:

  2. Intellectual property after Brexit [Ed: “The impact of Brexit on patents will be felt only in respect to the unitary European patent,” it says, but there’s no such thing. UPC is just dead. They propagate this spin.]

    The existing procedure for obtaining a European patent and then validating it in countries selected by the applicant will remain unchanged. This is because the grant of European patents is governed by the European Patent Convention, to which the UK is a party. Despite leaving the EU, the UK has not renounced this convention, and thus European patents validated in the UK will remain in force. Entities from the UK will still be able to apply for the grant of a European patent and seek validation of the patent in any country that has signed the convention. Similarly, entities from outside the UK will be able to follow the same procedure to seek validation of patents in British territory.

    The impact of Brexit on patents will be felt only in respect to the unitary European patent. The UK has announced that it will not take part in this system, which means that a unitary European patent will not exert effects in British territory. To obtain protection there, it will thus be necessary to validate the European patent in the UK or obtain national registration there.

    [...]

    Brexit will have an impact on most businesses in the EU and the UK. Owners of filed or registered EU trademarks and Community designs must soon decide on obtaining or maintaining their rights in the UK. In this respect, they should examine their portfolio, the scope of use, and plans for the future, so that they can base their decisions on business realities. Businesses should also—ideally with the help of counsel—analyse their strategy for intellectual property and commercial contracts, so that after 31 December 2020 they continue to effectively protect their exclusive rights in both the EU and the UK, and exercise their rights without risk.

  3. “A drawn-out UPC process would damage democracy” [Ed: JUVE quit being a news site and chose to be propaganda lobby for Team UPC. The horrendous logic of JUVE’s Mathieu Klos is, we need to rush courts to force-feed Europe something that is not legal (for fear that time will make more people aware of it).]

    Federal president Frank-Walter Steinmeier has once again halted the ratification process at the request of the Constitutional Court. This too is a normal process. It does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about how the court will assess the complaints.

    JUVE Patent is aware that the German government intends to quickly deposit the instrument of ratification for the protocol on the provisional applicability of the UPC with Brussels. This should set in motion the preparatory work for the UPC. The government plans to send the instrument for the actual agreement to Brussels once UPC preparations are complete.

    This is what the government has agreed with the other UPC member states. Four months after Germany takes this step, the court must actually open its doors.

    [...]

    The UPC must not ultimately fail due to a time problem. That would be constitutionally worrying.

  4. Linux malware authors use Ezuri Golang crypter for zero detection [Ed: This is wrongly blaming "Linux" and "golang" because people can use Linux and code malware/write code in Go. This is what Microsoft-connected sites keeps doing, because "Microsoft loves Linux..."]
  5. Dnsmasq vulnerabilities open networking devices, Linux distros to DNS cache poisoning

    Seven vulnerabilities affecting Dnsmasq, a caching DNS and DHCP server used in a variety of networking devices and Linux distributions, could be leveraged to mount DNS cache poisoning attack and/or to compromise vulnerable devices.

  6. New FreakOut botnet targets Linux systems running unpatched software [Ed: Almost all the server-side software runs on "Linux", some of it is secure if patched, but when sysadmins neglect to patch that software, let's just blame the platform]

01.18.21

Sites in Bed With the EPO and UPC ‘Covering’ the ‘News’ Without Mentioning Any of the Overt Abuses

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: It is rather sad that blogs like IP Kat have turned into proponents of abusive EPO management and Team UPC increasingly resorts to lying using pseudonyms (to avert criticism and accountability); much of the rebuttal or response that’s hinged on reality/facts can only be found in comments, which are still subjected to a face-saving moderation process (conducted by Team UPC)

Biden Trump: Stole his thunder; Wants to stop the 'steal'

EVERY now and then we stumble upon misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies about the EPO and UPC. It’s counterproductive and harmful to those who do it; lies provoke people and beget responses, which in turn disgrace lie tellers. Look no further than the very major blowback in the comments regarding Team UPC’s spin after the ratification efforts have again been tossed out (32 comments at the moment, almost all of which negative, except Team UPC showing up in the comments if or when it feels courageous enough to speak). It seems like Bristows LLP not only writes misleading blog posts (anonymously of course) but also comments on those posts. It’s like an army of shills and liars. They turn their entire firm into a laughing stock. Earlier today we saw other sections of Team UPC trotting out those same lies about UPC being merely “delayed” — an utter lie they certainly tell their clients in order to save face. What will happen when clients realise that money they paid those firms was deposited in a sewer of lies? Money down the drain, almost literally…

Invoked the constitution, spread rumours about him being 'funded by Russia'The above video also speaks about “ViCo”, which is not legal for reasons we explained here several times before. Not only have the Boards of Appeal lost their independence; stakeholders too don’t enjoy fair trials and due process. That’s of course perfectly fine in the eyes of Rose Hughes (AstraZeneca) whose latest article is a megaphone for those who agree with the employer. Due process? EPC? Not interested…

To quote:

The COVID-19 pandemic will change many aspects of life as we know it. One particularly prominent change has been the accelerated adoption of video-conferencing (VC) as a risk free way of ensuring business continuity. The European Patent Office (EPO) has not been left behind, with the ready adoption of oral proceedings by VC as the new norm. However, the European patent community is divided over whether this is a welcome and inevitable modernisation of EPO proceedings or a dangerous erosion of the right to be heard that should not outlast the pandemic.

Before COVID-19, all EPO Opposition Division and Boards of Appeal oral proceedings required in person attendance at the EPO by all the parties. The global pandemic, and the accompanying plethora of national lockdowns and travel bans across Europe, initially caused all in-person oral proceedings to be postponed. To keep the business of the EPO going, the EPO was forced to transition to oral proceedings by video-conference (VC). It now seems, with the introduction of a new rule of procedure of the Boards of Appeal, that oral proceedings by VC might well become the default from now on.

No, the EPO was not “forced to transition to oral proceedings by video-conference” as it was a choice to bypass the law and then make it permanent, even against the will of involved parties.

It is hardly surprising that — quite frankly as usual — the comments are dissenting (at least those that were permitted/authorised to appear).

Proof of the pudding wrote:

It is difficult to know what to make of the submissions from CIPA and the IP Owners Association. I know for a fact that members of both have expressed views directly contrary to the submissions made by the organisations (for example, Bardehle Pagenberg is currently listed as a member of the IP Owners Association).

It is also worth noting that the submission of Business Europe was strongly against the making VICOs the default mode, and that the submission of epi advocated (again) making face-to-face the default mode as soon as the pandemic is over.

The most remarkable thing about the consultation exercise, however, is that the EPO has not commented upon the CONTENT of the submissions that it received. Combined with the extremely short period (2 weeks) that stakeholders had to prepare and submit their comments, this is both extremely unusual and highly suspicious. Why bother asking for comments if you are not going to reveal which changes were made in the light of those comments, and why those changes were made?

SUEPO has not said anything since last year, but certainly it can relate to that comment, which mostly echoes the sentiments of EPO staff. Here’s another new comment:

As per the post ending hint, the debate is inevitably affected by (heavy) business considerations. As long as the ViCo was presented as an emergency – thus, intrinsically pro tempore – solution to hold OP so as not to freeze EPO business, that’s fine. But taking advantage of the situation to draconianly eternalize ViCo, all the more (probably? Need to see how the “appropriate” will be construed) as default option, leaves me uncomfortable. Forgetting for a second the diverging interests of UK and German firms, the key point to me is whether EPO stakeholders feel that moving from in person to ViCo OP may lead to an unfair treatment by the EPO or a risk for legal/technical misunderstanding of the party’s arguments. If this is the case, yes, the change is negative and should be strongly opposed. But if the argument is simply that the importance of the proceedings in writing would overwhelm the OP, then I see little room to complain. We are brutally invited to play a different game, with different rules. Personally, I would have adopted different solutions for ex parte and inter partes proceedings. Also, the fact that the UK firms are against a mixed solution makes me think that that being physically in front of the Board – assuming the Board is in the EPO premises, of course – is somehow perceived as being advantageous (or maybe only preferable to have your client accept a negative decision)

As I explained in this video, the most disheartening thing (to me at least) is how this blog, IP Kat, turned from critic of EPO management into its cheerleader. The likes of CIPA infiltrated the blog, adding to the likes of Bristows and AstraZeneca. No wonder the media is so worthless in this area/domain and most of the signal (facts, not noise and lobbying) has been relegated to comment sections.

01.14.21

Patent Propaganda and UPC Jingoism Instead of Actual News

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Today’s so-called ‘news’ about the EPO (Europe’s second-largest institution) and the failed UPC is nothing short of shameless propaganda

TODAY’s stock of articles about the EPO and the UPC has thus far been appalling, albeit more or less as usual.

Yesterday we mentioned the Kluwer spin (probably Bristows in disguise) and today we see Bristows doing so directly, along with another law firm that lobbies for patents on life (as does the media operative of Team UPC). Meanwhile, as of a few hours ago, the EPO wants us to think (warning: epo.org link) that more monopolies is a great accomplishment, even illegal monopolies that lack a legal basis. The EPO’s first press release of the year (2 weeks after the start of the year) isn’t even about the EPO. The video discusses some of these things.

01.13.21

Unitary Patent is Dead and Lies About the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Aren’t Ending

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Not “Russian agents” but concerned European citizens are beginning to see the truth behind the Unified Patent Court, which the ‘media’ has wrongly called “Unitary Patent Court” three times in 2 days

THE UPC spinners issued a misleading statement this afternoon/morning and it took yours truly about 5 hours to upload the above video.

As noted at the start, Team UPC loves painting UPC sceptics/critics/opponents as Russian agents (at least behind the scenes, behind their backs) — basically baseless, evidence-free smears against complainants who are totally and entirely authentic, concerned citizens who care about their country and continent, as well as for science and technology.

“…Team UPC loves painting UPC sceptics/critics/opponents as Russian agents…”The above video goes through the spin, for half of it is falsehoods (as explained in the video I made ‘on the spot’, having seen these lies, which are easier and faster to refute that way… verbally or orally). Among the falsehoods: “Unless the FCC throws out the complaints as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded in the short term, it means the ratification of the UPCA in Germany could be delayed severely once more. The first constitutional complaint against UPCA ratification in Germany was filed in March 2017. It took the FCC three years to decide on this complaint, and to partially uphold it, on formal grounds.

“It is not unthinkable that due to new delay in Germany, combined with the departure of the UK from the EU and the Unitary Patent project, which has led to legal uncertainty and has made the UP and UPC less attractive for the industry, the new patent system will never see the light of day.”

That’s actually untrue (many parts of that) and they abstain from expressing or explaining the full severity of the situation. This is not a “delay” but a death.

“This is not a “delay” but a death.”I’ve meanwhile (whilst uploading the video) noticed this new article. A law firm’s Web site said today that the UK “refused to participate in the associated Unitary [sic] Patent Court (UPC),” but it failed to say UPC is dead anyway. It uses a highly misleading term, “IP rights”, right there in the headline (this site, Out-Law.com, used to be disguised as a formal news site, even though it was owned by a sort of lobby and a private litigation firm). I explain in the video why this term is meaningless junk and pure propaganda eschewed by real journalists. The video also alludes to this article from yesterday. A person who “has served on the expert panel for the drafting of the rules of procedure for the Unitary [sic] (Unified) Patent Court,” it says. This is the UPC which was drafted by patent litigation moles… and is now basically dead. Hours ago I saw another similarly-worded article (second such article in two days, this latter one saying “Europe’s unitary patent courts,” which is also wrong; they mean “Unified Patent Court”; they don’t know what they’re talking about and they relay misinformation for litigation agenda). The text of the first says this: “The expiration of the Brexit transition period does not affect the current patent system, which is governed by the European Patent Convention, a non-EU related international treaty. However, prior to Brexit, the UK government formally withdrew from the proposed new European unitary patent system because it refused to participate in the associated Unitary Patent Court (UPC), on the basis that participating “in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU would be inconsistent with the government’s aims of becoming an independent self-governing nation”.”

“How far will this lobby go? Who are the casualties?”Notice that this is the third article in two days that says “Unitary Patent Court (UPC)” (which is the wrong name, no such thing exists).

What actually happened to good journalism about patents in Europe? Have Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos blackmailed and bribed anyone who dared ask questions about the EPO and UPC? How far will this lobby go? Who are the casualties? Except truth itself…

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts