Alan Cox Files Patent For DRM

booooh writes "Alan Cox has filed a patent for DRM (Digital Rights Management). From the filing: 'A rights management system monitors and controls use of a computer program to prevent use that is not in compliance with acceptable terms.' According to the patent pledge of Cox's employer Red Hat, they will not license this technology if the patent is granted. And it can probably be applied to the DRM that is in Vista. This forum has a few more details.

Illegal iTunes?

I KNEW I should have kept using LimeWire instead of paying for songs on iTunes!

FrostWire

FrostWire [frostwire.com] - all the *ahem* benefits of using Limewire, but without the annoying "Upgrade to Limewire Pro" popups.

Re:FrostWire

Go fuck yourself, loser.

Is this honestly the best troll you could come up with ? What is wrong with you people - don't you even try anymore ?

Trolls aren't what they used to be. But then again, I guess being made into a twisted parody of nature enslaved to Morgoth by a second rate hobbyist fantasy author and be forced to remember your time as a relatively benign mythological being from Scandinavian folklore all your miserable existence would do that to you, I guess. And the movie trilogy, which makes mockery of both your original and Tolkien-corrupted nature, would certainly not help.

See ? That's a troll. It combines trivia, imflammatory opinions, and a condescending tone with at least some creativity. That's how it's done. "Go fuck yourself, loser"... Bah.

And moderators: The best comments are always, invariably, drawn out as responses to the worst trolls (sometimes the story itself). Slashdot needs quality trolls. A quality troll is one that hits where it hurts, and provokes people to answer in detail with eloquence and passion. It helps hone your own views to the razor's edge as only a worthy foe can. Without them, Slashdot would be nothing more than a bunch of people congratulating each other over their l33tn3s. "Go fuck yourself, loser" is not a good troll, it doesn't mentally challenge even the dimmest-witted steroid-using old boxer. So mod up good trolls, and mod down garbage like the post I answered to.

Slashdot needs (+1, Troll) besides (-1, Troll).

Re:FrostWire

When itunes came out, I started paying for my music and uninstalled all P2P clients.

How obedient of you, you deserve a treat.

*pats domesticated ape on the head*

Aww, isn't he cute?

Wow!

Either the patent system will be proven rotten, or DRM will be halted! It's a win-win!

Re:Wow!

I believe that the patent will be granted. The PTO doesn't see this patent as any different than the myriads of other stupid patents they routinely grant. But the only way it might not be granted is if the publicity alerts the bad guys (MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc...) that they need to spin up their lobbiests to affect the PTO. I wish this story had not been run.

Assuming the PTO behaves as it has in the past, this patent will be granted and it will be up to litigation to sort out prior art. It will be up to Alan and Red Hat to pick who they want to attack first. If they pick somebody big, there is a serious danger that they will retaliate against Red Hat. Think about what IBM did to SCO. Every single SCO product has a patent claim infringement case against it.

If Red Hat is smart, they'd work out a deal with a friendly party who is willing to spend the money and litigate against them first. IBM or Novell might be candidates. The idea here would be that the "defendent" would want the courts to reach a common outcome with the plaintiffs and both sides would cooperate insofar as they would force the court to pick between precedents that are favorable to both sides.

Re:Wow!

"Either the patent system will be proven rotten, or DRM will be halted! It's a win-win!"

Or the patent system will work and the patent won't be granted (prior art).
Or the patent system will work and the patent will be granted because it is narrow in scope (only covers a specific type of DRM) which won't hurt DRM in general because no one implements it in the patented way. (If they do, prior art kills the patent)

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

This may be true somewhere, but not in the United States. In the U.S., you infringe a patent if any claim of the patent describes what you are doing.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

No, actually, your product or process does have to show all the elements listed in the patent.

No, it does not. The product/process must contain all the elements of just one claim: not all the elements of all the claims. There is a huge difference between the two. If this were really the case, it would be impossible to violate the majority of patents as they contain dependent claims that are mutually exclusive (often the dependent claims describe various implementations of the same idea).

You don't have to take my word for it. Read this: [iusmentis.com]

Something infringes a patent if it has all the elements of a claim in the patent, or performs all the steps of a claim. It does not have to match all the claims, a single one will do. However, it is important that it matches all elements in that single claim. Most patent courts take this requirement quite strictly and will not easily ignore an element in a claim unless it is clearly irrelevant. One often-heard argument against ignoring an element is that patent writers are aware of the strict interpretation and so would not put in an element unless necessary. Therefore, an element that is present in the claim must have been deemed necessary and so may not be ignored.

One great example is that lawsuit against Nintendo http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/08/ [slashdot.org] 2138250 over the Wiimote, because it has a "trigger" button underneath. And coincidently, the Wiimote also has buttons on top just like the item that Nintendo is supposedly infringing on.

I didn't read this case, but citing slashdot on patent issues is like citing Soviet propaganda to find out about the US Constitution. It is just about the worst place to find reliable information on patents.

Re:*All* claims must be meet for patent violation

2) a lot of people have been working on DRM for a long time.

Yeah, but have any of them actually produced valid, workable DRM software? I get the impression that most of them are invalidated (i.e., "cracked") within days of release. Either that, or like the Sony "rootkit DRM", the DRM was a fiasco that was quickly withdrawn due to its side-effects on customers' equipment.

Cox and RedHat can be making the claim that all previous DRM has been poorly-functioning and/or vaporware, and they're the first ones to have actually implemented it. If so, those who support DRM should support their patent. (Whether software should actually be patentable is an independent issue.)

There's a lot of precedent for patents for inventions that others have attempted. I recently read an interesting history of the invention of the zipper. Many people tried to invent such a mechanism in the 1800s. Their attempts generally worked for a while, but were fragile and required frequent replacement. Finally, someone came up with the zipper that we all know, which both worked and was sturdy enough to last for years in normal clothing. They got a patent on it, despite the fact that many other (poor) zipper mechanisms had already been invented. Theirs was slightly different from all the others, and it actually worked well.

There are many stories like this in the history of technology, with many false starts before someone comes up with a good solution to a problem.

There is another potential problem with this patent, however. It's the way that the US Patent Office now accepts patents without a working model. So it's entirely possible that Cox and RedHat are also patenting vaporware that they can't build. Do we know much about this question?

Re:Wow!

You gotta love that. DRM as prior art. Isn't it beautiful?

Microsoft?

Microsoft? They're not huge DRM supporters by nature

Say what? I have just three words for you.

Windows Genuine Advantage.

Re:Wow!

Neither.

Read the patent application.

It is actually an interesting take on the licensing paradigm. Most licensing programs either start denying you access which leads to loss of data if this happens in the middle of an operation. Alternatively, they kill your program altogether which is again loss of data. Alternatively they check for licensing only when the program starts. In the days of software suspend and 200+ days of uptimes neither one of these is a good idea.

What redhat is patenting is a three pronged approach - OS suspend, component suspend or application suspend when a license violation is encountered. The first one is obvious, the second one and third one are non-obvious until one consideres RedHat aquisition of Jboss. These actually make a lot of sense in a Jboss application.

Overall, I am not surprised that RedHat has no intention of licensing this commercially. If they provide the relevant support, this will give a Jboss based commercial application considerable advantage over BEA and Websphere.

Hope this works

It might be something that reduces the threat of DRM completely making our computers useless.

Flamebait??

Flamebait? "The threat of DRM completely making our computers useless" is not a contraversial statement. Even if you really like DRM, you can probably think of some examples where it has been taken too far: think Sony rootkits, Starforce CDROM damage, and Jon Johansen and Dimitri Skylarov being arrested for hacking their own computers.

Read up on TCPA immediately. Consider how much of the design of Vista has been aimed at preventing access to high-quality copies of information protected by DRM. Should the film industry really have been allowed to design an operating system?

It's not likely to affect Vista

Microsoft has got its back protected: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6330670&id= tNcIAAAAEBAJ&dq=digital+rights+management [google.com]

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

That's a patent for a DRM-enable operating system.

Seems Alan is trying to patent a subpart of DRM which will render it useless if it cannot be used.

Re:It's not likely to affect Vista

The fact that Microsoft also has patents on DRM does not "protect" it in any way from this particular patent owned by Red Hat. A "defensive patent" only works to the extent that you can assert it to someone who is threatening you. So unless Red Hat starts incorporating DRM stuff in its products which infringes on Microsoft's patent, it has zero defensive value against Red Hat's patent.

That said, Microsoft has a whole lot of other patents as well, and some of those are bound to cover code distributed by Red Hat. I just wanted to correct the misconception that holding a patent on something automatically protects your use of that stuff: it doesn't in any way, all it does is give you the right to prevent others from doing that. But it's quite possible you need umpteen other patent licenses yourself to be able to actually do what you describe in your patent application.

This is good, but with caution

Had it been any other sort of technology, filing a patent for it and then refusing to license it, thus crippling adoption of that technology, would be considered a terrible thing on /. But in the case of DRM and RedHat, I think most would make an exception.

But I'm still not that excited. Most on /. thought Novell was a fine upstanding company until recently.

Re:This is good, but with caution

So what if Microsoft would buy Redhat in the future, can Redhat now make it so that this patent will never be used, no matter what?

Pointless waste of money and time

He might as well try and patent the airplane. If he really wants to prevent further spread of DRM, he should use his energy educating people about it's true costs. The only people who are going to read about this already know about DRM.

Not really

You see, he's not trying to patent DRM as a concept, he's trying to patent the technology of DRM system state saving. While this patent may have little value itself, it might be a show-stopper for Apple, Microsoft and the like. IANAL, but I suppose that Red Hat lawyers have studied the piles of MS et al DRM patents and Vista license agreement, and have found a hole in it [i.e. something that they use in the license or in their technology but haven't patented]. And now that Vista is getting ready for launch, Microsoft gets this blow. Let's keep our fingers crossed and see what follows.

Clearly not the Intent

The Red Hat statement on patents is such that they won't enforce it unless there's reason to retaliate.

Far from trolling, this is protection from trolling.

I would like to ...

welcome our intellectual property owning masters, but I'm not sure if there is a patent on greetings or not?

Making DRM-aware applications even more annoying?

From this patent application [freshpatents.com]

The present invention provides a technique for preventing the unauthorized use of a computer application, operating system, or other program without causing the loss of any information or data.

And a bit further down:

When unauthorized use of the computer program is detected, any information and data is saved and the computer program and/or a portion of the computer system is disabled.

As patent law, legalese and such is not my area of expertise, I'm out on a limb here, but doesn't this sound like a patent for saving the state of an DRM-aware application before exiting if a DRM-breaking state occurs, thus making legal DRM-aware applications even more annoying to use?

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

It's quite clever, actually. Any DRM-aware application that doesn't save state before shutting down will be vilified as being broken the first time anyone loses important data because of a false positive, and any DRM-aware application that does is in violation of this patent. This makes any DRM-aware application either a) broken, or b) illegal. Very neat. Simple, but neat.

Re:Making DRM-aware applications even more annoyin

Not if you unconditionally save state before checking DRM, so that it's already saved should it need to suspend.

Shot in the back

Wow, that would be a good shot in the back! I can't imagine how there's no prior art, but it'd be really sweet to have DRM patented by someone in the OS community.

(Can anyone find who the patent is actually registered to? Is it Alan Cox, or Red Hat, or is "Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr, LLP patents" the name it will actually be registered under?)

The Irony

Its like the one ring being destroyed in Mt. Doom

press

Wont all this attention alert the patent office to the real reason they are seeking a patent?

note to myself

patent outsource of torture

How is this supposed to work?

Surely if this "can be applied to the DRM that is in Vista", then there is prior art, and the patent is invalid?

Re:How is this supposed to work?

How, exactly, has prior art been stopping patents from being granted?

Re:How is this supposed to work?

'' It hasn't. However, the moment he tries to use it on one of the large companies, they'll haul the matter in to court, most likely bankrupting Mr. Cox in the process. ''

There are two possibilities how this could go to court:

1. Mr. Cox finds out that for example Microsoft does actually infringe on his patent, and he tries to do an Eolas on them. You can be sure that he would find lawyers who will happily support him for 60 percent of the proceeds on a no win, no fee basis. Mr. Cox would go down in public opinion quite a lot, but he might not care with $100mil in his pocket.

2. Microsoft starts attacking Linux with patent claims, and Mr. Cox's patent is used as part of the "assured mutual destruction" policy that patents are used for. It won't be Mr. Cox paying for the court case.

probably not...

This probably won't be granted, due to the gobs of prior art around

That's stupid (in the sense of *really stupid*)

Two possible outcomes: The patent is granted or it's not. If the patent is not granted, which is very likely because there is a ton of prior art, then this just paints the Open Source crowd as leeches who need to latch on to someone else's inventions to get anything done. It's not like many people don't think that anyway. If the patent is granted then this obviously shows that the patent system is flawed, but rest assured that the issue will then be solved before courts in no time, which "proves" that there are checks and balances, so everything can continue as usual. Either way it will be proven that the patent system actually works, because a patent troll has been defeated, and on top of that it will be shown that the people who most adamantly argue against patents a) don't refrain from trying to use the system to their advantage (double standard) and b) file patents for other people's inventions, which we all know is STEALING (or intellectual theft or somesuch).

Re:That's stupid (in the sense of *really stupid*)

If the patent is not granted, which is very likely because there is a ton of prior art,

Are you sure? This does not seem to be a patent for all DRM, but for a system that saves the state of the application when detecting a condition that violates the rules.

It's not like many people don't think that anyway.

What do you mean?

Either way it will be proven that the patent system actually works, because a patent troll has been defeated,

Red Hat is no patent troll. A patent troll is a company whose only business is patenting and suing for infringement. And that isn't a description of Red Hat by a long stretch.

on top of that it will be shown that the people who most adamantly argue against patents a) don't refrain from trying to use the system to their advantage (double standard)

So everyone that don't like the current implementation of the patent system should refrain from patenting things at all? Let's face it, patents exist and don't seem to be going away. As a corporation, refraining from patenting anything would be an invitation to competitors to sue, as you would have almost no defensive capability. Avoiding infringement altogether is about as easy as walking through a minefield, so in case you are sued, you need some defensive measures to fight off the attacker.

file patents for other people's inventions, which we all know is STEALING (or intellectual theft or somesuch).

A lot of patents cover the same or almost the same thing. It's a feature of the current implementation of patents, and whose patent is valid is left for the courts to decide.

One could suspect that the system is set up only to enrich lawyers, as lawyers in the patent office earn money proportional to the number of granted patent applications. Then their patent lawyer friends earn money when corporations battle it out in court. A different implementation might require the patent office to not issue patents that cover each other, but then the lawyers would not be able to enrich themselves as much.

Milk

For the record, I laughed so hard when I read the headline that most of the milk came out of my nose (I was eating breakfast).

Go go OSS humor!

Lets publicize it!

Good idea, lets publicize a patent that might have been able to slip past Apple, Microsoft, etc...

Except that, by bringing it to the public limelight, you've just guaranteed that the aforementioned companies will attempt to get the patent thrown out due to section 102 a or b of Title 35 of the US Code (Patents).

Time Travel Patents

Seems like the following patent application may be more suitable for stopping DRM

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Time_Travel_Patents [uncyclopedia.org]

Jolyon

Reminds me of a thought

Why can't open source companies just go around patenting everything, then locking up the Evil(tm) ideas forever and releasing the Good(tm) ideas for free use by anyone?

Go ahead, license it!

But with totally obnoxious terms. Red Hat could enact some kind of fee whenever DRM-protected content is played, essentially turning the whole DRM world into pay-per-view. And then there would be the price increases, linked to the average price of cable TV. I even have a name for it: Digital Rights Restriction -- Genuine Annoyance Edition. It that's too long to fit in a banner ad, they could just call it "Revenue Assurance".

The key is not to make money, it is to drive home the high cost of DRM, making the downside totally obvious to all. Remember, no matter how ridiculous the terms might be, it really won't be any worse than the copyright industry will do all by themselves in a few years. But instead of using the salami-slice method, the all-at-once/in-your-face method forces everyone to confront the issue here and now.

I think the DRM patent is a really nifty strategy, and presented here on Martin Luther King day, no less!

RMS ......

Rights Management System or Richard M Stallman .... hmmm

Whatever

A patent is only useful if you have the money to defend the patent in court. Same with a trademark or copyright. Without lots of cash a patent is an empty threat.

MS & SCO

Even if this is invalid, look how much of a fuss SCO and MS have created with BS IP claims. I'm sure if Mr. Cox has paid attention, he can make a few heads turn. Or at least provide us with some amusement.

Cute, but cannot work I think

I shall not comment on the likelihood of the patent being initially granted. Let's assume it is. Cox is then proposing to prevent anyone using DRM by refusing to license it to anyone on any terms. The trouble with that is such an action is grounds to cancel the patent. There are conditions in patent law designed to prevent anyone taking out patents with the objective of preventing the use of the embodied inventions. These were designed to prevent unfair competition, but will still apply.

Let us suppose this patent is granted

and Novell ends up with the power to block or license the technique of DRM to anybody it sees fit

Why exactly are we convinced that Novell will just bury the technique and shield us from DRM forever?

Novell is a publicly owned company and has a duty (legally) to earn money for their shareholders. I cannot see of a situation where they'd make more by sitting on it, than they would by licensing it - If I was a shareholder in a company that got this patent, I'd want them to make me money.

Whatever their intentions are going into this , unless they produce a cast-iron legally binding document promising otherwise, this just means that all DRM will have another kick-back to Novell on it.

Mr. Cox, you are brilliant

The current attack vectors on cryptographic based "DRM" schemes are (1) accidental key leakage, (2) the key exchange system or (3) the fact that the data must be eventually decoded.

Note that (3) is what makes DRM systems very dumb. It also follows that the Operating System must get involved in order to so hide the data.

If the Operating System allows a debugger to run AT THE SAME TIME as the "DRM", its attackable. If the OS allows "unsigned" drivers to run, its attackable.

The OS (for example, Vista) will (eventually) not allow unsigned drivers. It must also "kick out" or "suspend" all non-DRM (unsigned) software when DRM content is played.

This behaviour falls into Mr. Coxs patent.

Now, if (Vista) doesn't implement the scheme, it remains vulnerable. So, the problem must be solved another way.

My suggestion then is to ALSO patent (or disallow) by widely publishing the idea that a hypervisor (VM supervisor) can be used for DRM control as well, and can also be used to suspend, terminate or otherwise control applications that could be used to attack DRM software.

Got that? It's now published.

If it wins wave bye bye to online media sales...

What no one gets is that DRM is a big compromise. Like all security its a balance between keeping things usable and keeping the media suppliers and the customers happy.

In a commercial world commercial companies have no requirement to sell anything to any one. So if you say I'll not buy it because it has X or does Y then that's your prerogative. It's the company's prerogative not to sell you something. It is the company's commercial decision to decide how many sales they are happy to lose that way.

So if this goes through. That doesn't suddenly mean that you'll be able to buy any media from any store and play it on any player. All that will happen is that some products will lose their DRM and others will be taken off of the market and online stores will close because the media companies wont be happy to allow their wares to be out there unprotected regardless.

So who will win from this? A bunch of evangelistic techie nerds who put their own principles over pragmatism. And who will lose? Basically you average Joe who's one of the many who's bought an iPod and one of the 2b downloads from iTunes say. And for us in between? I'll not lose out because DRM doesn't affect the CD rips I do and I never download pirated music anyway since most of the bands I listen to are small independent ones who sell CDs directly or through small record companies and who need every penny they can get...

Early Edition

Tomorrow's news today: Microsoft buys Red Hat with petty cash and now owns the entire world.

They've also filed an international application

PCT/US04/42423 was filed a year later claiming the benefit of this filing date of the US application. I have no idea what other "designated offices" have been elected; what other patent offices will accept software claims?

Also, according to a recent PTO Official Gazette The art unit to which this application is assigned has been giving first actions on applications filed about the time of this one, so perhaps an action will be forthcoming soon, although it depends mainly on the individual examiner's docket when the application must be acted on (oldest new application in docket must be acted on within two biweeks).

Good DRM eg Steam

There are a few examples of good DRM such as with Steam. This allows you to install on as many computers as you want and doesn't suffer the Music related problem of incompatibility of devices.

Who's the patent holder?

If it's RedHat, I'd rather he didn't patent this. I trust good ol Alan. I don't trust a corporate entity. Their interests change. If, say, five years from now IBM buys RH, we may very well see this patent enforced.

DRM times

I gotta say it isn't so much DRM I dislike. I've been hit with DRM issues in one of my latest projects. Got around it easy enough. Not all files have are easy to get around though- think tech demos from companies or somesuch. My problem with DRM is the authentication part. How do we know in 5 years if the server the machine needs to contact is around to "allow" me to use what I have purchased. That's my issue. Machines move like formats. In 5 years I'd still like to listen to my music and my movies without fear that the companies who placed the DRM on their files is still around, let alone running servers to let you use what you have.

Better copyright protection than DRM...

Something that I thought of while responding to another message...

DRM-protecting online music sales does absolutely nothing to prevent people distributing copyrighted music illegally online. The fact that both action stake place online is a red herring: the two areas are completely unrelated. Whether the "pirate" got the copy he's distributing online from iTMS online or Borders down the street is irrelevant.

If the labels really wanted to do something about people sharing files they'd have Apple remove the DRM from the iTunes version, and instead watermark each track with a hash of the credit card number or other identifying information of the person who purchased it. Then when they found a copy online they could simply give Apple the watermark and get the identity of the person who originally distributed it.

Of course, any savvy "pirate" would filter the file and remove the watermark - but any savvy pirate would be ripping the higher quality version from a CD in the first place. After a few high profile cases, people would be less likely to share a downloaded track than one they ripped from a CD. Pretty soon the labels would be experimenting with un-DRMed watermarked online-only distribution to protect their copyrights.

So, who's going to patent this one?

Question

  Wouldn't dvds and hd dvds (more so for hd) fall under DRM protected data? \

Microsoft hardware killing?!

What if this is a patent to stop Microsoft if they try to make the hardware companies include the ability to ruin the hardware on which a pirated system runs. If such hardware sees the light of day then anyone with a marketshare under 90% won't have any hardware to run their software on.

The whole point is to use the patent

You can't patent something to withold a third party from using your proprietary technology. The whole point of the patent system is to allow you a head start on competition. If you do not make the technology available yourself, a judge can force you to license it out to someone who will..

Double-edged sword??!

Patenting the Patent System

And it can probably be applied to the DRM that is in Vista.

Then that patent would be totally invalid, if patents were anything but a suffocating scam.

Prior art != invalidation

It's an obviously frequent /. misconception that disclosing prior art invalidates a patent/application. The fact is that a similar prior art search and disclosure is a necessary part of the patent search and application process. It proves that one has done one's homework. What needs to be shown is that the patent applied for differs from prior art in a *significant enough* way as to validate the request. Discovery and disclosure by another party of prior art not covered in the disclosure AND of a nature that shows that the request is not unique enough to merit a patent CAN and SHOULD invalidate the request, but this is not always the case.

The Inventor's Handbook (http://web.mit.edu/invent/h-main.html) describes this and many other relevant points in a manner far more readable than the patent laws.

How does this affect current DRM systems?

DRM systems existed long before the filing date - what was legal then can't be illegal now just because it was patented afterward; it would implicitly be prior art.

I don't trust Red Hat - what is to say that down the line Red Hat won't make their own DRM system?

Slashdot Lemmings

It's just a way to get RedHat (which is boring and lifeless these days) back in the press. Business is business, and any news is news.

Cox is just pumping up his net worth, no worse or better than any other company big wig.

See through the hype surrounding the initials "DRM" and think about the real world outcome of Alan Cox turning in such a patent... RedHat gets noticed again, Cox gets noticed again... etc. Merry-go-round.

Nothing new to see here, move along, or join the parade of Slashdot Lemmings to run and squeal and jump for hyped up joy, making themselves no better off, but making Cox and the gang quite a bit of real world monetary value.

Not that handing money to them isn't probably a good thing, compared to handing it to others... but people, really -- it's just a marketing ploy. No better/worse than the ones from Microsoft.

Re:What about the patents themselves?

You could patent patenting something that doesn't exist and acknowledge every other patent that exists.

Re: Prior (Art?)

Of course someone had surely thought of DRM before, and here he is.

The lovely part is using MS's own submarine tactics against them. If only Warren Buffett would sell short, then crank this patent suit and any cousins as far as they can go...

Oh gawd, if someone can actually land this and not "settle for $5000", EVERYONE has overcommited their 5-year business strategies to DRM. Come on, reel in all twelve of the eight-ton sharks polluting our media culture.

The captcha phrase is develops.

Re:One Phrase To Say It All..

Man, if there was a "-1 idiot".. .. sadly, there's a "-1 flamebait". :(