Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising The Courts United Kingdom Apple

UK Court of Appeal Reprimands Apple Over Mandated Samsung Statement 241

Posted by timothy
from the no-no-use-this-petard-instead dept.
Macthorpe writes "In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs, following a previous case where this was ruled by the UK courts. However, today the same court revealed that Apple's statement is not good enough. From the article: 'The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.' It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage — and that the statement is buried in marketing blurb, and also put next to references to a case Apple won."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Court of Appeal Reprimands Apple Over Mandated Samsung Statement

Comments Filter:
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:27AM (#41841827)

    In response the the recent reprimand from the esteemed, and in no way senile, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob--we at Apple would like to apologize for pointing out the superiority of our products over our lame-ass competitors on our website acknowledgement. In the future, we will attempt to better comply with the court's orders, not matter how stupid they may be. And tempting as it may be to point out how much Samsung products blow compared to ours, we will refrain from taking snarky potshots at our retarded South Korean friends in the future. Thank you, and thanks to all of the non-lameasses out there who appreciate that Apple products rule.

    • by TWX (665546) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:31AM (#41841879)
      (subject line with apologies to Donald Sutherland)

      Since the judge ruled on cool factor, the entire public comment can be based around how cool Apple's products are compared to its competitors, and how its competitors have not copied Apple's coolness, and how the court even ruled that Apple's devices are the coolest.

      Yes, I felt a little dirty writing that...
    • by Dupple (1016592) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:34AM (#41841931)

      It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage

      The judge said that a link from the home page would be all that's needed. It is only now that the statement has to appear on the home page.

      Paragraphs 85 and 86

      http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html [bailii.org] [bailii.org]

      • by EasyTarget (43516) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:38AM (#41841973) Journal

        The fact that they were originally allowed to just put a link; abused this and are now required to put the text on the homepage, is what is known as a 'punishment'.

        Fanbois unfamiliar with the concept should think of it as being 'unfriended' by the court.

        • by Dupple (1016592) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:44AM (#41842023)

          The fact that they were originally allowed to just put a link; abused this and are now required to put the text on the homepage, is what is known as a 'punishment'.

          Fanbois unfamiliar with the concept should think of it as being 'unfriended' by the court.

          I understand that, but the way the story is written, it makes it sound like Apple was wrong to only use a link, whereas they were actually implying. Just trying to clarify

          The rest of your comment you can leave to the fanboys.

          • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:14AM (#41842351)

            It depends a bit on context, doesn't it?

            Let's say the judge a judge orders me to place a link to their ruling in the page.

            Now I'm going to comply. I'm going to add the following:
            <-- <a href="ruling.html">link</a> -->

            You see? There's a link, and it's in the page. I complied.

            Oh, I'm not allowed to comment it out? Well okay.

            <div id="footerwaydown"><a href="ruling.html">link</a><img src="1px.gif"/></div>

            What do you mean I have to have a text link? Fine. Whatever.

            <div id="footerwaydown"><a style="font-size=1px; color:#fff" href="ruling.html">court ruling</a></div>

            What? I did everything you asked. I cannot possibly comply more with your demands. Oh you have new demands. It has to actually be visible? FINE.

            <div id="footerwaydown"><a href="aboutus.html">about us</a> | <a href="support.html">support</a> | <a href="tos.html">terms of service</a> | <a href="ruling.html">court ruling</a> | <a href="copyright.html">copyright</a> | <a href="privacy.html">privacy policy</a></div>

            WHAT!? It's visible. It's text. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT!? What do you mean it's still getting lost way down there in the footer along with all the other links nobody clicks? Ugh. Make up your mind, judge!

            Of course, we all know what the court wanted - not the letter of the ruling, but the spirit. Maybe something like:
            <h1 id="inyourfaceheadline">Welcome to QuasiSteve, Inc.</h1>
            <div id="rightbelowtheheadline" style="background-color:#fcc;">On November 1st, 2012, QuasiSteve, Inc. was ordered by the court to apologize to PseudoJohn, Ltd. for making false claims. Read our full apology:<br />
            <a href="apology.html">http://www.quasisteve.co.uk/apology.html</a></div>

            The judge would have done well to not leave this is the hands of Apple's legal and marketing teams, and instead sit down with somebody with half a clue about editing an HTML page, get to the result he believes to be fair, get back to Apple with that, and barring any valid complaints from their side, order them to make it just so.

            But you're right. They complied. They also probably knew very well that they were taking the piss.

      • by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:57AM (#41842137) Homepage

        Indeed, but a key critera of a notice is that it be noticeable. Tucking it away in teenyfont among the nobody-reads-us links at the bottom of the page is an unreasonable interpretation of the modified order: "uncluttered" is not the same as "obscured".

        Apple asked for and were gifted a reasonable compromise, and chose to take advantage of it. A sanction that simply restores the original order is appropriate.

        • by idontgno (624372) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:06AM (#41842241) Journal

          Good point. The way Apple complied earlier was prominently displaying the mandated notice"in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of The Leopard'.'"

          This seems like a fitting case study in "When Companies Get All Passive-Aggressive".

          • You forgot the burned-out light bulb
      • by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:13AM (#41842333) Journal

        No, the judge was explicitly clear about what he wanted. He wanted an honest answer.

        He didn't say "please mislead with the statement and violate the spirit of the law."

        see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360 [groklaw.net]

        Apple did not follow the letter of the law, and it's amazing they haven't fired the lawyers for informing them that they may be flouting the judge's decision. He did not just say a link from the home page .He said a link from the home page stating samsung did not copy apple.

        He did not say "please include commentary", or "please cite additional judgements which have been invalidateD".

        • People thought it was funny when I said the judges would be displeased about Apple publishing their endorsement of Apple's cooler, more superior products and abusing their powers of the court to order Apple to tell everyone just how cool their products are and how cool the judges are for liking Apple products.

          The judges didn't seem to think so.

      • by Macthorpe (960048) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:39AM (#41842687) Journal

        An analogy (sorry, not a car analogy).

        If you spoke to a misbehaving boy, and told him to write 100 lines saying "I will not call the other kids bad names", would you accept his response if he wrote his hundred lines followed by "BUT THOSE OTHER KIDS ARE STILL POOPYHEADS"? No, you would ask him to do more lines, or come up with a different punishment entirely.

        The behaviour of Apple in this instance is equivalent to a petulant child, and they are the only ones to blame if the court has to treat them as such.

    • by sjames (1099)

      And then they stomped off to their rooms in a huff and slammed the door like the psychopathic children they are.

    • I really hope Apple flips the finger to the UK judiciary again, It's entertaining to watch them get smacked. How many billions did Microsoft pay out for similar behavior? Hmm, and they still haven't learned apparently.

      If only the American judiciary exhibited this level of integrity.

  • And so we see (Score:5, Interesting)

    by samjam (256347) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:30AM (#41841847) Homepage Journal

    That the virtuous Apple only appears so when it can bend the law to cover itself.

    And when it can't it appears as dirty as those it condemns.

    Thus Apple's virtue is merely an accident of timing.

    And in this case the clock starts ticking only when the judges are content. So draw it out, Apple, draw it out, and show the world the difference between Apple and Samsung.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:30AM (#41841857)

    That might do the trick, plus the added benefit of putting at least one crook where he belongs after decades of *stealing* ideas from everyone else.

  • by telchine (719345) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:31AM (#41841875)

    ...when reading this, my brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience!

  • Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by multicoregeneral (2618207) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:31AM (#41841877) Homepage
    I can totally see Apple having to do this three or four times before they get it right.
  • First Acknowledgment!
  • Pissing off judges (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onyxruby (118189) <onyxruby&comcast,net> on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:36AM (#41841947)

    I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:

    Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site

    How on earth did the person who argued that get away with not being charged with perjury? To be perfectly frank, I'm absolutely amazed that they got away with a simple reprimand. I would imagine that if Apple pulls another stunt that they will face much more than a reprimand.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:43AM (#41842017)

      Let's see: Beyond implementation you need UI design, UX testing, regression testing, focus group testing and the CEO's niece to check it out. Then you have to schedule a managed downtime with rolling updates across your cloud. I'm surprised they could do it in fourteen days.

    • by Afty0r (263037)

      Perhaps they have a 14-day test and release cycle? And as such for any changes to the site to go through editorial and any content QA processes they might have, it might need 14 days (as a minimum) to go-live?

      A bit like ordering someone to change something in a magazine and reprint a new version of it. Sure they could typeset it immediately after leaving court and pay a million bucks to have the printers' staff come in at midnight to set some plates and do a print run - but is it reasonable for the court to

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        is it reasonable for the court to expect them to do that

        It didn't take them 14 days to put up the first draft

      • Except this isn't a printing press. It's just a webpage.

        Yes, things can go horribly wrong with webpages if you start doing horrible things to them (such as massaging it so that it looks just the way you want it... in WebKit and screw the rest.).

        But it's not exactly difficult to add the notice without anything breaking.
        Go here:
        http://www.apple.com/ [apple.com]
        Find <nav id="globalheader" ...

        Stick this below:
        <div style="width:974px; position:relative; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; box-shadow: 0 1px 2px rgba(

    • The judge in question (I think Jacobs) commented that was ridiculous and invited Tim Cook to take the stand and justify it. Apple really hasn't understood that in this country judges are just as bolshy and independent as are federal US judges, and have absolutely no love for US corporations. And if they don't understand technology, their kids will explain it to them.

      I'm delighted about this outcome because I thought that the Appeal Court would be very pissed off with Apple and my lawyer kid said no, busines

    • I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:

      Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site

      [h1][a href=http://www.apple.com/apology.html]Read our Court-Ordered Apology[/a][/h1]

      put the right parens on it and paste it at the top of your page's code - was that so hard, Apfel?

      How on earth did the person who argued that get away with not being charged with perjury?

      Because corporations and their spokespeople are beholden to the law in a different, less severe way than we mere mortals, perhaps?

    • I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:

      Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site

      How on earth did the person who argued that get away with not being charged with perjury? To be perfectly frank, I'm absolutely amazed that they got away with a simple reprimand. I would imagine that if Apple pulls another stunt that they will face much more than a reprimand.

      If you are talking about the technical aspects of altering the website, then you are right, 14 days is absurd. But put yourself in the position of Apple's lawyers. They have to take this order, study it, and write a new statement for the website. Their client will be very unhappy with this statement and ask for revisions. The lawyers will then have to explain to them why these revisions will get them in more trouble. They will go back and forth several times. Only when everyone has finally given in to the i

  • Uh.... no. (Score:5, Funny)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:41AM (#41841995) Journal

    In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs....

    Apparently, Apple was ordered to do no such thing.

    There were only ordered to acknowledge that the court had ruled it so... not to acknowledge that they were actually wrong about anything.

    And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser.

    • Re:Uh.... no. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:48AM (#41842061) Homepage

      And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser

      <sarcasm> Yes, that would be the main reason for Apple's relucatance</sarcasm>

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser.

      I see. So court orders can be blatantly ignored if following them would affect the way a marketing web site "balances visually".

      Should the judges be required to take a marketing course before issuing their ruling so as not to upset the "visual balance" of the company they are reprimanding?

      Maybe we need more marketing experts serving on judiciary panels. It's the only way to resolve such life-or-death issues.

      I mean really.

      • by mark-t (151149)
        Not as such.... but I can see it taking more than 48 hours to complete the page redesign that might be necessary to visually accommodate the notice without upsetting the aesthetic balance of their home page.
        • by PARENA (413947)

          If that's so, then perhaps they should've done it right the first time, when they had more time to do it. You know, instead of willingly mocking the court order.

        • by idontgno (624372)

          And I supposed the hypothetical* high-dollar white-collar (criminal CxO, for instance) should be able to appeal a prison sentence because prison uniforms are unfashionable and machine-made. And uniform. And doesn't have the right brand labels.

          *I say "hypothetical" because it seems pretty rare that a CxO actually ever goes to prison... but it does happen [wikipedia.org]

          • *I say "hypothetical" because it seems pretty rare that a CxO actually ever goes to prison... but it does happen [wikipedia.org]

            Needs to happen FAR more often, but this being United Corporate States Of America, you and I *know* it will happen approximately *never* ..
            I guess Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff were so completely egregious that it was decided to make them an "example" to show the peons (us) that
            CEO's/high-ups *do* go to jail.....

        • Re:Uh.... no. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rufty_tufty (888596) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:31AM (#41842573) Homepage

          In unrelated news, prisoners are suing the prison board because orange "isn't a flattering colour and really clashes with my tattoos"

    • Re:Uh.... no. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:49AM (#41842069)

      And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser.

      If sanctions didn't impact things that the sanctioned party cared about, they wouldn't be sanctions.

    • Re:Uh.... no. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zemran (3101) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:01AM (#41842191) Homepage Journal

      It is because they have fools like you on their team that they are still suffering from this. It is not an American court that will waste time with arguments like that, it is a European court who will know that Apple understood exactly what was meant and that any failure to comply is contempt. They failed to comply, this has prolonged the great advertising that Samsung is getting from this. If Apple continue to treat the court with contempt the penalties are likely to increase.

      • by mark-t (151149)

        I never suggested that Apple should be allowed to disobey the order entirely. My point behind the aesthetics of the site is that I can easily imaging it taking a lot longer than 48 hours to design a layout on their home page to accommodate the verbosity of what Apple is required to display, and that does not significantly detract from the aesthetic look that Apple may consider extremely important for their business.

        Indeed, I think it's not unlikely that given the requirement that they have this up with

        • by Rich0 (548339)

          They can protest all they want, but good luck with getting the 100k Euro/day fines lifted.

          They could just change their homepage to a pretty 3 sentence announcement of the verdict until they have time to add back in all their marketing stuff. It would take 15 minutes to create such a homepage on a suitable hosting provider and call the DNS provider to redirect things there. The court order doesn't require them to make the page usable from a business standpoint - if they can comply while doing so that is fi

          • They can protest all they want, but good luck with getting the 100k Euro/day fines lifted.

            Holy S**T.. a WHOLE whopping 100K Euro/day?? For Apple, that amount is chicken-feed.. The fine *should*
            be 100% of Apple's UK sales per day.. I suspect THAT would wake them up.. I love these tiny little fines that
            seem to be the standard everywhere nowadays when a corporation steps on its dick.. If you're gonna fine them
            make it HURT!! otherwise what good is it? Oh, WHO am I kidding? Any judge who levied such a fine would be
            sent to a "judicial retraining camp" run by his corporate "masters".....

        • A sentencing isn't supposed to be pretty. You're arguing that a jail sentence verdict for a fashion designer could be appealed on grounds of the orange fatigues being damaging to their aesthetic image which they consider extremely important for their business.

          I gave an example HTML chunk above. Yeah, it's ugly - it's also visible. But I'm sure Apple could polish it into their grey/glass/gloss look to make it prettier and still be perfectly clear and visible.

          If their aim, however, is to make it as invisib

    • Re:Uh.... no. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:03AM (#41842221) Homepage

      based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post

      What they're required to post (as distinct from what they chose to add) is this:

      On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

      Sorry for breaking your browsers, y'all!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:45AM (#41842035)

    who goes all "You're fined 1%of your net worth per hour until I find you did comply. BTW in 30 minutes I'll go on vacation."

  • Good-o (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ledow (319597) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:50AM (#41842071) Homepage

    Because I read the statement originally and thought it was unnecessarily pretentious and liable to land them in more trouble than if they'd just played ball.

    UK courts don't take lightly to humour or parody aimed at themselves. Undermining the same court that found you guilty in the factual legal statement you were ordered by that court to publish is literally just sticking two fingers up.

    And the statement itself? I read it when it first came out and couldn't make head nor tail of it (you can find it here: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ [apple.com]). Even just the comparison to the German court - that was unnecessarily snarky and there's a reason that corporate legal statements all sound the same and don't try to be humorous or clever.

    If they'd just done as ordered and stated the bit that other courts had disagreed, fair enough. But they word it in "smart-arse" and that was always liable to make more fuss. And now, for their efforts to minimise customer damage, they are now in the news again for failing to comply with the original court order.

    Well done, Apple. Keep it up. Because though you probably don't, I'd be quite interested to see just how far a UK court would go to drill you into the ground if you kept it up.

    • by jhains (788860)
      Given that Apple's entire marketing strategy is based on pretentiousness, I don't see why their court-ordered "apology" should be any different. The very idea that anyone is copying Apple's "designs" is ludicrous. With the vast amount of prior art available that predates both smartphones and tablets, it seems even Apple's legal strategy is pretentious.
    • Re:Good-o (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zemran (3101) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:07AM (#41842257) Homepage Journal

      They were ordered to make a statement that Samsung had not copied the iPad and on reading their statement, which ends with a summary that clearly says that Samsung had copied the iPad. That statement clearly does not comply with the order.

  • Dear Court (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sloppy (14984) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:09AM (#41842281) Homepage Journal

    The ad was written fine. You're just reading it wrong.

  • Duh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:10AM (#41842289) Journal

    All the non-fanboys called it out. Apple would pull a childish prank and the Judge would not find it remotely funny and give a tougher sentence.

    The only question is how long it takes Apple to grow up.

    All they achieved is to drag it out and now they got to display it on the front page. Go ahead, make another mess out of it. Judges LOVE to laugh. Because they always get to have the last one.

    The funny thing is that if they had just complied, nobody would have cared. Now they get another round of articles all over the world to point how petty Apple is and how afraid they are of Samsung products.

    • The only question is how long it takes Apple to grow up.

      A long time, I hope. That I'd love to see.

    • What do you think Samsung are telling the channel right now? Despite its profitability, Apple is scared. Better not get stuck with too much Apple stock....and that mini iPad is pretty lame for the money...how about a nice promotion on the Note 2?
  • ...if you want, but I found Apple's notice frikkin' hilarious! You know the old saying about asking a stupid question, well this was a stupid order. Apple sarcastically followed the letter of the order to show their contempt, something I'm sure a lot of us have done in one way or another at some point. It's refreshing to see a company with a sense of humour!

    I'm surprised the court has much of a leg to stand on in claiming parts of it were untrue. Most of it was direct quotes from the judges and the bit abou

    • Oh it was funny, but so's telling the judge he should suck your balls. With a megaphone.
    • by HiThere (15173)

      Ok. You're a fanboi.

      Either that, or you have poor reading comprehension skills. But given Bayes theorum being a fanboi would be enough that your priors would make your position reasonable.

      N.B.: Given Bayes reasoning there is no such thing as objective reasoning. Everyone has priors, and when two sets of priors are sufficiently different it can be the case that no amount of objective information can cause them to agree on what is implied, this with perfect reasoning on both sides. This isn't that kind o

  • Let this be a lesson to those of you who would defend Apple against all reason. In the discussion about their non-apology apology, there were many who claimed that they had obeyed the letter of the law and that should be good enough. What this case has done, besides underscore the idiocy of modern patent law, is demonstrate the difference between law in the US and law in the UK, and the EU, and so on. Corporations regularly get away with anything up to and including murder without so much as a handslap here

  • Looks like Apple is falling out of favor with the courts.
  • Looking at the comments of the iMorons who say that Apple response should be to flip the court another bird.

    People like this need the protection of cameras for when they give the middle finger to a guy carrying a taser and a gun. While it's what they need, I can't help but feel they deserve a Darwin award.

  • A far greater number of people will hear about this story on the news than would ever have seen even a properly compliant notice on Apple's home page. The average joe will hear a soundbite and remember only "The court ruled Samsung did not copy Apple, and Apple had to apologize", which is actually much less positive for Apple than the truth, which probably wouldn't even have been known by the average joe anyway.

  • Justice served (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Patchw0rk F0g (663145) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @12:10PM (#41843097) Journal

    Look, let's face it: Apple bagged this one. Not only did they bury the link at the bottom of the page, but the "apology" wasn't even a football field close to what the judges mandated. I'm not an Apple fan, but neither am I a detractor; I use them if I need to (in studio) or not (at home). This bullshit, however, regarding their wording and their Samsung bashing, is at the least a middle-finger-up at the justices that deemed it useful and fair, and at the most a whole boot-up-the-ass to everyone involved, including the public at large.

    If they had thought to not monkey around with the decision, play fair by the ruling mandated at them, and kept the marketing dweebs out of the mix, none of this would have happened. They'd have a tiny little banner at the bottom of their page leading to a fair and impartial relation of the facts... a banner that, in almost all cases, no one would bother clicking on in the first place.

    Looks good on you, Apple, I've got to say. Nice way to screw up an almost meaningless ruling.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...