Quoting: mrdeathjrWell if rtx 4060ti is a fail in various levels, this card join to same group

Personally seems better rx 6700 10gb or 6700/50 xt 12gb and back to rx 7600 as rtx 4060 ti/non ti are stupid cards with stupid price

:smile:

The 4060ti is a major fail because it performs basically equally to or even in some instances worse then the 3060ti so it remains to see how the 7600 stacks up against the 6600 (non xt).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

Ha, not sure why you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm not. :P

To correct you on what a patent troll is and to point out that the hole in your idea to solve this by invalidating patents if the holder does not produce anything.

I know what a patent troll is. It is by its very definition someone who sits on a patent and doesn't create anything and only forces others to pay them or they sue if they want to make something similar.

If you patent something, you should be required to actual produce / create thathat thing. Whether that is selling it to a company to do that for you, or doing it yourself.

It also used to be required for a prototype to exist before you could get a patent. That changed at some point, so now you can patent an idea.

Patent trolls usually buy other patents and simply make money off of suing or licensing and do not ever make anything.

Wikipedia:

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art,[1] often through hardball legal tactics (frivolous litigation, vexatious litigation, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), chilling effects, and the like).

That does not, to me at least, sound like some one coming up with fantastic new inventions to then license them out via the patent to willing companies in order for them to create better products. The main difference is that the trolls are hiding the patents (so not licensing them out) to only later file suits out of nowhere (hence the name of trolls, since they hide under the bridge).

A living example is Håkan Lans, who happens to be Swedish, he have invented lots of stuff that is used the world over by several industries. He does not produce anything himself and he is not a patent troll (he was trolled by HP, Dell and Compaq though since they basically stole his patents).

Right, not all of them hide under the bridge, some of them hang around and just leap out like brigands. Read up about Commodore and the XOR. They were basically taken out by a patent troll. Everyone else paid the bridge toll, but Commodore refused / couldn't, so the CD32 was blocked from being sold in the USA.

Software patents should never have been granted by the USPTO and the XOR patent in itself is a perfect example of why considering just how simple and silly it is. And Cadtrak is a sorry state of a company, they initially did products and services but then sales when bad they went all patent troll.

The thing is though, if the solution to this problem is to invalidate patents held by people and/or corporations that doesn't produce any products then how would you get about raising money to develop your splendid idea or how would you manage to sell it to off to a company to get royalties since they could all just steal your idea since you cannot patent it (or even if you did patent it then you would loose it since you have no production).

Also if that requirement would ever take effect then the patent trolls would probably just buy some low volume AliExpress producer to claim that "yes we have products, we are not a troll". So I don't see this as a solution.

This is how the patents were originally. You needed to show some sort of working prototype for it. Granted this was back when the patent office was first formed. One couldn't just make shit up and then get a patent for it. That was my point. The prototyping of it, and then getting it to a company that can mass produce it is the entire purpose of the patent system, so the inventor can then get paid for the invention, with profits also going to the company mass producing it. Everybody wins, consumers have a new thing to use as well. The problem these days is you need a bunch of money to even get a patent. So many corporations offer to file the patent for inventors, but then the inventors get screwed over, and may get nothing from their own ideas. (anecdotally heard about some guy who supposedly had this happen to him for the air cushion in some shoes, or something like that (heard the story a decade+ ago)).

But yes, software patents are the worse. And back on subject, most of the patents that Immersion owns at this stage are software, right? I haven't actually looked, but it seemed that way back in the day as well.

Considering that this requirement was removed already back in 1836 I don't think that we will see a resurgence of that one soon, but originally patents where much much worse than they are even today, back in the UK where it all started people got patents for "water" and "salt".

And the Immersion patents are actually on a similar level. looking at the ones they have sued Valve for:

7,336,260 - if you press on a touch sensitve surface then the controller can signal back with a tactile sensation to let the user know that the press have been recorded.
8,749,507 - if you press on a touch sensitive surface, software can use the length of the press and the orientation of the press to determine what the user intended-
9,430,042 - a touch sensitive surface can be used to create a virtual detent through tactical feedback.

they had 4 more patents but I could not be bothered to read more since they are all so silly, or rather they are all something that an engineer would solve if found with the same problem which is a requirement for a patent even today so they should never have been granted in the first place IMHO.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

Ha, not sure why you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm not. :P

To correct you on what a patent troll is and to point out that the hole in your idea to solve this by invalidating patents if the holder does not produce anything.

I know what a patent troll is. It is by its very definition someone who sits on a patent and doesn't create anything and only forces others to pay them or they sue if they want to make something similar.

If you patent something, you should be required to actual produce / create thathat thing. Whether that is selling it to a company to do that for you, or doing it yourself.

It also used to be required for a prototype to exist before you could get a patent. That changed at some point, so now you can patent an idea.

Patent trolls usually buy other patents and simply make money off of suing or licensing and do not ever make anything.

Wikipedia:

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art,[1] often through hardball legal tactics (frivolous litigation, vexatious litigation, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), chilling effects, and the like).

That does not, to me at least, sound like some one coming up with fantastic new inventions to then license them out via the patent to willing companies in order for them to create better products. The main difference is that the trolls are hiding the patents (so not licensing them out) to only later file suits out of nowhere (hence the name of trolls, since they hide under the bridge).

A living example is Håkan Lans, who happens to be Swedish, he have invented lots of stuff that is used the world over by several industries. He does not produce anything himself and he is not a patent troll (he was trolled by HP, Dell and Compaq though since they basically stole his patents).

Right, not all of them hide under the bridge, some of them hang around and just leap out like brigands. Read up about Commodore and the XOR. They were basically taken out by a patent troll. Everyone else paid the bridge toll, but Commodore refused / couldn't, so the CD32 was blocked from being sold in the USA.

Software patents should never have been granted by the USPTO and the XOR patent in itself is a perfect example of why considering just how simple and silly it is. And Cadtrak is a sorry state of a company, they initially did products and services but then sales when bad they went all patent troll.

The thing is though, if the solution to this problem is to invalidate patents held by people and/or corporations that doesn't produce any products then how would you get about raising money to develop your splendid idea or how would you manage to sell it to off to a company to get royalties since they could all just steal your idea since you cannot patent it (or even if you did patent it then you would loose it since you have no production).

Also if that requirement would ever take effect then the patent trolls would probably just buy some low volume AliExpress producer to claim that "yes we have products, we are not a troll". So I don't see this as a solution.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

Ha, not sure why you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm not. :P

To correct you on what a patent troll is and to point out that the hole in your idea to solve this by invalidating patents if the holder does not produce anything.

I know what a patent troll is. It is by its very definition someone who sits on a patent and doesn't create anything and only forces others to pay them or they sue if they want to make something similar.

If you patent something, you should be required to actual produce / create thathat thing. Whether that is selling it to a company to do that for you, or doing it yourself.

It also used to be required for a prototype to exist before you could get a patent. That changed at some point, so now you can patent an idea.

Patent trolls usually buy other patents and simply make money off of suing or licensing and do not ever make anything.

Wikipedia:

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art,[1] often through hardball legal tactics (frivolous litigation, vexatious litigation, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), chilling effects, and the like).

That does not, to me at least, sound like some one coming up with fantastic new inventions to then license them out via the patent to willing companies in order for them to create better products. The main difference is that the trolls are hiding the patents (so not licensing them out) to only later file suits out of nowhere (hence the name of trolls, since they hide under the bridge).

A living example is Håkan Lans, who happens to be Swedish, he have invented lots of stuff that is used the world over by several industries. He does not produce anything himself and he is not a patent troll (he was trolled by HP, Dell and Compaq though since they basically stole his patents).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

Ha, not sure why you're saying the same thing I'm saying, but saying I'm not. :P

To correct you on what a patent troll is and to point out that the hole in your idea to solve this by invalidating patents if the holder does not produce anything.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraI think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Yeah, though licensing stuff out still kind of makes you a patent troll, right? The lone inventor should be able to pitch his idea to a company that either pays him a bunch for it, or royalties, and then that company makes such things. This is how it used to happen.

Then again it used to be that you bought software and owned that copy for your usage, these days you just rent software that becomes obsolete the moment the publishers decide they don't want it to work anymore.

No a patent troll is someone that collects patents to then go look for companies to sue for infringement. You inventing something and then licensing it out to companies that find your invention useful is exactly your "pays him a bunch for it, or royalties". Hiding the patents in secret until you find an infringing party is the troll part of the patent troll.

E.g lets say that you invent some new fantastic new thing that makes something in cars much better, cheaper and environmentally friendlier. Would it be better for society for you to just throw that idea away because you have not enough money to create cars, or if you did then only your cars would benefit from this and no one elses, or you licensing the patent out to all car manufacturers for a fair price which is win-win for everyone.

Ofc you could just hand out the idea for free (which under the current patent system means that some of the big companies could patent it under the first to file rule and thus lock everyone else out including you) or you could hand the patent out for free and starve to death.

This is not a defence of the current patent system, just that I don't think that automatically invalidating patents from holders that do not produce anything would be beneficial for society, or rather it would be less beneficial for society than the current broken system, aka make it more broken and not less.

That software in many aspects is no longer owned but rented out have nothing to do with patents, that is all covered within copyright (which is another system that is broken), though at the same time copyright is what protects things like the GPL from being exploited.

IMHO the main problem is more to do with greed, not to go to far politically here since this is a forum for games and not politics but one way could be to cap the amount of wealth a person or company could acquire, say by means of the type of progressive tax regulation that existed in the US before JFK loosened it up where the top tax bracket was 94% and limiting the time on patents and copyright to more decent values, I mean 25 years for a patent in our fast evolving world is en eternity.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraImmersion also want the court to forbid Valve from selling more Steam Decks and Index:es.

They want Valve to be prohibited unless they pay the tithe. Some fee on the units they've sold to date is much less attractive than the fee on the (15? maybe?) millions of future units, plus the fees on Deck 2/Index 2/Controller 2 in the future. They want to just kick back and collect rent; the threat of an injunction is the stick to make everyone get a licence.

This is where I'm a firm believer that the patent system needs to be changed so that if you are not making a physical product based upon a patent you have filed away, then you lose claims to that patent and it becomes public domain. It's that way for Trademarks, basically.

I think that it's a bit more complicated than that, yes patent trolls use this all the time, they have no products and no employees so that they will never ever be hit by a countersuit. But then you could be a lone inventor that just invents new interesting stuff that you then license out to industry that have the capacity to create the stuff that you yourself doesn't and such a rule would hurt such individuals.

Quoting: MadWolfhi let's hope that Valve has the backbone to tell this patent troll where to stick their patents and they make a steam controller 2 or they start making the steam controller 1

Quoting: GuestI think the time is over to think of MS as the pure evil in a company form.

NO M$ is pure evil in a company form why do you think you can not remove telemetry or disable auto updates without hacking the system this is getting into a rant about why I HATE !!! M$ embrace extend extinguish today's M$ is the same M$ as old pure evil

Well the problem for Valve is that Immersion seems to have standing, I mean they have the patents, the patents are valid and have been enforced before (so the likelihood of this court invalidating them is less than 0) AND they filed in the patent friendliest court in the US of A so Valve is kinda shafted here. I don't see any other way for them than doing some out of court settlement for X amount of millions and get e perpetual license for all of Immersions patents.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraImmersion also want the court to forbid Valve from selling more Steam Decks and Index:es.

They want Valve to be prohibited unless they pay the tithe. Some fee on the units they've sold to date is much less attractive than the fee on the (15? maybe?) millions of future units, plus the fees on Deck 2/Index 2/Controller 2 in the future. They want to just kick back and collect rent; the threat of an injunction is the stick to make everyone get a licence.

Perhaps, I'm not savvy enough with the lawyer speak in their filing, all I saw was that they have this in their prayer for relief:

B. that the Court enter an injunction prohibiting Valve and its agents, officers,
servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with Valve from deploying,
operating, maintaining, testing, and using the Accused Handheld Instrumentalities and Accused
VR Instrumentalities, and from otherwise infringing any of the Patents-in-Suit;

Perhaps that is as you say intended to be interpreted as just being until they pay some license, but I could not find any text in the actual filing making that demand explicitly.

edit: ok so reading up on it a bit more I think maybe possibly that just asking for a injunction is temporary while they would have asked for a "permanent injunction" if it was to ban them outright from selling the product again.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SethMThis seems slightly iffy, but I'm sure it will work itself out. And worse case, Valve will probably have to pay a fine, which, let's be honest, isn't really going to hurt them.

this is a civil case so there will be no fines, if Valve is deemed guilty then they will have to pay whatever that Immersion says is their license fee for every single unit of Steam Decks sold. It could easily be billions.

Immersion also want the court to forbid Valve from selling more Steam Decks and Index:es.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: MadWolf

Quoting: TheRiddickDo people really love Activation and Blizzard that much?

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: dirkdierickxMS will gladly make these changes, but probably violate them before those 10 years are up. EU will fine MS, but as usual the fine(s) will be peanuts and MS will be happy to pay.

EU fines does not work the same as US fines, EU fines are increased until you comply.

shame, if that is true, they haven't ordered M$ to remove the telemetry spyware/pup (potentially unwanted program) from Windows and other software and most of my time gaming is done on GNU/Linux and I do not plan on downgrading to windows 10/12 for my mane windows install but I do have Windows 10 installed but I only have that for when I can not run software/games on my current install of Windows

they haven't ordered MS to remove it because it isn't illegal of MS to add it.

Wouldn't it be failure to comply with GDPR?

They where being criticized by the EU back in 2019 for not being in full compliance with the GDPR and again in 2022 when EU decided that the changes Microsoft have made was not sufficient. I'm not fully up to date on what if anything have happened with that case since then, all I know is that Microsoft claims that they are following the GDPR and that they only collects the data due to "Legitimate interest".

Now it is allowed to collect data about your users under the GDPR _if_ you can demonstrate that you have a legitimate use case for it, that you will and can destroy it if a user ask for it to be done, that the data will not leave the EU (and afaik MS have built some kind of internal firewall to make sure that data collected from EU machines stay in the EU) and that you are not allowed to sell the data (one big difference between the US and the EU here is that in the US a company owns the data that it has collected about you while in the EU you are the sole owner of that data so legally it is not a commodity).

I would also assume that investigating this is something that will take quite an amount of time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments