ITC Rules For Apple in Patent Case, Bans Some HTC Imports [Update: HTC Responds]

[Kaibelf]

So to summarize, Apple lost all the patents against HTC, but won only 2 claims, AND it's only on some HTC devices AND it takes effect only in the end of April AND HTC just said that their "designers have created alternate solutions for the ‘647 patent."

So what did Apple win here ?

EDIT link : http://www.androidcentral.com/htc-f...devices-will-be-banned-import-come-april-2012

They won the headline: ITC Agrees that HTC Ripped Off Apple. That's all they need to undermine HTC as a cheap knock-off brand.

 

[hot spare]

Name them yourself. The nearly 800 granted patents this year is listed at LatestPatents.com.

Since 2004 it's rather clear Apple's nearly 4,000 patents granted is more than just smart phones, ipods, ipads and the like.

Just 4000 patents since 2004. That says a lot about the R&D budget of Apple.

Samsung and IBM have more than 4000 patents in a year itself.

 

[lilo777]

They won the headline: ITC Agrees that HTC Ripped Off Apple. That's all they need to undermine HTC as a cheap knock-off brand.

And court in Germany stated that Apple infringed on Motorola. Would you say that Apple is a cheap knock-off brand? They also infringed on Nokia patents (settled out of court earlier this year) meaning that Apple is a super cheap knock-off brand.

 

[kdarling]

They won the headline: ITC Agrees that HTC Ripped Off Apple. That's all they need to undermine HTC as a cheap knock-off brand.

Wrong headline, of course. More like "ITC decides HTC thought of the same thing that Apple did. Patent law means HTC must think of something else. No big deal."

It's almost exactly like when Apple (and everyone else on the planet) had to settle over Visual Voice Mail patents. Apple and ATT didn't steal anyone else's code or ideas, but they sure had to pay up when it turned out that the idea had already been patented.

 

[Renzatic]

Great. Another damn patent thread, filled with people screaming the same pointless line about "Apple defending their innovations".

Let me explain something to you people. Software patents are stupid. Yes. They're dumb. Why? Because they're basically patenting phrases of a language. Hell, even the patent office thought that at one time. But some stupid idiot company had to go out and make a point, and now...here we are. A bunch of other idiot companies fighting over the order of what boils down to "innovative" ways to tell a computer what something is, and how to do something. Basically they're patenting how you're supposed to talk to a computer.

It's like being able to patent the phrase "Hey Bob. This is plywood. I want you to go over there and pick it up and put it over there", because no one thought of telling Bob to go pick up that plywood until some intellectual maverick Prime Delegator pushed the paradigm and thought outside the box for a second to realize such a novel concept. I mean Bob was pretty much useless beforehand anyway. But he sure as hell can pick up some plywood now that someone told him to do so.

And what do you know! You can get a patent for that phrasing. Now other companies have to pay this great thinker before they can tell someone like Leroy to pick up plywood. After all, Leroy picking up plywood is very similar to Bob doing the same. Shouldn't the Prime Delegator type be compensated for his innovation? After all, no one thought to tell anyone to pick up plywood until HE did it, and probably never would have. Right?

But what if someone were to rephrase the statement? "Mike. This is plywood. Plywood lies at Point A. Take plywood from Point A to Point B". Well, comeon. That's just theft. No one ever thought to tell a guy how to transport Plywood until Prime Delegator showed up. Rephrasing it doesn't change the basic process. And since EVERYONE seems to be getting people to move plywood these days, I think due credit should be given to Prime Delegator, right? Right?

So how does this apply to the situation at hand? Well, it's sorta similar to someone telling a computer what a phone number is, and what to do with it. This is obviously something NO ONE would've EVER THOUGHT to have a computer do until Apple showed up, so they should be allowed to protect their investment. Right? Anyone else who comes up with the idea is just copying off Apple, and should be banned from the market. There's no way they could come up with this idea totally on their own.

Yeah. It's pretty ridiculous.

 

[divinox]

Apple won on two claims, 1 and 8. Claim 1 and 8 of '647 reads as follows:

1) A computer-based system for detecting structures in data and performing actions on detected structures, comprising: an input device for receiving data; an output device for presenting the data; a memory storing information including program routines including an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures; a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected structure; and a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines.

and,

8) The system recited in claim 1, wherein the user interface highlights detected structures.

As for specificity, they're really only specific in the concept, the idea:

The background for the patent is the need for a system "…that identifies structures, associate candidate action to the structures, enables selection of an action and automatically performs the selected action on the structure". They point at prior art, and argue that while there are systems that make e.g. phone numbers actionable, they do are limited in that they do not recognize the detected data as a telephone number per se, and are limited in that they don't allow for multiple actions.

Against this backdrop, Apple describe their invention as follows: "The present invention overcomes the limitations and deficiencies of previous systems with a system that identifies structures in computer data, associates candidate actions with each detected structure, enables the selection of an action, and automatically performs the selected action on the identified structure."

Then (absurdly) they move on to state that:

"it will be appreciated that the system may operate on recognizable patterns for text, pictures, tablets, graphs, voice, etc. So long as a pattern is recognizable the system will operate on it."​

Meaning Apple basically filed a patent on pretty much anything and everything "SIRI-esque" (in the broad sense). The patent does not however go into specifics on HOW this will be achieved (the narrow sense); that is, how to solve the semantic interpretation of text, pictures, tablets, graphs, voice, etc.

Basically, what they're proposing is that text is parsed for "structures" which are then mapped to "structure-specific actions". A great idea (while hardly novel), without a great implementation (had they cracked the implementation, i would've accepted the patent on the spot. That would've been the invention of the century - however, we aren't even close to cracking that even decades later).

All they really say is that they have a CPU, I/O, memory, "a program to identify structures in a document and perform selected computer-based actions on the identified structures". Further, the program is said to include subroutines that include a "analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor". The analyzer server (AS) uses patterns to discover structures - how, is left out (and the idea itself is not novel). When the AS finds a pattern, it links a set of actionable actions (any action really). Granted, the patent is said to include methods through which "the document is analyzed using a pattern to identify corresponding structures". This method is not, however, specified (its an idea, not an implementation).

This, in essence, is the problem with the patent, and software patents in general. They tend to describe ideas, not implementations. Ideas should not, for obvious reasons, be patentable; the hard part is always implementing ideas - making them work. Abstract descriptions do not work. They're just functional decompositions of ideas, no more, no less. For example, i could easily write a patent mimicking that of Apple, that would be a patent of the semantic web. I am not, however, anywhere near able to create the semantic web (nor is anyone else at this point, really, but we're getting there one step at the time).

One thing i do not get. Apple claim that their implementation works by the program itself having a UI*; that is, the program itself runs concurrently to the application in which the document is displayed, with its own UI. As such, any program that instead relies on the native UI of the Application (e.g. Mail) should be home free; i.e. any solution that is not based on running an overlay of document application in question. However, as i can't imagine that HTC is actually doing the UI thing, and the patent evidently passed through court, i could be misreading things. Like i said, i don't get it.... if it wasn't for the following "cover all bases"-lines:

"Application program interface then transmits this location information to user interface, which highlights the detected structures although other presentation mechanisms can be used"​

Further showing how broad, vague and non-implementation based the patent is (in the broad sense).

Apple then go on to show how the patent can be used for audio etc. (without explaining specifically how - besides pointing out that patterns will be used). They also cover the base of non-visual interfaces in term of the UI speaking actions back to the user.

As far as the Analyzer server goes, it is said to include a) a parser b) a grammar file. Alternatively or additionally a fast string search function or other function could be used (basically, covering all bases - once more. The opposite of being specific). Parser uses grammar to parse the file (i.e. to find structures). When structures are spotted, actions are associated (furthermore describing the functional decomposition of the idea, rather than the implementation of said idea; i.e. how do you go from grammar to structure?) .

Then, something confusing shows up again (as Apple becomes specific for a brief while). The patent states that "the parser retrieves from grammar file pointers attached to the grammar and attaches the same pointers to the identified structure". As such, a solution that implements a relational table between grammar and action, instead of coupling pointers within the grammar file should be fine. Maybe this is the case - if so, the patent is essentially worthless.

Now, Apple then shows some honest examples (Fig. 4). Here, for example, "Phone number:" is seen as grammar for "phone number". Actions associated are "Call #" and "Put in electronic telephone book". This shows the true nature of the patent; that is, what Apple really had implemented (think classic Voice command, rather than SIRI). This is also clear by Fig. 5. in the patent - showing a heavily marked up document in the form of:

This is my new

phone number: (415) 555-1234
address: 1 Hilly Street… and so on.
​

Clearly, its no where near as refined as what we have to day (meaning current implementations constitute substantial improvements of the original patent, and thus should not be seen as infringing). Thus, in my opinion it stands clear that Apples current claim goes well beyond the original point (i.e., what they actually sought to patent). Further, the only way to make the patent apply is to shred every single specific element, relying on broad, vague all-encompassing visionary ideas; things that should not be patentable.

* Maybe I'm tired here.


TL;DR: In general, the patent is vague, non-implementory in nature, and idea-driven. The few specificities included in the patent show a technology far from todays smart parsers. Further, if not for "cover all bases"-carte blanches in the filing, the patent wouldn't hold at all. Basically, the invention patented is on the level of recognizing that the text after "telephone number" should be parsed as a telephone number and associated with "telephone number actions". Thats it. No more, no less.

The above is probably quite a bit off. Blame it on the stupid patent application though.

http://www.miramontes.com/writing/add-cacm/

decent article on the matter.

 

[Thex1138]

BAM!

 

[Reborn]

Apple hates anyone that tries to make a better product.

God save us from these 'better products'.

 

[jmpnop]

God save us from these 'better products'.

God save us from these 'fanboys'

 

[vitzr]

Fact: We are all outsiders looking in. Like any other type of "news" what we get is filtered.

Probable Fact: None of us has all of the facts in the case, nor have we read all published documents pertaining to the case.

Nor have we had a group of skilled neutral third party attorneys give us their take on the case.

Therefore speaking only for myself, I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion I feel comfortable with.

IF Apple _is correct_ and they've been violated, I feel they've taken this too far by banning the sale of competitors products.

Especially given Apples massive monetary success and highly positive Brand Image. With skyrocketing sales growth that continues unabated, it's not like Apples being crushed or even scratched by Android or others.

It seems to me that awarding Apple monetary compensation for damages is far more appropriate.

IF Apple _is not_ correct, I would be so disgusted I would refrain from any further comments at this time.

As a true Apple enthusiast, I would sure like to know what's really going on. But that's highly unlikely till some much later date, if ever.

All of these lawsuits are a cloud over what could be Apples finest period in it's history.

What a shame.

 

[macsmurf]

I wonder how HTC will work around a patent with so few specifics. It's totally unclear what the scope of the patent is, at least for me as a software developer. Maybe it's clearer to a lawyer or a judge.

 

[SockRolid]

Two things. First a little snark:

"That's life in the big city."
- Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer, "RoboCop," 1987)

Second, a little realism. The workaround to the patent-infringing Android code should be relatively simple. Just a small matter of programming.

 

[thenerdal]

When is someone going to intervene and stop the greed?!?!?! I don't get it! Apple didn't invent these ideas. My Blackberry used to identify actionable content in emails years ago! Most of what the iPhone has accomplished has been built on the shoulders of less polished devices.
Yet Apple acts like before the iPhone all phones were dumb!

Apple got the timing right with the iPhone. Screen technology and mobile technology
finally matured enough for a device like the iPhone to flourish. The success of the iPhone has more to do with its timing than software/features.

1. Cell Networks - Finally most customers had access to the Internet
2. Wi-Fi - Where cell networks failed Wi-Fi saved us from blank screens
3. Color screens matured - making an affordable quality large screen has opened up the flood gates for consuming large volumes of data on a pocket-sized device.
4. Mobile technology, such as CPU's and GPU's finally could drive the graphics that would take advantage of large screens.
5. Battery Life - smaller, more powerful batteries allowed a smartphone to last through the day

Kudos to Apple for putting the pieces together at the right time. This does not give them the right to sue everybody like they own the market!

I refuse to buy any more Apple products because of their strong-arm tactics and greed! My one and only Apple product was an iPod Classic plagued by iTunes or Windows. I felt like I sacrificed a lot of flexibility for some industrial design when all I wanted was a way to consume my pre-owned music.

I am sorry Apple, but it looks like you are just going to have to continue innovating. You can't just sit there and milk the competition and the public forever.

Software patents need to stop!!! They are not protecting inventors! They are being used to smother the competition!

Apple must see a real threat in HTC and Android... And for good reason! Both are climbing the smartphone charts at an astonishing rate. Not because they
are ripping iPhones off, but because they offer a very compelling smartphone experience without gouging the customer.

Why would any court stand in the way of that?!?!?

 

[Reborn]

God save us from these 'fanboys'

Watch me not care what you think ...

----------

Fact: We are all outsiders looking in. Like any other type of "news" what we get is filtered.

Probable Fact: None of us has all of the facts in the case, nor have we read all published documents pertaining to the case.

Nor have we had a group of skilled neutral third party attorneys give us their take on the case.

Therefore speaking only for myself, I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion I feel comfortable with.

IF Apple _is correct_ and they've been violated, I feel they've taken this too far by banning the sale of competitors products.

Especially given Apples massive monetary success and highly positive Brand Image. With skyrocketing sales growth that continues unabated, it's not like Apples being crushed or even scratched by Android or others.

It seems to me that awarding Apple monetary compensation for damages is far more appropriate.

IF Apple _is not_ correct, I would be so disgusted I would refrain from any further comments at this time.

As a true Apple enthusiast, I would sure like to know what's really going on. But that's highly unlikely till some much later date, if ever.

All of these lawsuits are a cloud over what could be Apples finest period in it's history.

What a shame.

So if Apple is right they are wrong. If Apple is wrong they are still very wrong. No way out huh.

P.S. It is Apples finest period in history to date.

 

[macsmurf]

Second, a little realism. The workaround to the patent-infringing Android code should be relatively simple. Just a small matter of programming.

Could you be more specific or are you just guessing?

 

[inlovewithi]

Could you be more specific or are you just guessing?

If you read the comments, you would understand. It's been heavily talked about.

An example would be let say Apple patenting multiplying two time three this way 2 * 3, and some other company not being aware of such a patten for something so insignificant getting banned because they also multiplied in the same fashion. So then to fix it, the other company decides to come to the same answer by multiplying it 3 *2.

 

[macsmurf]

If you read the comments, you would understand. It's been heavily talked about.

An example would be let say Apple patenting multiplying two time three this way 2 * 3, and some other company not being aware of such a patten for something so insignificant getting banned because they also multiplied in the same fashion. So then to fix it, the other company decides to come to the same answer by multiplying it 3 *2.

OK, so you're just guessing. I've actually read the patent, and I couldn't tell you what to change to not infringe. It's a fairly loose specification of an idea that in itself was not invented by Apple so it's difficult to identify exactly what the invention is.

 

[PlipPlop]

As shown before these import bans dont seem to work. It just hurts American people who want the best phones.

 

[Kimbie]

Just build the phone and let the consumers decide. Chances are they will still want the best phone which is the iPhone. Just let the people make the choice not the courts. These patents aren't make or break patents.

The hardware that makes up the iphone is one of the best on the market, but if I could have android on a 4s then I probally would. Don't get me wrong IOS is a very nice mobile OS, in my opinion still has the best on screen keyboard of any mobile device.

But I can't help think if it was the other way around I doubt Apple would have got the same ruling as its a US company not a far east one

Kimbie

 

[mijail]

Just 4000 patents since 2004. That says a lot about the R&D budget of Apple.

Samsung and IBM have more than 4000 patents in a year itself.

Again, funny how sometimes patents are a sign of corruption and sometimes something to respect.

Anyway, how many of those Samsung patents are about fridges, vacuum cleaners and microwave ovens? Are you sure you want to compare such numbers against the likes of more centered companies?

 

[divinox]

Great. Another damn patent thread, filled with people screaming the same pointless line about "Apple defending their innovations".

Let me explain something to you people. Software patents are stupid. Yes. They're dumb. Why? Because they're basically patenting phrases of a language. Hell, even the patent office thought that at one time. But some stupid idiot company had to go out and make a point, and now...here we are. A bunch of other idiot companies fighting over the order of what boils down to "innovative" ways to tell a computer what something is, and how to do something. Basically they're patenting how you're supposed to talk to a computer.

It's like being able to patent the phrase "Hey Bob. This is plywood. I want you to go over there and pick it up and put it over there", because no one thought of telling Bob to go pick up that plywood until some intellectual maverick Prime Delegator pushed the paradigm and thought outside the box for a second to realize such a novel concept. I mean Bob was pretty much useless beforehand anyway. But he sure as hell can pick up some plywood now that someone told him to do so.

And what do you know! You can get a patent for that phrasing. Now other companies have to pay this great thinker before they can tell someone like Leroy to pick up plywood. After all, Leroy picking up plywood is very similar to Bob doing the same. Shouldn't the Prime Delegator type be compensated for his innovation? After all, no one thought to tell anyone to pick up plywood until HE did it, and probably never would have. Right?

But what if someone were to rephrase the statement? "Mike. This is plywood. Plywood lies at Point A. Take plywood from Point A to Point B". Well, comeon. That's just theft. No one ever thought to tell a guy how to transport Plywood until Prime Delegator showed up. Rephrasing it doesn't change the basic process. And since EVERYONE seems to be getting people to move plywood these days, I think due credit should be given to Prime Delegator, right? Right?

So how does this apply to the situation at hand? Well, it's sorta similar to someone telling a computer what a phone number is, and what to do with it. This is obviously something NO ONE would've EVER THOUGHT to have a computer do until Apple showed up, so they should be allowed to protect their investment. Right? Anyone else who comes up with the idea is just copying off Apple, and should be banned from the market. There's no way they could come up with this idea totally on their own.

Yeah. It's pretty ridiculous.

Ironically, Nardi (one of the inventors) is a colleague (by discipline) of mine (come to think of it, large part of my B.Sc. paper was built on her work on Awareness). When i bump in to her, i'll be sure to ask her how she feels about this. Now, the worst thing with software patents is that the practice of filing is intentionally devious. Take science, for example. In science, we value specificity; we strive for it. Be exact to what you did, how you did it and with what results. Conversely, (software) patents strive for ambiguity. Each line hinting at specificity is countered with a broad, vague, all-encompassing statement: this tech does a in way b with goal c --- but it could also do a in way a...n with goal a...c. This is the truly absurd part. If software patents were non-ambigous, dead-clear, specific implementations of well-presented ideas and/or concepts i could accept them - but they're not.

For example, what should be patentable in '647 (imo) is the specific implementation of the specific parts. Since parts in themselves are oft-times generic (e.g. regex patterning), only the aggregate can be worthy of any type of protection. In this case, just using a different regex pattern should be enough to make the solution "new" (after all, each regex is in fact a unique implementation of a generic idea). Similarly, the use of relation tables to connect contexts with action should be viewed as distinct from one in which contexts include pointers (after all, they are distinct implementations of a sub-part of a generic idea).

This is the only, and i do mean only, way software patents could ever have legitimacy in my view. And its a level where they actually make some form of sense. Code itself is covered by copyright. Algorithms should not be patentable, the same goes for abstract concepts. If we then want to protect implementations, they need to be between code and abstract implementation; i.e. specific implementation (detailed to the point in which one basically cannot derive multiple (non-code) implementations from a given description).

----------

Again, funny how sometimes patents are a sign of corruption and sometimes something to respect.

Anyway, how many of those Samsung patents are about fridges, vacuum cleaners and microwave ovens? Are you sure you want to compare such numbers against the likes of more centered companies?

MSFT shouldn't be that far from doing 4k a year nowadays either.

 

[Winni]

And it will be till the end as Apple will lose in the long run.

Sooner or later they will get swamped. There is no way one company can hold back the rest of the competing world, Even GIANTS like IBM had their day in certain areas......

IBM still is a very profitable giant, it's just that they dropped the business branches that were not profitable enough, like the PC market. And IBM never even really tried to enter the consumer market. But they're still there, and they're still huge - in the corporate market.

That being said, I completely agree with you -- Apple's litigation strategy won't be successful on the long run. Most of their patents are trivial software patents anyway or only cover design ideas. That's not good enough to stop an entire industry from moving forward.

And that already describes what's wrong with the entire global patent system and why it should be completely abolished: The patent system only protects large corporations, and the only thing that it achieves is a blockade of innovation. We have copyright laws that protect actual products - we don't need laws that claim to "protect" abstract designs and abstract ideas and keep people from shipping real products.

When you see that pharmaceutical companies wanted to patent already existing diseases so that they are the only ones that can legally produce medication for those diseases, you know how perverted the patent system is.

Abolish patents. And limit the lifespan of copyrights to a few years instead of almost a century.

----------

Again, funny how sometimes patents are a sign of corruption and sometimes something to respect.

Anyway, how many of those Samsung patents are about fridges, vacuum cleaners and microwave ovens? Are you sure you want to compare such numbers against the likes of more centered companies?

Absolutely. Besides, even Microsoft has more patents than Apple, and Microsoft is certainly more "centered" as a company than a technology giant like Samsung.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/1766...e_in_patents_so_why_does_it_lag_in_innovation

But as I've said before, most of the patents that those company own are not worth the paper they're written on because they basically cover abstract, simple ideas and shouldn't have obtained a patent in the first place. They are only ammunition for lawsuits, and they usually only help destroying small companies that don't have the legal budget of a mega-corporation and who accordingly cannot defend themselves against a lawsuit that they under fair circumstances would win.

 

[divinox]

OK, so you're just guessing. I've actually read the patent, and I couldn't tell you what to change to not infringe. It's a fairly loose specification of an idea that in itself was not invented by Apple so it's difficult to identify exactly what the invention is.

See the link i posted, or google Nardi ADD Data detectors. There are nice documentation on the tech. and its implementation. But yes, the filing itself is overly vague, and non-specific to the point in which someone is evidently infringing without even doing the few specific things covered in the patent.

As for the main contribution, its in a) structure-analysis (i.e. what is 555-1234? Their tech. by coded grammar sees it as a phone number) and b) the linkage of structure (e.g. 555-1234) with structure-specific (predefined) action (e.g. call, add to phone book, text).

Probably is no well known prior art covering exactly this; i give Nardi enough scientific credibility to trust her on that. My problem with the ruling is not that the patent itself is not valid. But that further improvements of the general idea are not seen as inventions in their own right.

For example, from what i've gathered, they, for example, did not know how to make sense out of an email address. Yet, their patent would still cover it; i.e. they (like many others) were in a sense able to patent things they could only think of.

One could of course argue that the both the idea and its implementation is trivial and obvious. After all, what they're really saying is "if we can understand that x is a phone number, and we can - then we can make phone numbers actable as 'phone numbers'". And, to be sure, phone numbers were actable, already (they just weren't actable as phone-numbers, i.e. linking to phone-number specific multi-actions).

This begs the question. Those that had identified phone numbers, using similar techniques, and made them actable - did they not do so with the intent of acting on phone numbers? And if so, what is really the contribution?

That said, ADD is neat - when it works. But allowing patents on broad techniques to make sense out of data is... bad. Had they in fact come up with a truly novel non-obvious way of actually making sense of data, fine. I just fail to think that it really is. Its a pattern for e.g. phone number, matched with a list of actions for phone numbers. Once you can identify what something is (e.g. a phone number) acting on it as a phone number is obvious (e.g. call). So... yeah. Im not sure what to think really.

Then again, it could be as simple as that HTC by accident duplicated the exact implementation that Apple had patented, and that a mere shift from e.g. hash tables to relational ones do the trick. If so, all is quite fine.

 

[macsmurf]

As for the main contribution, its in a) structure-analysis (i.e. what is 555-1234? Their tech. by coded grammar sees it as a phone number) and b) the linkage of structure (e.g. 555-1234) with structure-specific (predefined) action (e.g. call, add to phone book, text).

1. The structured analysis is not mentioned in detail other than that it is there. Whether it uses a grammar or not to parse the text should be irrelevant since that is how parsers usually work. Tons on prior art there.

2. Recognizing some structure in a piece of text makes no sense unless you want to do something with it. In this case we ask the user what to do.

If we ignore how vague the patent is, how on earth can HTC code around this? It's definitely not obvious.

 

[GenesisST]

Can someone please create a "PatentBlock", just like AdBlock, but blocks patent posts on websites. I can't stand seeing them on the main page, let alone the usual flame wars that starts.

I know, I know, I could just ignore them and not read the comments... But it's like blowing ones nose, you have to look inside the kleenex right after...