Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 125

Thread: Patents - Friend or foe of capitalism?

  1. #61
    An inventor does not usually have the resources to get his product to market utilizing large scales of production which means that it would be quite easy for a large company to steal his idea, make it more cheaply than he can, and put him out of business. That takes away his incentive (aside from personal reasons) to invent since he will not be able to realize the financial benefits of what he comes up with. Patents give him protection and thus encourage more innnovation. If I can steal ideas from you I have no reason to invest in coming up with my own.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    An inventor does not usually have the resources to get his product to market utilizing large scales of production which means that it would be quite easy for a large company to steal his idea, make it more cheaply than he can, and put him out of business. That takes away his incentive (aside from personal reasons) to invent since he will not be able to realize the financial benefits of what he comes up with. Patents give him protection and thus encourage more innnovation. If I can steal ideas from you I have no reason to invest in coming up with my own.
    How does one "steal" an idea? Ideas are super-abundant (and not even real property). Even IP law uses the word "infringement" instead of "theft". Whether they are "good" or not is purely subjective. If some company comes along and is able to copy inventor x's idea, that just means inventor x has to continue producing ideas. So what? The inventor still has the idea and is free to find a company/venture capitalist to market and produce the product better and faster.

    Even assuming company x copies the inventor's idea, the company is taking a risk and stands to incur huge losses. Inventions introduced by corporations that flop come about routinely.

    Also, since company x lacks the innovative skills of the inventor, the company will eventually stop profiting on the idea and incur losses due to lack of satisfying market demand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    An inventor does not usually have the resources to get his product to market utilizing large scales of production which means that it would be quite easy for a large company to steal his idea, make it more cheaply than he can, and put him out of business. That takes away his incentive (aside from personal reasons) to invent since he will not be able to realize the financial benefits of what he comes up with. Patents give him protection and thus encourage more innnovation. If I can steal ideas from you I have no reason to invest in coming up with my own.
    Bull$#@!.

    Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0


    p.s.: I hate to repeat myself but I guess I have no choice, YOU SHALL NOT SPREAD PROPAGANDA ON MY WATCH!
    My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right, tend to be unwilling or unable to accept blame )

  5. #64
    We should all pay royalties to the family of the person who invented the wheel...

    And if you think, what anyone "invents" is always based on things people before him invented:




  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    An inventor does not usually have the resources to get his product to market utilizing large scales of production which means that it would be quite easy for a large company to steal his idea, make it more cheaply than he can, and put him out of business. That takes away his incentive (aside from personal reasons) to invent since he will not be able to realize the financial benefits of what he comes up with. Patents give him protection and thus encourage more innnovation. If I can steal ideas from you I have no reason to invest in coming up with my own.
    I agree. If I invest into either an invention (R&D) and someone else can copy my invention without making the R&D investment, a clever established manufacturer will put me out of business before I get the marketing plan assembled. Or, if I invest into making a movie and anyone can buy a DVD of my movie and show it in theaters for profit without paying me a royalty, then why should I even bother?

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Your claims are typical of the brain-dead, economically absurd nonsense that is routinely trotted out to rationalize patent monopolies.
    Actually, that was a question rather than a claim. The founders saw fit to include patents in the constitution. They were not brain-dead.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    An inventor does not usually have the resources to get his product to market utilizing large scales of production
    He is also not usually an investor, entrepreneur or businessman. So what? We all have to find ways of making a living by dealing with others who can supply the ingredients we lack.
    which means that it would be quite easy for a large company to steal his idea, make it more cheaply than he can, and put him out of business.
    Nope. Ideas are not scarce and therefore can't be stolen. The inventor usually has special knowledge of his invention that competitors don't have, knowledge that gives him an advantage in engineering, design and development. He can leverage that knowledge to obtain the market reward for his contribution by working for a firm that CAN produce his invention efficiently, and wants the benefit of his special expertise.
    That takes away his incentive (aside from personal reasons) to invent since he will not be able to realize the financial benefits of what he comes up with.
    Flat false, as proved above. Clothing manufacturers pay clothing designers big money despite the fact that there is no patent or copyright monopoly on what they create. Vitamin makers pay engineers to design new products despite the fact that vitamins can't be patented.
    Patents give him protection and thus encourage more innnovation.
    Already refuted. Patents discourage innovation by giving the owner a rent collection privilege. He then no longer needs to innovate to make money.
    If I can steal ideas from you I have no reason to invest in coming up with my own.
    Already refuted. If all technology is freely available, the only way you can differentiate your products from those of competitors, thus making any profit at all, is by innovating to offer something new.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    The founders saw fit to include patents in the constitution. They were not brain-dead.
    They also saw fit to include slavery.

    Boink.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Galtic View Post
    We should all pay royalties to the family of the person who invented the wheel...
    No. Only for a limited time so that the inventor can recoup the cost of R&D at a minimum.

    U.S. Constitution Article I. Section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I forgot to mention: without patents, every product becomes a commodity [false] that anyone can produce [false], so competition drives out all profits [false] EXCEPT those of the innovators who have invested in R&D and are thus offering something new that others haven't started producing yet!
    Competition does not "drive out" profits. Margins are likely reduced by competition but they don't go to zero (or does "drives out all profits" mean something else?). Remember that people invest due to an anticipated or projected rate of return. If the profits are zero, there is no return and you would be better holding cash or making safer investments with a lower anticipated return.

    Profits are more likely to be negative - very negative - than zero. Nobody aims for zero so the likilihood of hitting it is slim. Negative profits situation occur often because the demand or cost of a product was miscalculated. Things can be sold for a 5% loss because the alternative is a 50% loss. But I see little reason for profits to trend to zero excepting a stable market with little entry cost. Is your understanding different?

    Zero-profit conditions can occur but they also require zero or near-zero entry costs. If the widget factory costs $1 million, the output will either have a predicted profit or it will not be made (these predictions would account for the loss of patents).

    Not all things become commodities due to a loss of patents. E.g., anybody can cook a steak but that does not make it a commodity. Beef of a given grade may be a commodity, but the finished product is not. Restaurants trade not just on their legal right to cook without fear of patents, but on the ability they have demonstrated to the market. If you need heart medication, are you going to swallow the lowest cost pill or will you pay a premium for a proven product?

    I agree with your conclusion, nonetheless:

    So no patents means an INCREASED economic incentive to innovate, not a reduced one. The truth is the exact, diametric opposite of your claims.
    Ending patents will

    a) increase competition
    b) increase innovation and reward implementing those innovations with marketable products
    c) make many lawyers cry
    d) cause big players to worry about the little players (instead of just bribing Congress)

    Not having a crystal ball, I can't say what profits will do. Apple makes huge profits not so much by unique things they can do but by brand loyalty, being a fashion statement, and the trust they have earned among their customers (not me). I suspect patents hurt their competition more than it helps Apple, but I could be wrong. Their profits could remain largely unaffected.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    If I invest into either an invention (R&D) and someone else can copy my invention without making the R&D investment, a clever established manufacturer will put me out of business before I get the marketing plan assembled.
    If that's the case (it typically isn't) then you are such an incompetent entrepreneur that you shouldn't be in business. Why can't you ever remember that the highly profitable and entirely patent- and copyright-free fashion industry proves your claims false?
    Or, if I invest into making a movie and anyone can buy a DVD of my movie
    Who is going to burn the DVD, and why?
    and show it in theaters for profit without paying me a royalty, then why should I even bother?
    How would they make a profit if anyone can get their own DVD and watch your movie whenever and wherever they like? Are you perhaps unaware that publishers keep classic works in print for profit without any copyright monopoly? If you don't want others to be able to show your movie, just encode it in a way they can't play back with normal equipment, and distribute it with dongle keys that only work with one copy.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Actually, that was a question rather than a claim. The founders saw fit to include patents in the constitution. They were not brain-dead.
    No, but they were mercantilists and definitely not free market capitalists. (The patent clause of the constitution was inspired by British Mercanilism, btw. Thank the Federalists for that)
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Actually, that was a question rather than a claim. The founders saw fit to include patents in the constitution. They were not brain-dead.
    They were not only brain-dead, but Mercantilist and anti-market in this and several other regards (like mail delivery).
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    No. Only for a limited time so that the inventor can recoup the cost of R&D at a minimum.
    Garbage. There is no such guarantee or limit either given or implied.
    U.S. Constitution Article I. Section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
    Article IV, Section 2: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

  18. #75
    FWIW, if you submit a manuscript or whatever to a publisher with the (c) on it, you're more than likely to get rejected. According to the Copyright Act, something is automatically copyrighted when it is "created"(in the legal sense). Patent law says virtually the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  19. #76
    Yeah, it doesn't look like patent law works. People will steal the idea anyway and bankrupt the inventor through litigation.

    Eli Whitney - American Inventor
    Eli Whitney (8 Dec 1765 - 8 Jan 1825) [Direct Relation - 23rd Cousin, 1x removed] was a famous inventor, best known for his invention of the Cotton Gin (Patent X72, 1794). It was one of the key inventions during the Industrial Revolution and helped to shape the economy of the pre-Civil War South. The Cotton Gin made cotton into a profitable crop, but also created long-lasting social and economic impacts through the use of slaves for farming the cotton. Whitney lost most of his profits from the Cotton Gin in court trying to defend his patent, ended up closing his factory, and nearly filed for bankruptcy.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Yeah, it doesn't look like patent law works. People will steal the idea anyway and bankrupt the inventor through litigation.
    Indeed. Just wait till they find a way to patent your DNA. Then every expression of your DNA will be subject to the whims of the patent owner. Enjoy slavery.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    Competition does not "drive out" profits.
    Yes, it does.
    Margins are likely reduced by competition but they don't go to zero (or does "drives out all profits" mean something else?). Remember that people invest due to an anticipated or projected rate of return. If the profits are zero, there is no return and you would be better holding cash or making safer investments with a lower anticipated return.
    No profit does not mean no margin or no return. In economics, profit is considered a return over and above rent, wages and interest. Many people work in order to obtain wages, and invest in order to obtain interest.
    But I see little reason for profits to trend to zero excepting a stable market with little entry cost. Is your understanding different?
    I understand that some producers will make gains, others will suffer losses, but it will be because of the quality of their management, their decisions, the effects of unpredicted external events, etc., not through having "stolen" an idea and undercut its creator.
    Not all things become commodities due to a loss of patents.
    True. My bad. I meant the products that would have been commodities had they not been restricted by patents, not products like original artworks, brand-name products like cars, etc.
    E.g., anybody can cook a steak but that does not make it a commodity. Beef of a given grade may be a commodity, but the finished product is not. Restaurants trade not just on their legal right to cook without fear of patents, but on the ability they have demonstrated to the market. If you need heart medication, are you going to swallow the lowest cost pill or will you pay a premium for a proven product?
    I agree there would still be product and brand differentiation in many cases.
    Ending patents will

    a) increase competition
    b) increase innovation and reward implementing those innovations with marketable products
    c) make many lawyers cry
    d) cause big players to worry about the little players (instead of just bribing Congress)
    +1

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Jingles View Post
    That's what the market does. The one who first produces a good or services maintains a great advantage in profits, name promotion (brand name), etc... They will have great gains in the short term, but when you introduce a patent into the equation they will not be incentived to continually improve on their product by others who will to produce the good or service as well (who wish to produce it in a more effective, efficient, cheaper, and a better quality product). So if you grant someone a monopoly on this you shield them from the market, in effect, reducing the continual advancements to be made in the product for the firm/person that created the product "first" does not have the need to improve on the product for they don't have to (for they have no legally allowable competition). Patents stifle the process of the market.
    The problem with your statement is that you assume that brand name is the driving force behind sales. I grew up on store brand products, Aldi's and Save a Lot. It's cheaper and is just as effective.

    The problem with using fashion as an example of patent free society is that it is art. And the definition of "art" is so ubiquitous now that I can create art in 2 minutes. I haven't taking an art class since Middle School, but I could learn how to knit in an afternoon and have a garment made up by bedtime. Would it sell, I highly doubt it. But I could wear it and someone else could wear it as well.

    Ideas may be free, but new science isn't, whether your in a Communist, Mixed, or anarcho capitalism economy. A company who invest 20 million to develop a new drug will never recoup their losses if someone can create a generic for 5 million.
    Last edited by thequietkid10; 05-10-2012 at 04:39 PM.

  23. #80
    And why is development of new drugs so expensive?



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by thequietkid10 View Post
    The problem with your statement is that you assume that brand name is the driving force behind sales. I grew up on store brand products, Aldi's and Save a Lot. It's cheaper and is just as effective.

    The problem with using fashion as an example of patent free society is that it is art. And the definition of "art" is so ubiquitous now that I can create art in 2 minutes. I haven't taking an art class since Middle School, but I could learn how to knit in an afternoon and have a garment made up by bedtime. Would it sell, I highly doubt it. But I could wear it and someone else could wear it as well.

    Ideas may be free, but new science isn't, whether your in a Communist, Mixed, or anarcho capitalism economy. A company who invest 20 million to develop a new drug will never recoup their losses if someone can create a generic for 5 million.
    They also won't recoup the losses if people discover a natural way to do what the drug does. (and this would happen if the FDA was abolished, as constitutionalists say they want) So? As pointed out earlier, the companies should simply find more efficient ways of making drugs instead of using government-enforced monopoly.

    ETA: the ideas of chemicals (pharma-drugs) are just as super-abundant as any other example of IP. That's how generics wind up being made after big pharma squeezes out as much "profit" as possible.

    ETA 2: drug development wouldn't be as expensive as it is without government regs.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 05-10-2012 at 04:46 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    They also won't recoup the losses if people discover a natural way to do what the drug does. (and this would happen if the FDA was abolished, as constitutionalists say they want) So? As pointed out earlier, the companies should simply find more efficient ways of making drugs instead of using government-enforced monopoly.
    I agree completely. Also, companies selling herbs have survived for thousands of years. If they can profit without the FDA and without patents, why can't drug companies?

  27. #83
    Drugs are actually an excellent example of patents encouraging development and innovation. It can cost millions or even billions to research new drugs and if the company is not able to have some protection for a limited time then a competiting company- who did not face those costs- can put out a copy of their own. Even if their cost of producing is the same, since they don't have the development costs, the competition makes more money off each one than the discoverer does- they only have the production and distribution costs to bear. Again, why go to the expense of researching new drugs if it is going to cost you money you cannot recover? Generics are cheaper precisely because they don't include R&D expenses.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Again, why go to the expense of researching new drugs if it is going to cost you money you cannot recover?
    Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Drugs are actually an excellent example of patents encouraging development and innovation. It can cost millions or even billions to research new drugs and if the company is not able to have some protection for a limited time then a competiting company- who did not face those costs- can put out a copy of their own. Even if their cost of producing is the same, since they don't have the development costs, the competition makes more money off each one than the discoverer does- they only have the production and distribution costs to bear. Again, why go to the expense of researching new drugs if it is going to cost you money you cannot recover? Generics are cheaper precisely because they don't include R&D expenses.
    Cutting out competition by creating an artificial monopoly on an idea is not the same as "encouraging development and innovation". Allowing producers to enter the market with minimum difficulty is "encouraging development and innovation". In fact, the fact that a corp can just patent a drug allows them to just sit on it indefinitely while competitors can't compete (and cause prices to drop).

    You're right that the process is expensive. Pharma corps should learn to be more cost-effective and competitive rather than turn to the government to protect their "ideas".
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Cutting out competition by creating an artificial monopoly on an idea is not the same as "encouraging development and innovation". Allowing producers to enter the market with minimum difficulty is "encouraging development and innovation". In fact, the fact that a corp can just patent a drug allows them to just sit on it indefinitely while competitors can't compete (and cause prices to drop).

    You're right that the process is expensive. Pharma corps should learn to be more cost-effective and competitive rather than turn to the government to protect their "ideas".
    They can sit on a patent if they want to- sure. But why? Especially given the high cost of drug research. It cost them money and if they aren't using it they are not making money off it and the time limit on the patent is ticking- the clock starts when the patent paperwork is filed, not when it is granted or when they start to produce anything using it. That would mean they wasted the development costs. Patents are for all inventors- not just Big Pharma.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-10-2012 at 05:19 PM.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    They can sit on a patent if they want to- sure. But why? Especially given the high cost of drug research. It cost them money and if they aren't using it they are not making money off it and the time limit on the patent is ticking. That would mean they wasted the development costs. Patents are for all inventors- not just Big Pharma.
    Same reason publishers sit on copyrights. To stifle innovation. If you can out-wait the competition, you wind up with all or most of the market share. Getting a patent isn't that expensive. (anyone can get one, as you say) Edison racked up more than 10,000 in his lifetime.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  32. #88
    Competition can't do anything during the life of the patent anyways whether you use it or not so not using it does nothing really to stifle competition. That actually puts you in the same position as the competition when you could have possibly moved ahead. It is true that the patent process is not that expensive but depending on what you make the R&D associated with the innovation can be- especially with drugs.

    Now you could come up with a patent for something your competitor might want- say an oil company buying up one for something to greatly improve the mileage for a car but the car companies will also be looking for other ways to improve them. They are not discouraged from further research themselves.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Now you could come up with a patent for something your competitor might want- say an oil company buying up one for something to greatly improve the mileage for a car but the car companies will also be looking for other ways to improve them. They are not discouraged from further research themselves.
    I'm not sure I like that logic... If you are marginalized by an unjust monopoly, you should seek one yourself? If somebody patents irrigation and you are sick of paying high food prices...you should patent the English language? The wheel?

    Certainly 'mileage patents' are an interest case study. There recently was a documentary called GasHole that looked largely at this...and it's quite incriminating. The oil companies are definitely sitting on high mileage patents (like ones that increase the surface-area of fuel-vapor and ones that introduce steam with gas-vapor to improve mileage). They definitely work and have dramatic results and it is a crime that they are being suppressed.

    It is important to acknowledge that there are cases in which patents do create economic value...and that is for where the patent would not have been invented otherwhise (which is actually quite rare as what holds back most patents are the cost and availability of key materials and dependent technologies). The history of coincidental inventions that nag a large many of history great inventions is quite indicative of this. But all in all, I'm not sure it is worth it. Say we express this all as a formula.

    Net economic benefit from patents = +(inventions that wouldn't have been invented otherwise) -(monopoly rent paid on patents awarded on inventions that naturally would have been duplicated) -(derivative inventions on legit patents)

    Can you honestly say this is a positive value?

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Competition can't do anything during the life of the patent anyways whether you use it or not so not using it does nothing really to stifle competition.
    Actually, it does stifle the competition. The patent life is typically 20 years. That's 20 years of competition and innovation lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    That actually puts you in the same position as the competition when you could have possibly moved ahead. It is true that the patent process is not that expensive but depending on what you make the R&D associated with the innovation can be- especially with drugs.
    Yes, but patent trolls have the same motivation as copyright trolls. It's illogical on the surface, but it is their subjective preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Now you could come up with a patent for something your competitor might want- say an oil company buying up one for something to greatly improve the mileage for a car but the car companies will also be looking for other ways to improve them. They are not discouraged from further research themselves.
    True, but the competitors cannot use and improve on the existing car technology. This allows patent holders to keep prices artificially high, as was touched on earlier in the thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. America: Friend of Dictatorships / China: Friend of Democracies
    By Occam's Banana in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-13-2013, 08:07 PM
  2. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 03:25 AM
  3. Anarcho-capitalism vs Free Market Anti-Capitalism
    By awake in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 04:12 PM
  4. What about patents?
    By AutoDas in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 03-28-2008, 01:46 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-06-2008, 09:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •