11 ms·

I think his response to someone suddenly "owning" the company is odd. Here's what my response would have been: ---- Hi, Billy. Thanks for telling us about yo

by adekok 11y ago

I think his response to someone suddenly "owning" the company is odd. Here's what my response would have been: ---- Hi, Billy. Thanks for telling us about your other company with your friend. I'm a little disappointed that you weren't open that you're already in this space. And that your existing company is in direct competition with the one we all agreed to start that weekend. However, I'm flexible. I'm willing to license my code to your other company for a flat fee of $10,000. This includes all intellectual property rights to my software. That fee is reasonable given my time and experience. I think that the others on the team will have similar opinions about their contributions. If you choose to not take me up on my offer, I wish you luck finding programmers to re-implement the software from scratch. Sincerely, Programmer. --- ... does anyone not understand the legal rights behind IP? Billy has zero rights to use the software in his existing company. He knows that, which is why he's trying to bamboozle everyone. Instead of arguing about an "existing" company, they need to talk about their code. They own it. They control it. No one else has the legal right to use it. What's the problem? They don't give Billy the right to use their code, and he goes away.... or gets sued.

Sleaker 11y ago
Exactly what I've been thinking. Like yah Billy is definitely giving the asshole vibe from the story given (granted it is one perspective) but regardless of that, and how the programmers conducted themselves during the weekend, Billy has no rights to the software that the others created without having established a contract, and based on the current evidence, there wasn't a contract to begin with other than a gentleman's agreement that they would have ownership stakes if it went off the ground.
- andyidsinga 11y ago
  hmm -- why couldn't everybody on the team (technical and non-technical) claim ownership to any collateral developed over the weekend?
  - sgk284 11y ago
    All of them can and all of them have to buy in to licensing it. Similar to when an open source project wants to change licenses (for some licenses), they need to reach out to every contributor and get an agreement from them.
  - eric_bullington 11y ago
    Because the non-programmers didn't write it. That's how copyright works, and it's why big companies are so careful about this, and make you sign reams of papers. This is also why it's such a pain in the ass for open source projects to changes licenses -- they have to get permission from everyone and anyone who contributed code, or rewrite that person's contributions. You write it, you own the copyright for whatever part you wrote unless you formally transfer your copyright via contract. You don't even have to file any papers to get copyright, it's automatic.
    - andyidsinga 11y ago
      thanks for the clarification - the part about not having to file any papers is something I didn't understand at all. So in this example of startup weekend, whoever writes a piece of code owns it, whoever writes website copy owns it and so on and so forth to the extent that the startup weekend ip policy doesn't setup something different for participants. (edit: fixed the last paragraph)
andyidsinga 11y ago
I'm not sure the licensing response would work in the case of the code developed over the course of a startup weekend event. I suspect anyone on the SW "team" could claim ownership of the code and any aspect of the business. SW trys to avoid these issues during the weekend ..from their FAQ: (http://startupweekend.org/about/firsttimer/ http://startupweekend.org/about/firsttimer/) How do teams address the issue of IP/ownership? As with any startup, the team decides. Startup Weekend doesn’t support or take part in the signing of any legal documents at the events themselves, and while Mentors with legal backgrounds are often present and able to give general advice, they are not permitted to give specific legal counsel.While it doesn’t hurt to be clear about your individual expectations from the start, we’ve found that teams who don’t spend time addressing this issue until it actually matters (i.e., there is a tangible product to have ownership of) are much more productive and successful than those who do.
- adekok 11y ago
  > I'm not sure the licensing response would work in the case of the code developed over the course of a startup weekend event. You can always license any code you wrote. > How do teams address the issue of IP/ownership? As with any startup, the team decides. That's not how copyright law works.
  - andyidsinga 11y ago
    > You can always license any code you wrote. No you can't ...not if someone else has a claim on the work you do. I can't put "copyright <my name>" on the code I write at work ... its "copyright <my company>" EDIT: re license vs copyright : I also can't just unilaterally decide what license I use for code I write at my company. I think its reasonable to think the same would hold true given that FAQ item. > That's not how copyright law works. That was from the SW weekend FAQ. But I think that FAQ holds weight -- just like my statement above. If the rules for the weekend are the "team decides" you can't just go claiming ownership of stuff you did for the team.
    - lmartel 11y ago
monochromatic 11y ago
Unless you sign some sort of documents when you participate in Startup Weekend.
slashink 11y ago
This is my exact thought. It seems "Billy" here won because he paid $200 for something worth a whole lot more? adekok's response is perfect and really shows how to deal with this situation. Be clear about your rights, don't let people like this get away.
- nestlequ1k 11y ago
  From what I understood, Billy didn't pay Bobby $200 for the code, he just paid out a portion of the prize money they received from Startup Weekend. From the tone of the emails, I'm almost certain Bobby didn't sign over his rights in exchange for that $200. He still owns all the code he wrote. If Billy uses that code in his own business that would be unauthorized and legal action can be taken.
  - restalis 11y ago
    Of course actions can (and should) be taken. The OP protected the identity of the parts involved, but I am feeling free to drop in more info about the whole thing: http://www.caledonvirtual.com/2015-startup-weekend-columbia-missouri/ http://www.caledonvirtual.com/2015-startup-weekend-columbia-... The start-up is called StaffedUp and it's site is up and running (with that unlicensed code, I presume): http://www.staffedup.com http://www.staffedup.com
    - joesmo 11y ago
      If he actually managed to build it into something, even better. That's more spoils when they win the lawsuit.
    - jeeva 11y ago
      Out of curiosity: You're feeling free because you're another member of the team or have prior knowledge of the situation, or because you Googled it and just want to?
      - restalis 11y ago
        Because this touches me in a very personal way, regardless the fact that I may or not be a member of the team.
kevindeasis 11y ago
Also, remember there is always this special trick(im joking): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10084570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10084570
bakhy 11y ago
i'm curious, how enforceable is that? what kind of proof would one need?
- thrill 11y ago
  8 guys testifying in court with the same message is a pretty big thing to dismiss.
ryanbrunner 11y ago
Does the 0.4% "handshake deal" potentially cause issues with this, though? Couldn't that be construed as an offer for the work that was produced that weekend? If I was being uncharitable, I could say that the reason the 0.4% offer came up in the first place was specifically to deal with this problem - by offering a trivial amount of equity, Billy has an argument that the other programmers were compensated for their time in a form that they mutually agreed to. Why else would Billy bother making this arrangement?
- dalke 11y ago
  No, the relevant copyright law does not accept a 'handshake deal' to transfer copyright ownership as work for hire. Quoting from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf : > A work created by an independent contractor can be a work made for hire only if (a) it falls within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 above and (b) there is a written agreement between parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    Is access to the biz dev IP probably included by a handshake deal?
    - dalke 11y ago
      What sort of IP are you talking about? There's no trademark infringement, there's no patent. I didn't see mention of any trade secret, or anything that sounds like a trade secret (eg, "information which is difficult for others to properly acquire or independently duplicate"). If there's no law covering it, there's no IP.
- carrja99 11y ago
  From what I read Billy didn't make the arrangement, one of the developers did. The idea was that if the entire team of 9 didn't stick around to when the startup becomes successful then they at least get 0.4% equity for participating at startup weekend.
fla 11y ago
It's not a problem for Billy, software gets built by itself if you have the right ideas. Just throw some dollars at an over-seas team. Execution is never a problem. /s
- annnnd 11y ago
  Execution is never a problem. GOOD execution is THE problem.
  - irl_zebra 11y ago
    This is a nice platitude, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. For example: I'd suspect most ideas aren't that good, so it logically follows that execution would not be THE problem in most cases. More like: GOOD execution is one of the major problems.
    - pc86 11y ago
      But then how else can we continue the narrative that it's the Engineers (because we're not programmers but Engineers with a capital E) who are the end-all-be-all of any tech startup, and it solely on our shoulders that the company lives or dies?
      - silverbax88 11y ago
        As a programmer, I can promise you that engineers are not the be-all-end-all. It's sales. This is why engineers should not be afraid to sell, or at least, not be afraid to be out in front. The power in any organization comes from who sells the product.
        nostrademons 11y ago
        Sales is not the be-all-end-all. It's engineering, and sales, and product/UX, and finance, and sometimes even customer service/marketing/PR/legal too. Salespeople need a product to sell, which has to be built, which requires money. Good businesses understand that all their functional areas are important, and don't try to preference one over another. You may need to focus on one at first to make progress with it, though I'd argue that when you first get started, that one area should be none of the above (it should be customer development in the Lean Startup sense: talking to people to get a sense of what they need and how they do things).
carrja99 11y ago
Exactly. In fact as a team I believe they have the power to vote him off the team. Since he registered the name and domain they can simply come up with a new name, move the code to their new domain and continue working on the startup. Billy has zero rights to the code and as such should not be allowed to make any use of it. This pretty much leaves Billy in the same spot he's been for the last 18 months.
- crucialfelix 11y ago
  If they could bang the thing out in a weekend then he can get somebody else to rebuild it. He is the only one among them that can or will sell it to restaurants. He's the only one with any emotional attachment to pushing this very little idea forward. I think programmers here are assuming "execution" means coding. It really means sales, pitching, customer development. Also product development - refining the features over time. Billy will screw that up for sure.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    "If they could bang the thing out in a weekend then he can get somebody else to rebuild it." Can he? He incorporated 18 months before Startup Weekend, and had literally nothing to show for that time, except a business plan. Evidence strongly indicates he could not (easily) "get somebody else to rebuild it". Which is why he came to Startup Weekend and defrauded 8 developers out of their time and skill. He clearly couldn't (or wouldn't) pay market rates to get it done, or he would have done so in the 18 months preceding this.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    TL;DR: I think everyone is massively underestimating how much Billy has to lose here. The developers signed away a weekend of work for a 0.4% stake. Billy signed away some undefinable chunk of 18 MONTHS of biz dev for a 0.4% stake! If Billy gets their code, then they compete against Billy using his client list, his price lists, etc. because those were exposed during the weekend.* And, it's not like Billy has super exclusive access to the restaurant business. They could partner with other restaurant owners in the region who are similarly turned off by people like Billy. I'm sure those people exist, given the homophobic and generally condescending comments on display here... So, Billy has: a code base he cannot easily iterate on because he's fucked over his entire potential employee base. Developers have: * A lot of Billy's biz dev work over the past 8 months. * The freedom to exploit personality conflicts in the local/regional business scene to score additional business partners. * Far lower costs. There are probably tons of bugs in a weekend code sprint product, and Billy isn't going to find any free labor to clean those up. Remember a big chunk of software dev is extending and debugging existing code... Billy ain't going nowhere with a static code base. * Worst case, the "fuck you" factor and access to free skilled labor (their own) necessary to make break-even or even loss leader pricing structures. This is a unique advantage in their negotiations with Billy. The last two together would totally screw over Billy. Imagine these developers going into a meeting and demonstrating security flaws or bad GUI glitches in Billy's product during a live meeting... the client might not go with these guys, but in the VERY BEST case for Billy, he's got to hire a freelance developer to clean up the code base. Not going to be able to exploit a hackathon for that sort of stuff, and 80% of software developer is maintenance... * Maybe Billy claims they only get access to his work done that weekend. But that's bullshit; they developers didn't teach themselves to create rather specific types of products in a weekend... to the extent that there's any contract there, if it came out during the weekend, then it counts toward the agreement.
adaml_623 11y ago
An idea I just thought of: If you're working on a hack project like this then insist on all copyright notices in the code and site being assigned to a made up organisation with all the names in it. So put @copyright SmithJonesZuckerbergOrg in all the source files and html. Those files would be a record of the interaction and activity on the hack weekend and would allow for a neat place for lawyers to start in negotiating a smooth buyout in this situation. Because I would rather accept $1K than work with that type of individual.
- nostrademons 11y ago
  Or just push it to GitHub. Git records the author of each commit with it, assuming you've set up your .gitconfig correctly. In the absence of a contract stating otherwise, copyright remains with the person who wrote each part of the work. 'git blame' will show exactly who wrote what. GitHub gives you a third-party, subpoenable, record of who committed when.
  - somedudethere 11y ago
    To be fair the commit time and the authorship time are not the same. You can author something at work and wait to get home to commit it and vice versa.
    - nostrademons 11y ago
      Yeah, you can, but that's more of an issue when proving "Does my employer own my work or do I?" For the startup weekend case, time doesn't matter, you only need to prove authorship - and while a git commit that says "Bobby Boyd <rboyd@gmail.com>" doesn't necessarily mean Bobby Boyd wrote it, that plus Bobby Boyd saying he wrote it, plus a GitHub log showing that the authorship attribution hasn't been tampered with, is pretty good evidence that he wrote it. If Billy NoLastName had written it, why didn't he claim credit for it when he pushed it?
      - eric_bullington 11y ago

by adekok 11y ago

Sleaker 11y ago

Exactly what I've been thinking. Like yah Billy is definitely giving the asshole vibe from the story given (granted it is one perspective) but regardless of that, and how the programmers conducted themselves during the weekend, Billy has no rights to the software that the others created without having established a contract, and based on the current evidence, there wasn't a contract to begin with other than a gentleman's agreement that they would have ownership stakes if it went off the ground.

andyidsinga 11y ago
hmm -- why couldn't everybody on the team (technical and non-technical) claim ownership to any collateral developed over the weekend?
- sgk284 11y ago
  All of them can and all of them have to buy in to licensing it. Similar to when an open source project wants to change licenses (for some licenses), they need to reach out to every contributor and get an agreement from them.
- eric_bullington 11y ago
  Because the non-programmers didn't write it. That's how copyright works, and it's why big companies are so careful about this, and make you sign reams of papers. This is also why it's such a pain in the ass for open source projects to changes licenses -- they have to get permission from everyone and anyone who contributed code, or rewrite that person's contributions. You write it, you own the copyright for whatever part you wrote unless you formally transfer your copyright via contract. You don't even have to file any papers to get copyright, it's automatic.
  - andyidsinga 11y ago
    thanks for the clarification - the part about not having to file any papers is something I didn't understand at all. So in this example of startup weekend, whoever writes a piece of code owns it, whoever writes website copy owns it and so on and so forth to the extent that the startup weekend ip policy doesn't setup something different for participants. (edit: fixed the last paragraph)

andyidsinga 11y ago

I'm not sure the licensing response would work in the case of the code developed over the course of a startup weekend event. I suspect anyone on the SW "team" could claim ownership of the code and any aspect of the business. SW trys to avoid these issues during the weekend ..from their FAQ: (http://startupweekend.org/about/firsttimer/ http://startupweekend.org/about/firsttimer/) How do teams address the issue of IP/ownership? As with any startup, the team decides. Startup Weekend doesn’t support or take part in the signing of any legal documents at the events themselves, and while Mentors with legal backgrounds are often present and able to give general advice, they are not permitted to give specific legal counsel.While it doesn’t hurt to be clear about your individual expectations from the start, we’ve found that teams who don’t spend time addressing this issue until it actually matters (i.e., there is a tangible product to have ownership of) are much more productive and successful than those who do.

adekok 11y ago
> I'm not sure the licensing response would work in the case of the code developed over the course of a startup weekend event. You can always license any code you wrote. > How do teams address the issue of IP/ownership? As with any startup, the team decides. That's not how copyright law works.
- andyidsinga 11y ago
  > You can always license any code you wrote. No you can't ...not if someone else has a claim on the work you do. I can't put "copyright <my name>" on the code I write at work ... its "copyright <my company>" EDIT: re license vs copyright : I also can't just unilaterally decide what license I use for code I write at my company. I think its reasonable to think the same would hold true given that FAQ item. > That's not how copyright law works. That was from the SW weekend FAQ. But I think that FAQ holds weight -- just like my statement above. If the rules for the weekend are the "team decides" you can't just go claiming ownership of stuff you did for the team.
  - lmartel 11y ago

monochromatic 11y ago

Unless you sign some sort of documents when you participate in Startup Weekend.

slashink 11y ago

This is my exact thought. It seems "Billy" here won because he paid $200 for something worth a whole lot more? adekok's response is perfect and really shows how to deal with this situation. Be clear about your rights, don't let people like this get away.

nestlequ1k 11y ago
From what I understood, Billy didn't pay Bobby $200 for the code, he just paid out a portion of the prize money they received from Startup Weekend. From the tone of the emails, I'm almost certain Bobby didn't sign over his rights in exchange for that $200. He still owns all the code he wrote. If Billy uses that code in his own business that would be unauthorized and legal action can be taken.
- restalis 11y ago
  Of course actions can (and should) be taken. The OP protected the identity of the parts involved, but I am feeling free to drop in more info about the whole thing: http://www.caledonvirtual.com/2015-startup-weekend-columbia-missouri/ http://www.caledonvirtual.com/2015-startup-weekend-columbia-... The start-up is called StaffedUp and it's site is up and running (with that unlicensed code, I presume): http://www.staffedup.com http://www.staffedup.com
  - joesmo 11y ago
    If he actually managed to build it into something, even better. That's more spoils when they win the lawsuit.
  - jeeva 11y ago
    Out of curiosity: You're feeling free because you're another member of the team or have prior knowledge of the situation, or because you Googled it and just want to?
    - restalis 11y ago
      Because this touches me in a very personal way, regardless the fact that I may or not be a member of the team.

kevindeasis 11y ago

Also, remember there is always this special trick(im joking): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10084570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10084570

bakhy 11y ago

i'm curious, how enforceable is that? what kind of proof would one need?

thrill 11y ago
8 guys testifying in court with the same message is a pretty big thing to dismiss.

ryanbrunner 11y ago

Does the 0.4% "handshake deal" potentially cause issues with this, though? Couldn't that be construed as an offer for the work that was produced that weekend? If I was being uncharitable, I could say that the reason the 0.4% offer came up in the first place was specifically to deal with this problem - by offering a trivial amount of equity, Billy has an argument that the other programmers were compensated for their time in a form that they mutually agreed to. Why else would Billy bother making this arrangement?

dalke 11y ago
No, the relevant copyright law does not accept a 'handshake deal' to transfer copyright ownership as work for hire. Quoting from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf : > A work created by an independent contractor can be a work made for hire only if (a) it falls within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 above and (b) there is a written agreement between parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  Is access to the biz dev IP probably included by a handshake deal?
  - dalke 11y ago
    What sort of IP are you talking about? There's no trademark infringement, there's no patent. I didn't see mention of any trade secret, or anything that sounds like a trade secret (eg, "information which is difficult for others to properly acquire or independently duplicate"). If there's no law covering it, there's no IP.
carrja99 11y ago
From what I read Billy didn't make the arrangement, one of the developers did. The idea was that if the entire team of 9 didn't stick around to when the startup becomes successful then they at least get 0.4% equity for participating at startup weekend.

fla 11y ago

It's not a problem for Billy, software gets built by itself if you have the right ideas. Just throw some dollars at an over-seas team. Execution is never a problem. /s

annnnd 11y ago
Execution is never a problem. GOOD execution is THE problem.
- irl_zebra 11y ago
  This is a nice platitude, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. For example: I'd suspect most ideas aren't that good, so it logically follows that execution would not be THE problem in most cases. More like: GOOD execution is one of the major problems.
  - pc86 11y ago
    But then how else can we continue the narrative that it's the Engineers (because we're not programmers but Engineers with a capital E) who are the end-all-be-all of any tech startup, and it solely on our shoulders that the company lives or dies?
    - silverbax88 11y ago
      As a programmer, I can promise you that engineers are not the be-all-end-all. It's sales. This is why engineers should not be afraid to sell, or at least, not be afraid to be out in front. The power in any organization comes from who sells the product.
      - nostrademons 11y ago
        Sales is not the be-all-end-all. It's engineering, and sales, and product/UX, and finance, and sometimes even customer service/marketing/PR/legal too. Salespeople need a product to sell, which has to be built, which requires money. Good businesses understand that all their functional areas are important, and don't try to preference one over another. You may need to focus on one at first to make progress with it, though I'd argue that when you first get started, that one area should be none of the above (it should be customer development in the Lean Startup sense: talking to people to get a sense of what they need and how they do things).

carrja99 11y ago

Exactly. In fact as a team I believe they have the power to vote him off the team. Since he registered the name and domain they can simply come up with a new name, move the code to their new domain and continue working on the startup. Billy has zero rights to the code and as such should not be allowed to make any use of it. This pretty much leaves Billy in the same spot he's been for the last 18 months.

crucialfelix 11y ago
If they could bang the thing out in a weekend then he can get somebody else to rebuild it. He is the only one among them that can or will sell it to restaurants. He's the only one with any emotional attachment to pushing this very little idea forward. I think programmers here are assuming "execution" means coding. It really means sales, pitching, customer development. Also product development - refining the features over time. Billy will screw that up for sure.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  "If they could bang the thing out in a weekend then he can get somebody else to rebuild it." Can he? He incorporated 18 months before Startup Weekend, and had literally nothing to show for that time, except a business plan. Evidence strongly indicates he could not (easily) "get somebody else to rebuild it". Which is why he came to Startup Weekend and defrauded 8 developers out of their time and skill. He clearly couldn't (or wouldn't) pay market rates to get it done, or he would have done so in the 18 months preceding this.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  TL;DR: I think everyone is massively underestimating how much Billy has to lose here. The developers signed away a weekend of work for a 0.4% stake. Billy signed away some undefinable chunk of 18 MONTHS of biz dev for a 0.4% stake! If Billy gets their code, then they compete against Billy using his client list, his price lists, etc. because those were exposed during the weekend.* And, it's not like Billy has super exclusive access to the restaurant business. They could partner with other restaurant owners in the region who are similarly turned off by people like Billy. I'm sure those people exist, given the homophobic and generally condescending comments on display here... So, Billy has: a code base he cannot easily iterate on because he's fucked over his entire potential employee base. Developers have: * A lot of Billy's biz dev work over the past 8 months. * The freedom to exploit personality conflicts in the local/regional business scene to score additional business partners. * Far lower costs. There are probably tons of bugs in a weekend code sprint product, and Billy isn't going to find any free labor to clean those up. Remember a big chunk of software dev is extending and debugging existing code... Billy ain't going nowhere with a static code base. * Worst case, the "fuck you" factor and access to free skilled labor (their own) necessary to make break-even or even loss leader pricing structures. This is a unique advantage in their negotiations with Billy. The last two together would totally screw over Billy. Imagine these developers going into a meeting and demonstrating security flaws or bad GUI glitches in Billy's product during a live meeting... the client might not go with these guys, but in the VERY BEST case for Billy, he's got to hire a freelance developer to clean up the code base. Not going to be able to exploit a hackathon for that sort of stuff, and 80% of software developer is maintenance... * Maybe Billy claims they only get access to his work done that weekend. But that's bullshit; they developers didn't teach themselves to create rather specific types of products in a weekend... to the extent that there's any contract there, if it came out during the weekend, then it counts toward the agreement.

adaml_623 11y ago

An idea I just thought of: If you're working on a hack project like this then insist on all copyright notices in the code and site being assigned to a made up organisation with all the names in it. So put @copyright SmithJonesZuckerbergOrg in all the source files and html. Those files would be a record of the interaction and activity on the hack weekend and would allow for a neat place for lawyers to start in negotiating a smooth buyout in this situation. Because I would rather accept $1K than work with that type of individual.

nostrademons 11y ago
Or just push it to GitHub. Git records the author of each commit with it, assuming you've set up your .gitconfig correctly. In the absence of a contract stating otherwise, copyright remains with the person who wrote each part of the work. 'git blame' will show exactly who wrote what. GitHub gives you a third-party, subpoenable, record of who committed when.
- somedudethere 11y ago
  To be fair the commit time and the authorship time are not the same. You can author something at work and wait to get home to commit it and vice versa.
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    Yeah, you can, but that's more of an issue when proving "Does my employer own my work or do I?" For the startup weekend case, time doesn't matter, you only need to prove authorship - and while a git commit that says "Bobby Boyd <rboyd@gmail.com>" doesn't necessarily mean Bobby Boyd wrote it, that plus Bobby Boyd saying he wrote it, plus a GitHub log showing that the authorship attribution hasn't been tampered with, is pretty good evidence that he wrote it. If Billy NoLastName had written it, why didn't he claim credit for it when he pushed it?
    - eric_bullington 11y ago