DOCSLIB.ORG

Replace This with the Actual Title Using All Caps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Replace This with the Actual Title Using All Caps UNPACKING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF SHARING 3D DIGITAL DESIGNS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IP AND BEYOND A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Stephanie Michelle Santoso December 2019 © 2019 Stephanie Michelle Santoso UNPACKING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF SHARING DIGITAL DESIGNS AMONG 3D PRINTING USERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IP AND BEYOND Stephanie Michelle Santoso, Ph. D. Cornell University 2019 This doctoral research identifies and examines the challenges that 3D printing users face in creating and sharing digital design files, hardware and documentation related to intellectual property and other critical issues. In particular, this thesis describes the processes that 3D printing users undertake in leveraging Creative Commons (CC) and other approaches to securing IP rights. To investigate these questions, I employ a theoretical lens informed by the social construction of technology, free innovation and recursive publics. Through a combination of 20 open-ended interviews with members of the 3D printing community, the development of three in-depth case studies and additional secondary data analyses, I find that fewer members of the community use Creative Commons than originally expected and that there are persistent gaps in the understanding of how Creative Commons can be useful for the sharing of digital design files, hardware and documentation. While the original goals of this research focused more specifically on the IP issues facing 3D printing users, the overall findings of these activities provide broader insights around how users of a particular technology, in this case 3D printing, engage in different kinds of practices around sharing what they have created and the ways that these behaviors create an active community committed to perpetuating the creation of new knowledge, solutions and objects. While this research started out with very focused questions about one very specific kind of sharing (the use of CC licenses, what drives this use, challenges around this use, etc.), the research and findings ended up being more about how the broader practices of sharing digital design files are informed by the existing values and experiences of the individuals involved, field- specific issues and existing power structures, institutions and hierarchies that can enable or challenge this kind of work. Collectively, this research suggests that while IP issues do create barriers to 3D printing users sharing the digital design files that they have created, many 3D printing users have found different ways to address these issues. The learning and insights from this research are used to develop a set of recommendations to inform the development of technical mechanisms, educational initiatives and policy interventions that make it possible for 3D printing users to continue to share what they’ve created in ways that encourage open innovation and the building off on each other’s work safely, securely and with the acknowledgement of creators’ contributions. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Stephanie Santoso is a PhD Candidate in Information Science. She is the Director of Maker Initiatives at the education non-profit organization, Citizen Schools. She has worked as the Senior Advisor for Making at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Obama Administration and has served as a Program Fellow at the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Infosys Foundation USA. She is also a Founding Board Member of the national non-profit organization, Nation of Makers. She holds an MS in Information Management from Syracuse University and a Bachelor of Science in Marketing and Media Studies from the University of Virginia. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am incredibly grateful to my advisor, Steve Wicker and my committee members, Steve Jackson and Trevor Pinch for their unwavering support, guidance and mentorship throughout my Ph.D. journey. I could not have done this without the love and support of my parents, Muljadi and Theresa and my husband, Andreas. My colleagues in the Information Science, Science and Technology Studies, and Communications Ph.D. programs have been wonderful collaborators and thought partners at each stage of this research. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 CHAPTER 1- Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Research Problem ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Goals of this Research ................................................................................................ 8 1.4 Relevance of this research .......................................................................................... 9 2 CHAPTER 2- Literature Review ..................................................................................... 12 2.1 Intellectual Property Rights Regimes and Creative Commons ................................ 12 2.2 Patent Law ................................................................................................................ 12 2.2.1 Patents and 3D Printing .................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Patents and 3D Printed Objects ........................................................................ 17 2.2.3 Where 3D Models Intersect Patent Law ........................................................... 19 2.3 Copyright Law .......................................................................................................... 20 2.3.1 Copyright and 3D Models ................................................................................ 24 2.3.2 First Sale Doctrine and Exhaustion .................................................................. 35 2.4 Other previous legal cases focused on technology related to 3D printing ............... 38 2.4.1 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ................................... 39 2.4.2 A&M Records, Inc. vs. Napster, Inc. ............................................................... 39 2.4.3 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al., vs. Grokster, LTD., et al.............. 41 2.4.4 Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. ...................... 42 2.5 Trademarks and 3D Printing .................................................................................... 44 3 CHAPTER 3- Theoretical Framework ............................................................................ 46 3.1 Social Construction of Technology .......................................................................... 47 3.2 Recursive Publics ..................................................................................................... 53 3.3 Free Innovation ........................................................................................................ 58 4 CHAPTER 4- Research Design and Methodology ......................................................... 65 4.1 Epistemology ............................................................................................................ 66 4.2 Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research .......................................... 68 4.3 Sampling ................................................................................................................... 71 4.4 Secondary Data ........................................................................................................ 73 4.5 Reliability & Validity ............................................................................................... 74 5 CHAPTER 5- Interview Analysis ................................................................................... 76 5.1 Valuable but unexpected insights regarding the sharing of digital designs and other 3D printing innovations ....................................................................................................... 85 vii 5.2 Critical factors which inform the sharing of digital files and 3D printing hardware 87 5.3 Challenges and questions that arise once the decision to share something has been made 95 5.4 How applications of 3D printing to specific fields create risks and uncertainties and how these are resolved ....................................................................................................... 100 5.5 Users have a general lack of familiarity with how Creative Commons can be used in the sharing, distribution and governance of their digital design files. This includes users who are actively using the licenses. ................................................................................... 102 5.6 Users leverage 3D printing as a technological artifact to tackle a specific long-term problem within a field. ....................................................................................................... 104 5.7 Users can play a critical role in the development and advancement of 3D printing hardware and tools. ............................................................................................................ 107 5.8 Organizations that previously focused on developing 3D assets specifically for 3D printing are learning that this was a myopic approach. ...................................................... 109 5.9 An institution’s or field’s overall policies or norms around IP can
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee
    Hastings Business Law Journal Volume 13 Article 2 Number 2 Winter 2017 Winter 2017 Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_business_law_journal Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Jyh-An Lee, Licensing Open Government Data, 13 Hastings Bus. L.J. 207 (2017). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol13/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Business Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2 - LEE MACROED.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/5/2017 11:09 AM Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee* Governments around the world create and collect an enormous amount of data that covers important environmental, educational, geographical, meteorological, scientific, demographic, transport, tourism, health insurance, crime, occupational safety, product safety, and many other types of information.1 This data is generated as part of a government’s daily functions.2 Given government data’s exceptional social and economic value, former U.S. President Barack Obama described it as a “national asset.”3 For various policy reasons, open government data (“OGD”) has become a popular governmental practice and international * Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law in the Chinese University
    [Show full text]
  • How to Sustain Technology and Make It Profitable While Avoiding IP Conflicts
    How to sustain technology and make it profitable while avoiding IP conflicts Harvard Biotechnology Journal Club meeting, Feb 22nd 2017 Julian Daich, fellow at the Wound Healing and Tissue Engineering Lab, BWH, supervised by Dennis Orgill Patents First established in Venice in 1450, patents are a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention Source: Wikipedia A patent – grants a monopoly over a technological niche – does not guarantee freedom to operate – standard formal structure ● State of the art ● Full description of the invention with examples ● Claims- sentences that define the scope to be enforced a patent application has to show novelty and non obviousness – Empowerment. Patents are a legal basis for priority access to a technological niche – Freedom. Patents are a legal stamp that guarantees protection from other patents Defensive vs offensive ● Big corps dealing with ● Big corps pursuing to many technologies and monopolize a niche parties ● Newcomers attempting ● Newcomers attempting to capture a niche to access to an existing ● Non practitioners niche ● Patent trolls ● Technological standards and frameworks ● Can either accelerate or stop innovation ● Do not harm innovation Patent SWOT ● Strengths ● Weakness – Empower to develop – Discourage making new technology developments or – Encourage to share improvements to already knowledge patented technology ● Opportunities ● Threats – Create new technological – Ambigous patents can niches and markets be used to block technology development or to obtain economical benefits at expenses of authentic innovation Patentleft ● Person A has a patent, and licenses it under a patentleft license.
    [Show full text]
  • Open IP Workgroup Report
    Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings, Volume 2, 2017, issn: 2473-6236 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13021/G8osi.1.2017.1935 Open IP Workgroup Report Joann Delenick, Donald Guy, Laurel Haak, Patrick Herron, Joyce Ogburn, Crispin Taylor Abstract / Workgroup Question As a new issue for OSI2017, this workgroup (originally designated as the Patent Literature workgroup) will look at patent literature, research reports, databases and other published in- formation. OSI by design has a university-centric and journal-centric bias to the perspectives being considered. Patent literature, research reports, and databases are also important sources of research information—more so than journals in some disciplines (although these still reference journal articles). As with journal articles, this information isn’t always free or easy to find and is suffering from some of the same usability issues as journal articles. workgroup concentrated our efforts on I. Framing and Scoping developing recommendations relevant to improving the discovery, access and use From the beginning of our workgroup of patent data and closely-related IP. discussions, we realized that the scope of our assigned topic, patent literature, was too II. What is Open IP? narrow in comparison to the range of in- tellectual property specified in the topic In the context of our discussions, the assignment. With patent literature, re- concept of Open IP could certainly relate search reports, and databases in mind, we to ideas of open innovation; we recognize, looked at the topic as a broader continu- however, that intellectual property, espe- um of intellectual property (IP). Our cially when operating within scholarly group began by defining intellectual property domains, can far exceed its role as a foun- as the set of objects comprised of artifacts dation for commercial innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations for Open Data Portals: from Setup to Sustainability
    This study has been prepared by Capgemini Invent as part of the European Data Portal. The European Data Portal is an initiative of the European Commission, implemented with the support of a consortiumi led by Capgemini Invent, including Intrasoft International, Fraunhofer Fokus, con.terra, Sogeti, 52North, Time.Lex, the Lisbon Council, and the University of Southampton. The Publications Office of the European Union is responsible for contract management of the European Data Portal. For more information about this paper, please contact: European Commission Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit G.1 Data Policy and Innovation Daniele Rizzi – Policy Officer Email: [email protected] European Data Portal Gianfranco Cecconi, European Data Portal Lead Email: [email protected] Written by: Jorn Berends Wendy Carrara Wander Engbers Heleen Vollers Last update: 15.07.2020 www: https://europeandataportal.eu/ @: [email protected] DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content and Technology. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use, which may be made of the information contained therein. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 © European Union, 2020 OA-03-20-042-EN-N ISBN: 978-92-78-41872-4 doi: 10.2830/876679 The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Empowering Social Media: Citizens-Source E-Government and Peer-To-Peer Networks" (2012)
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC 2012 Conference Proceedings 6-15-2012 Empowering Social Media: Citizens-Source e- Government and Peer-to-Peer Networks Maxat Kassen University of Illinois at Chicago, [email protected] Recommended Citation Kassen, Maxat, "Empowering Social Media: Citizens-Source e-Government and Peer-to-Peer Networks" (2012). 2012. Paper 3. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pnconfs_2012/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conference Proceedings at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Empowering Social Media: Citizens-Source e-Government and Peer-to-Peer Networks Presentation at the 5th Political Networks Conference, University of Colorado (June 13-16, 2012, Boulder, USA) Maxat Kassen Fulbright Scholar, PhD in Political Science, University of Illinois at Chicago Structure of citizen sourcing General Description of the Networks Introduction concept (findings): Two models of e-government networks were analyzed: traditional concept with This study examines the empowering potential of digital media e-government platform as a central supernode and citizen-sourcing model or The peer-to-peer relations between citizens as a platform useful for promotion of open government and peer-to-peer model without a central node. creation of citizens-source e-government networks. The author Quasi-peer-to-peer networks: there is always a proxy even in the argues that today e-government agenda
    [Show full text]
  • Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software
    Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software OUCS, 12 January 2009 What we will cover: ● Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks ● Software Patents and FOSS ● Sustainability and Business Models ● Some Project Examples ● Conclusion Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks (1) ● Many within the FOSS community reject the idea that a FOSS licence is a contract ● This is mainly for practical reasons, as contract law varies widely between countries, and is relatively expensive to litigate. ● In comparison IP law and specifically copyright law is more uniform, being the subject of numerous international treaties ● They argue that there is thus no need for explicit acceptance – the licensor either abides by the conditions of the licence or has no licence ● Thus enforcement of licence conditions is traditionally undertaken by asserting copyright infringement (no licence) rather than contractual breach Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks (2) ● Exclusions of warranty and limitations of liability in all current FOSS licences are drafted to be effective under US law. Note: The GNU GPL v3 allows the inclusion of additional, regionalised exclusions and limitations. ● Occasionally the legal basis for the enforceability of FOSS licences is challenged, for example Wallace v. FSF, where it was argued that the GPL was a form of price-fixing and Jacobsen v. Katzer, where it was argued that a FOSS licensor must rely on contract law to enforce their conditions (both failed) ● Many FOSS licences do not specify a jurisdiction in which disputes should be resolved (and some specify inappropriate jurisdictions) Software Patents and FOSS ● Traditionally staff charged with exploiting software IP generated in UK Higher Education have considered the obtaining of software patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Analytical Report N20
    Analytical Report n20 Analytical Report 20 COPERNICUS DATA FOR THE OPEN DATA COMMUNITY This study has been prepared by the con.terra as part of the European Data Portal. The European Data Portal is an initiative of the European Commission, implemented with the support of a consortium led by Capgemini Invent, including Intrasoft International, Fraunhofer Fokus, con.terra, Sogeti, 52°North, Time.Lex, the Lisbon Council, and the University of Southampton. The Publications Office of the European Union is responsible for contract management of the European Data Portal. For more information about this paper, please contact: European Commission Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Unit G.1 Data Policy and Innovation Daniele Rizzi – Policy Officer Email: daniele.rizzi@ ec.europa.eu European Data Portal Gianfranco Cecconi, European Data Portal Lead Email: gianfranco.cecconi@ capgemini.com Written by: Matthias Seuter Email: m.seuter @ conterra.de Dr. Thore Fechner Email: t.fechner@ conterra.de Antje Kügeler Email: a.kuegeler@ conterra.de Reviewed by: Eline N. Lincklaen Arriëns Email: [email protected] Last update: 11.03.2021 www: https://europeandataportal.eu/ email: [email protected] DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content and Technology. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use, which may be made of the information contained therein.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Gene Patenting: Moral, Legal, and Practical Perspectives
    Ethics of Gene Patenting: Moral, Legal, and Practical Perspectives By Gabriel Ben-Dor Edited by Jason Hu, Bryce Bajar, and Julia Borden Stanford-Brown iGEM 2012 1. Introduction It has been estimated that approximately 20 percent of the human genome is patented.1 While this is a generalized statement, most would find this notion, at least in part, unsettling. On the black and white ends of the spectrum, there are those who deeply resent “Microbesofts” and others who see these patents as the key to innovation. As synthetic biology is a relatively new field with unprecedented possibilities, indubitably, there is a great debate surrounding gene patenting in moral, practical, and legal domains. It is questioned whether the idea of patenting an element of life is immoral: owning or treating genetic material as property is a concern, though some argue this can remedied by having a clearer understanding of what a patent really is. Beyond that philosophical debate is the fear that allowing patents of genetic material could lead to monopolies exhibiting amoral (possibly even unethical) behavior in healthcare and other industries. On the legal end, genetic patents are currently on the hot seat in the courtrooms with some patents being upheld, others not. Many academics feel that the legal patent requirements of “utility,” “non-obviousness” and “sufficiently isolated or transformed” are not being appropriately met and that there should be a higher standard for patent acceptance. From a practical perspective, in general, research (the front end) seems to benefit more from open- source systems and idea sharing, while product development (the back end) benefits from patents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Open Source Innovation Thingscon 2017
    The Power of Open Source Innovation ThingsCon 2017 Diderik van Wingerden What is Your Passion? Diderik van Wingerden Collaboration Intellectual Property Terms & Conditions Sharing Freedom Copyrights Innovation NDAs Abundance Scarcity Costs Patents Creativity Values Licensing Openness Protection Diderik van Wingerden What is Open Source? Diderik van Wingerden Open Source gives Freedom To Use, Study, Change and Share. Diderik van Wingerden Who uses Open Source Software? Diderik van Wingerden Open Source Software has won! 90% 70% Diderik van Wingerden The spirit of Open Source is spreading Bits Atoms ➢ Open Content ➢ Open Design ➢ Open Data ➢ Open Source Hardware ➢ Open Knowledge ➢ Patents ➢ Open Education ➢ Open Access ➢ Open Science ➢ ... Diderik van Wingerden Topics for today Receive Dialogue ● History ● Privacy & Security ● Benefits of Open Source ● Certification Innovation ● Ethics ● Open Licensing ● Gongban ● Business Models & Impact ● …? + You get to work on a case! Diderik van Wingerden A History of Open Source Diderik van Wingerden Open Source Software: How it began Diderik van Wingerden Pitfall #1 “I can read it, so it is Open Source.” Diderik van Wingerden Basically a legal construct Copyright All Rights Reserved Diderik van Wingerden “Free and Open Source Software” ● FOSS or FLOSS ● FSF vs. Open Source Initiative – Ethical vs. Quality and Business ● Much heat, but identical in practice Diderik van Wingerden Free Software Definition: 4 freedoms 1.Run by anyone, for any purpose 2.Study and change => access to the source code 3.Redistribute copies 4.Distribute copies of your modified versions => access to the source code gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Diderik van Wingerden Open Source Definition 1. Free Redistribution 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Briefing Paper on Open Data and Privacy
    Briefing Paper on Open Data and Privacy This paper is one of a series of four Briefing Papers on key issues in the use of open government data. The U.S. federal government, like many governments around the world, now releases “open data” that can help citizens investigate better value for college, fair housing, and safer medicines, and has a wide range of other potential public and economic benefits. Open data also helps government agencies themselves operate more efficiently, share information, and engage the citizens they serve. Under the U.S. government’s Open Data Policy,1 all federal data should now be released as open data unless specific concerns, such as privacy or national security, prevent its open release. While this paper focuses on policies and examples from the U.S., it is meant to be useful to open data providers and users in other countries as well. Introduction Privacy has become an urgent issue in data use: In February 2016, President Obama recognized the need for clear guidelines by establishing the Federal Privacy Council.2 Traditionally, “open government data” has been thought of as free, public data that anyone could use and republish. Now, the discussion is shifting to include data that may not be appropriate for wide, unfettered access, but can still be of use to non-government communities. For instance, data containing personally identifiable information (PII) cannot be released widely, but there are certain circumstances that could allow for its use in restricted or de-identified forms. Various levels of sensitivity must be considered, leading to a range of potential levels of openness and methods for achieving that openness.3 As more open government data has become available, data users in business, academia, and the nonprofit community have come up against a conundrum.
    [Show full text]
  • Why We Need Open Knowledge Societies - by Rufus Pollock
    Why We Need Open Knowledge Societies - by Rufus Pollock This article is published as part of the series"Digital Minds for a New Europe" - check this linkfor a new article each day. The future is open. Below, Founder of Open Knowledge, Rufus Pollock sets out the challenges in opening up data, and why we all win if we can achieve this. Every day we face challenges – from the personal, such as the quickest way to get to work, or what we should eat, to global ones like climate change and how to sustainably feed and educate seven billion people on this planet. At Open Knowledge we believe that opening up data – and turning that data into insight – can be crucial to addressing these challenges, and building a society in which is everyone – not just the few – are empowered with the knowledge they need to understand and effect change. In the last decade, since Open Knowledge started work as an organisation, we had the opportunity to help create a diverse, global network in which we work with similar organisations and partners to open data and turn it into useful knowledge. Open has become a buzzword. But while much has been achieved, the world of data and information has become ever more complex. Data is everywhere and we commonly talk of ‘digital economies’ now, of a ‘networked society’. But making sense of data - turning it into knowledge if you like - and then using it wisely, is still one of the greatest challenges we face as a global and increasingly interlinked society. What is open data? Opening data means making data accessible, making our world more transparent.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Space of Jets with CMS Open Data
    Exploring the space of jets with CMS open data The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Komiske, Patrick T., et al. "Exploring the space of jets with CMS open data." Physical Review D, 101, 3 (February 2020): 034009. As Published http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.034009 Publisher American Physical Society (APS) Version Final published version Citable link https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/125462 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported license Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 PHYSICAL REVIEW D 101, 034009 (2020) Exploring the space of jets with CMS open data † ‡ ∥ Patrick T. Komiske ,1,2,* Radha Mastandrea,1, Eric M. Metodiev ,1,2, Preksha Naik ,1,§ and Jesse Thaler 1,2, 1Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 2Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA (Received 7 September 2019; accepted 21 January 2020; published 11 February 2020) We explore the metric space of jets using public collider data from the CMS experiment. Starting from pffiffiffi 2.3 fb−1 of proton-proton collisions at s ¼ 7 TeV collected at the Large Hadron Collider in 2011, we isolate a sample of 1,690,984 central jets with transverse momentum above 375 GeV. To validate the performance of the CMS detector in reconstructing the energy flow of jets, we compare the CMS Open Data to corresponding simulated data samples for a variety of jet kinematic and substructure observables. Even without detector unfolding, we find very good agreement for track-based observables after using charged hadron subtraction to mitigate the impact of pileup.
    [Show full text]