search "gerald krug" in yahoo on 7th page for this news item... http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39155028,00.htm News > Business > Legal Friday 16th December 2005 EU votes through software patent changes Munir Kotadia ZDNet UK May 18, 2004, 13:55 GMT Tell us your opinion Update: Friday 16th December 2005. After a stalled effort on Monday, the European Council has approved controversial changes to a draft directive, meaning that Europe is now likely to see widespread patenting of software programs. The European Council on Tuesday voted through controversial changes to the European Union's Software Patents Directive that will pave the way for widespread patenting of software in Europe. According to a spokesman at the UK's Department of Trade and Industry, which backed the changes, the vote removes many of the changes introduced last year by the European Parliament that would have limited the degree to which software programs could be patented. "The text that was approved is very close to the original [European] Commission proposal," said a DTI spokesman, though he said the DTI had not yet seen the final amendments. The Directive will now be sent back to the European Parliament for another vote there in the autumn as the different bodies of the EU engage in a game of legislative ping-pong. While observers expect vociferous lobbying from open-source and developer groups, reversing the Council's vote will be difficult, according to James Heald of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), a not-for-profit organisation that promotes the rights of technology entrepreneurs and developers. "The catch is that if the Parliament still doesn't like software patents, it has to have a majority of all MEPs to put its amendments, which means that in practice they need a two-to-one or three-to-one majority in the chamber," said Heald. If the Parliament is successful in that vote, then it will go back to the Council for a second reading, and then if the Council still disagrees then it will go to a 'sudden death' reconciliation committee, which will have six weeks to settle the matter. The Irish Presidency was hoping that a new draft of the EU's Software Patents Directive would be approved without discussion on Monday, but an objection from Luxembourg gave the issue an airing on Tuesday, though this seems to have little if any effect on the outcome. The directive was developed to harmonise Europe's patent system based on best practices, but critics -- including software developers, economists, computer scientists and small businesses -- have argued the version developed by the European Parliament's judicial affairs committee was fatally flawed. Objectors say the draft's wording was vague enough to effectively legitimise software patents, which would lead to patent warfare dominated by large corporations, already the situation in the US software industry. This argument was persuasive enough to convince MEPs to introduce a number of important amendments before approving the directive late last year. However, the European Council, which is a body that represents all the governments of the European Union, gave the amended text of the proposal to an independent body of experts for redrafting. But developers -- many of them from the open-source community -- say the new draft dismisses the amendments made by the MEPs last year and in its present form may actually cause even more damage to the European software industry than the original. In a letter to open-source software Web site LWN, the founder of MandrakeSoft Linux, Gael Duval, said the redrafted proposal was written by people with a common interest in allowing software to be patented. "They are mostly representatives from the national patent offices, backed by the heads of the legal departments of some big industrial companies, all of whom have a common interest. More patents mean more power for them, irrespective of the harm that will be done to the economy at large, and even to their own companies," Duval said. James Heald of the FFII said the vote was originally scheduled to be pushed through on Monday morning as part of a block of proposals, but after one country's representatives objected, the directive will now be discussed as a separate issue this afternoon. "The vote was going to be taken yesterday as part of a block of items that would get nodded through before the meeting had even started. It is now on the agenda as the second last item to be discussed today," Heald said. Tom Watson is one UK MP who has written to the secretary of state for trade and industry, Patricia Hewitt, to express his objections. In his letter, Watson argued that if the proposal is approved in its current state it will represent a "failure in the decision-making process for Europe" and could bring the new European laws on intellectual property into disrepute. "Whatever the arguments in favour of software patents are, this would be a serious misuse of power on such a widely contentious issue, and I would prefer that a minister from the United Kingdom took no part in promoting it," Watson said. 'DMCA on steroids' passed by EU Patents 'biggest threat' to Linux - Torvalds 'Dubious' patents may be easier to challenge Software patent limits 'go too far' Economists reject European software patent proposals Software patent protest to block Web sites Email this Print this Tell us your opinion Now it's time for us european to migrate to the west. How many bu... Anonymous The EU is just asking for a flood of litigation if their patent e... Anonymous That is so incredibly sad, I do not find any word to tell... W... Anonymous It's really a sad day for software developpers (and users!) in Eu... Anonymous Il nous faut prendre le pouvoir et organizer manifestations et pe... Anonymous Fight, sure, but how ??? OK, we can tell our MPs, but they jus... Corine Hey stop whining. If you didn't bribe the right politicians at t... Joe Buckley We get the politicians and civil servants we deserve!. Europe fac... Anonymous The US patent system has become an absolute circus in so far as i... Anonymous Finally a break for all my work and effort.I own 56 computer prog... gerald daniel krug ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.electricnews.net/frontpage/news-9658709.html Software patents -- In July, the European Parliament voted by a huge majority to reject a bill that would have created a single EU-wide patent process for software-related inventions. The end result is an environment where software cannot be patented in the same way that is possible in the US -- a disappointing result for firms such as Microsoft, Philips and Nokia and other large corporations. The vote came after more than a year of fighting and negotiating involving the European Parliament, EU's Council of Ministers and the European Commission, led by Internal Markets Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. Putting pressure on all sides were representatives of the high-tech industry, small enterprises and advocates of free and open source software, who seem to have won the battle. But it may only seem that way; insiders say that proponents of the failed directive are gearing up for a new battle. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Government launches review of intellectual property laws Green MEPs Eva Lichtenberger and Monica Frassoni issued a statement saying that although all parties involved in the directive claim to be opposed to software patents, the legal uncertainty created by the directive will merely serve to allow them through. "Though all political groups claim that they want to exclude 'pure' software patents from the directive. the pro-big-business majority in the committee succeeded in creating dangerous loopholes," said the two MEPs. "A definition of the difference between software and technique, for example, says that software can be considered to be the novel feature in an invention, and thus is patentable." They said the current form of the directive will "give big business the opportunity — with the help of well-paid patent lawyers — to sew up the European market and throw out smaller players." The proposals, which were drafted by JURI's own rapporteur, Michel Rocard, would have made it clear that innovations can only be patented if they use software to aid the performance of the invention and not if they comprise software only. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 24 May 2004 Interinstitutional File: 2002/0047 (COD) 9713/04 PI 46 CODEC 752 NOTE from: General Secretariat of the Council to: Delegations No. prev. doc. : 9277/04 PI 41 CODEC 693 + ADD 1 No. Cion prop. : 6580/02 PI 10 CODEC 242 Subject : Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions - Political agreement on the Council’s common position Delegations will find in Annex the text on the basis of which the Council (Competitiveness) on 18 May 2004 reached a political agreement with a view to the adoption of its common position on the above-mentioned proposal. Changes in relation to 9277/04 ADD 1 PI 41 CODEC 693 are highlighted. ________________________ Article 4a Exclusions from patentability 1.(new) A computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention. 2. A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs, whether expressed as source code, as object code or in any other form, which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable. Article 5 Form of claims 1. Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention may be claimed as a product, that is as a programmed computer, a programmed computer network or other programmed apparatus, or as a process carried out by such a computer, computer network or apparatus through the execution of software. 2. A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a computer, programmed computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A "program for computers" or "computer program" is a calculation rule for a Turing machine or other abstract machine, which can be exressed at many design levels, from a conceptual plan to an instruction executable by a human or by a processor. A computer program is a building plan and an operating instruction, a description of a process and a solution to a problem, a literary work and a virtual machine, a product and a process, all in one. ------------------------------------------------ http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/mini/index.en.html Software Patents > Reviews > CEC/BSA 02-02-20 > Proposals > mini Proposals mini EU Software Patent Directive Core Amendments A few amendment proposals which are absolutely necessary if algorithms and business methods such as Amazon One Click Shopping are not to be considered patentable inventions. Title Harmonisation Relation to Art 27 TRIPs: "Technology", "Industry" and "Invention" Patents, Copyright and Freedom of Publication (Article 5.a) Other important Amendments Annotated Links 1. Title amendment Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the limits of patentability with respect to automated data processing and its fields of application justification The term "computer-implemented invention" is not used by computer professionals. It is in fact not in wide use at all. It was introduced by the European Patent Office (EPO) in May 2000 in Appendix 6 of the Trilateral Conference, where it served to legitimate business method patents, so as to bring EPO practise in line with the USA and Japan. Much of the European Commission's directive proposal is based on wordings from this "Appendix 6". The term "computer-implemented invention" is a programmatic statement. It implies that calculation rules framed in the terms of the general-purpose computer are patentable inventions. This implication is in contradiction with Art 52 EPC, according to which algorithms, business methods and programs for computers are not inventions in the sense of patent law. It can not be the aim of the current directive to declare all kinds of "computer-implemented" ideas to be patentable inventions. Rather the aim is to clarify the limits of patentability with regard to automatic data processing and its various (technical and non-technical) fields of application, and this must be expressed in the title in plain and unambiguous wording. 2. Harmonisation amendment [Recitals 1-19 and Articles 1-8 deleted] Member States shall ensure that patents on computerised innovations are upheld and enforced only if they were granted according to the rules of Art 52 of the European Patent Convention of 1973, as explained in the European Patent Office's Examination Guidelines of 1978. justification This amendment achieves full clarification and ensures that the European Court of Justice can harmonise caselaw if needed. The directive proposal is full of redundancy and in order to shut the doors to unlimited patentability which it opens, it would be necessary to amend each single amendment and article. Yet such amendments, as we propose below in case this amendment is not adopted, only fix bugs in a bloated directive draft without providing much clarity beyond what is already found in the European Patent Convention. 3. Relation to Art 27 TRIPs: "Technology", "Industry" and "Invention" Art 27 of the TRIPs of 1994 has often been cited as a reason to reinterpret Art 52 EPC in a way that widens the scope of patentability. At a hearing in 1997 in London, Paul Hartnack, comptroller of the UK Patent Office, formulated a question which legislators still need to anwer today: Some have argued that the TRIPS agreement requires us to grant patents for software because it says "patents shall be available for any inventions in all field of technology, provided they are capable ... of industrial application". However, it depends on how you interpret these words. Is a piece of pure software an invention? European law says it isn't. Is pure software technology? Many would say no. Is it capable of "industrial" application? Again, for much software many would say no. TRIPS is an argument for wider protection for software. But the decision to do so should be based on sound economic reasons. Would it be in the interests of European industry, and European consumers, to take this step? The answer, as shown by various studies conducted by the European Union and others, can only be "No". And this answer apparently needs to be laid down in a clarificatory law. Positive Definition of Technical Invention (Article 2) Negative Definition of Technical Invention (Article 3) 1. Positive Definition of Technical Invention (Article 2) amendment "Technology" in the sense of patent law means "applied natural science". "Technical" in the sense of patent law means "concrete and physical". justification We do not want "financial technology" or "social engineering" to be patentable. TRIPs obliges us to define "technology" and related terms and to rely on them for delimiting what is patentable. The above definition is explicitely or implicitely used by all patent jurisdictions, including the EPO. amendment "Industry" in the sense of patent law means "automated production of material goods". justification We do not want innovations in the "music industry" or "legal services industry" to meet the TRIPs requirement of "industrial applicability". The word "industry" is nowadays often used in extended meanings which are not appropriate in the context of patent law. amendment "Invention" in the sense of patent law means "solution of a problem by use of controllable forces of nature". justification This is a standard patent doctrine in most jurisdictions. The EPO says that inventions are "technical solutions of technical problems" and understands "technical" as "concrete and physical". The term "controllable forces of nature" clarifies this further. The "four forces of nature" are an acknowledged concept of epistemology (theory of science). While mathematics is abstract and unrelated related to forces of nature, some business methods may well depend on the chemistry of the customer's brain cells, which is however not controllable, i.e. non-deterministic, subject to free will. Thus the term "controllable forces of nature" clearly excludes what needs to be excluded and yet provides enough flexibility for inclusion of possible future fields of applied natural science beyond the currently acknowledged "4 forces of nature". This concept has been formulated in most jurisdictions and even written into the law in some countries such as Japan and Poland. Even the CEC and JURI proposals say that "algorithms and business methods are inherently non technical", and the JURI report associates "technical contributions" with "mobile phones, household appliances, engine control devices, ...". The classical justification for the "technical character" of "computer-implemented inventions" is not that the meaning of "technical" has changed but that the computer indeed consumes energy in a controlled way, and that the "invention" must be "considered as a whole". The critics of this view, e.g. the German Federal Patent Court, argue that "the solution is completed by abstract calculation before, during its non-inventive implementation on a conventional data processing system, forces of nature come into play". 2. Negative Definition of Technical Invention (Article 3) amendment Member states shall ensure that data processing is not considered to be a field of technology in the sense of patent law, and that innovations in the field of data processing are not considered to be inventions in the sense of patent law. justification This is a restatement of Art 52 EPC in the terminology of Art 27 TRIPs. It corresponds to CULT Amendment 9 and JURI Amendment 46, of which the former received majority support. Data processing is functional abstraction from applications in technical as well as non-technical fields. It is as ubiquitous as reading and writing: a universal cultural technique. Data processing is nowadays automated, but the implementation details of the abstract machines (universal computers) are irrelevant for the art of data processing. Computers may be built on silicon or neurons or wood, and all run the same programs. As was pointed out already by the framers of the European Patent Convention in the 1970s: monopolisation of innovations in automated data processing means monpolisation of abstract thought in all its practically relevant applications. Numerous studies moreover show that data processing patents stifle innovation. Europe will suffer damage if does not once again explicitely exclude data processing from the realm of patentable fields. 4. Patents, Copyright and Freedom of Publication (Article 5.a) amendment Member states shall ensure that the publication or distribution of copyrightable objects, including computer programs, can never constitute a direct or indirect patent infringement. justification This is to explain how the patent rights are limited by other legal values such as freedom of publication (Art 10 ECHR) and property in individual creations (intellectual property, in the case of software: copyright). This amendment makes it clearer that both freedom of publication and the right to control one's individual creations (copyright) are more fundamental than patent rights and therefore constitute a limit on the allowable scope of patent rights. Wherever copyright is applicable, patents are not, and vice versa. The principle of "maximal separation of spheres of intellectual property" is stated in the Dispositionsprogramm (1976) and Betriebssystem (1990) decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice, and it underlies Article 52 of the European Patent Convention. 5. Other important Amendments If MEPs still want to focus on a small set of amendments without deleting the body of the directive, we recommend the following in addition to the minimal set outlined above. But we must warn: as long as not every recital and every article of the CEC/JURI text is deleted or amended, some doors to unlimited patentability will still be open and the unwanted logic patents can be expected to creep in. Article 1: Definition of "computer-implemented invention" Article 4(a)bis [NEW]: Computing Efficiency not Technical Art 4(3): Technical Contribution consisting of Non-Technical Features? Art 4(2): Technicity and Non-Obviousness are Separate Requirements! Article 5: Forms of Claims Art 6.a: Freedom of Interoperation for Data Processing Systems Recital 11: Fields of Technology 1. Article 1: Definition of "computer-implemented invention" amendment "computer-implemented invention" means any invention the performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus and having one or more prima facie novel features which are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer program or computer programs; "computerised invention", also called "computer-implemented invention", means an innovation the implementation of which involves the use of a data processing system in connection with peripheral devices, and which, due to the way in which the peripheral devices are used, is considered to be an invention in the sense of patent law. justification The term "computer-implemented invention" is not used by computer professionals. In fact it is not in wide use at all. It was introduced by the EPO in 2000 in an attempt to legitimate patents on "computer-implemented business methods". It suggests that ideas which can be put to work merely by executing a program on generic computing equipment are patentable inventions. This amendment eliminates the confusion. It makes it clear that an inventive washing machine does not cease to be an invention just because it is controlled by a computer. In a EU Press Release ("MEPs vote to tighten up rules on patentability of computerised inventions", Date: 2003-06-18, on cordis.lu) about this directive, the term "computerised inventions" was introduced, and it was explained that "such inventions do not cover ordinary software programs, but rather solutions for devices such as mobile phones, intelligent household appliances, engine control devices, ...". Indeed the term "computerised invention" depicts more intuitively than "computer-implemented invention" what MEPs meant to be patentable: inventive use of hardware which has been placed under the control of a data processing system. 2. Article 4(a)bis [NEW]: Computing Efficiency not Technical amendment Member States shall ensure that computer-implemented solutions to technical problems are not considered to be patentable inventions merely because they improve efficiency in the use of ressources within the data processing system. justification This amendment reflects current caselaw in Germany. In the words of the justices of the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG, decision of 26. March 2002, 17 W (pat) 69/98, http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/bpatg17-suche02/index.de.html): The applicant sees as a decisive indication of technicity of the method that it is based on a technical problem. Because the proposed method does not need a dictionary, the memory space for this can be saved. [...] As far as the technical problem is concerned, this can only be considered as an indication but not as a proof of technicity of the process. If computer implementations of non-technical processes were attributed a technical character merely because they display different specific characteristics, such as needing less computing time or less storage space, the consequence of this would be that any computer implementation would have to be deemed to be of technical character. This is because any distinct process will have distinct implementation characteristics, that allow it to either save computing time or save storage space. These properties are, at least in the present case, not based on a technical achievement but result from the chosen non-technical method. If the fact that such a problem is solved could be a sufficient reason for attributing a technical character to a computer implementation, then every implementation of a non-technical method would have to be patentable; this however would run against the conclusion of the Federal Court of Justice that the legal exclusion of computer programs from patentability does not allow us to adopt an approach which would make any teaching that is framed in computer-oriented instructions patentable. 3. Art 4(3): Technical Contribution consisting of Non-Technical Features? amendment The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, elements of which may comprise both technical and non-technical features, and the state of the art. The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the scope of the technical features of the patent claim as a whole and the state of the art. justification The Commission and JURI versions imply that a "technical contribution" can consist solely of non-technical features. This is self-contradictory and leads to unlimited patentablity. Amendment CULT-15 corrects the error, as far as possible. 4. Art 4(2): Technicity and Non-Obviousness are Separate Requirements! amendment Member States shall ensure that it is a condition of involving an inventive step that a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution. Member states shall ensure that it is a condition of constituting an invention in the sense of patent law that an innovation, regardless of whether it involves the use of a computer or not, must be of technical character. justification Non-obviousness (= "inventive step") and the presence of a technical invention (= "technical contribution") are two separate requirements. Merging them into one is counter-intuitive and leads to practical problems, among others that the invention needn't be new and that patent offices are no longer entitled to reject patents on non-inventions without first conducting a wasteful prior art search. 5. Article 5: Forms of Claims amendment Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention may be claimed as a product, that is as a programmed computer, a programmed computer network or other programmed apparatus, or as a process carried out by such a computer, computer network or apparatus through the execution of software. Member States shall ensure that a computerised invention may be claimed as a product, that is a set of devices connected to a data processing system, or as a process carried out by such devices. justification This article explains the meaning of the terms "product" and "process" in the context of computerised inventions. The original version interprets both terms correctly but has an undesirable side-effect: it suggests that algorithms framed in terms of generic computing equipment (programs for computers as such) are or can be "inventions". The amendment corrects the error. The inventive products and processes are characterised not by the data processing system but by the peripheral devices, which could e.g. be an automobile brake, a rubber-curing furnace or a washing machine. 6. Art 6.a: Freedom of Interoperation for Data Processing Systems amendment Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion between the conventions used in two different data processing systems so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement. justification This is ITRE-15 with a slight modification: "computer system or network" was replaced with the "data processing system", so that it is clear that not merely interoperability between computer architectures (e.g. IBMPC and Mac) but between any kind of software systems is protected. As the ITRE justification says: The possibility of connecting equipments so as to make them interoperable is a way of ensuring open networks and avoiding abuse of dominant positions. This has been specifically ruled in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in particular. Patent law should not make it possible to override this principle at the expense of free competition and users. 7. Recital 11: Fields of Technology amendment Although computer-implemented inventions are considered to belong to a field of technology, in order to involve an inventive step, in common with inventions in general, they should make a technical contribution to the state of the art. While computer programs are abstract and do not belong to any particular field, they are used to describe and control processes in all fields of applied natural and social science. justification The Commission text declares computer programs to be technical inventions. It removes the independent requirement of invention ("technical contribution") and merges it into the requirement of non-obviousness ("inventive step"). This leads to theoretical inconsistency and undesirable practical consequences, as explained in detail in the justification of our amendment to 4(2). 6. Annotated Links EU Software Patent Directive Amendment Proposals The European Commission proposed on 2002-02-20 to consider computer programs as patentable inventions and make it very difficult not to grant a patent on an algorithm or a business method that is claimed with the typical features of a computer program (e.g. operation of computer with "storage means", "output means" etc). We have worked out a counter-proposal that upholds the freedom of computer-aided reasoning, calculating, organising and formulating and the copyright property of software authors while supporting the patentability of technical inventions (problem solutions involving forces of nature) according to the differentiations explained in the European Patent Convention (EPC), the TRIPs treaty and the classical patent law literature. This counter-proposal is receiving support from numerous prominent players in the fields of software, economics, politics and law. JURI 2003/04-6 Amendments: Real and Fake Limits on Patentability Members of the European Parliament's Commission on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (JURI) submitted amendments to the European Commission's software patent directive proposal. While some MEPs are asking to bring the directive in line with Art 52 EPC so as to clearly restate that programs for computers are not patentable inventions, another group of MEPs is endorsing the EPO's recent practice of unlimited patentability, shrouded in more or less euphemistic wordings. Among the latter, some propose to make programs directly claimable, so as to ensure that software patents are not only granted but achieve maximal blocking effects. This latter group obtained a 2/3 majority, with some exceptions. We document in tabular form what was at stake, what various parties recommended, and what JURI finally voted for on 2003/06/17. FFII: Software Patents in Europe For the last few years the European Patent Office (EPO) has, contrary to the letter and spirit of the existing law, granted more than 30000 patents on rules of organisation and calculation claimed in terms of general-purpose computing equipment, called "programs for computers" in the law of 1973 and "computer-implemented inventions" in EPO Newspeak since 2000. Europe's patent movement is pressing to legitimate this practise by writing a new law. Although the patent movement has lost major battles in November 2000 and September 2003, Europe's programmers and citizens are still facing considerable risks. Here you find the basic documentation, starting from the latest news and a short overview. [ EU Software Patent Directive Amendment Proposals | EU Software Patent Directive Core Amendments ] http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/mini/index.en.html © 2004/04/10 Workgroup english version 2003/12/17 by PILCH Hartmut --------------------------------------------------------- http://feb15.imgshare.us/evndup.jpg CHAKRA http://dec03.imgshare.us/lgflbk.jpg CIA http://dec03.imgshare.us/qhwaej.jpg DOD http://dec03.imgshare.us/bdnzph.gif NSA http://feb15.imgshare.us/vytnux.gif DOC http://feb15.imgshare.us/gfkuks.gif DOE http://feb15.imgshare.us/nacgif.jpg DOS http://feb15.imgshare.us/xscntf.jpg FBI http://feb15.imgshare.us/lhnohq.jpg DJST http://feb15.imgshare.us/fkxcbl.jpg PENT http://feb15.imgshare.us/ipvdzc.jpg PRES