AOL Won't Go Full Yahoo Patent Troll... But May Sell Patents To A Patent Troll

from the patents-are-dangerous-weapons dept

It appears that AOL isn't going down the Yahoo patent trolling path directly, but it is looking to sell off its patent portfolio -- meaning they may end up in the hands of trolls anyway. You can understand why AOL is doing this. It's been struggling to find its footing for quite some time now, and patents are selling for crazy amounts these days. So they get sold... and abused to sue others. It's the sad reality of the patent system these days. While it's nice to see that AOL isn't doing a full Yahoo, the selling of a patent portfolio to the highest bidder can be just as bad in the long run.

Filed Under: patent trolling, patents, selling patents
Companies: aol, yahoo

National Writers Union Drops Huffington Post Boycott After Discovering That No One Cared

from the duh dept

Back in March, we thought it was pretty silly that the Newspaper Guild and the National Writers Union were calling for a boycott of the Huffington Post, because some of the writers who had agreed to post on the site for free no longer liked the deal. As we said at the time, if you think that writing for free undermines your profession, you have a pretty simple solution: don't do it. But don't agree to write for free and then bitch about how it's unfair. In the end, we suspected that the same reasons why people had written for the Huffington Post in the first place (in order to share their thoughts to a wider audience) would continue to win out.

It appears that is absolutely the case. The National Writers Union has now admitted that it's dropped the boycott, because, well, no one cared. What's amusing is that rather than quietly dropping it, they actually put out a press release saying they were "withdrawing the boycott" which almost no one paid attention to in the first place.

Filed Under: free, journalism
Companies: aol, huffington post, national writers union, newspaper guild

Fark Gets Patent Troll To Settle For Nothing... Did Reddit Pay Up?

from the don't-feed-the-trolls dept

Last summer we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous patent troll, named Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC, who holds a ridiculously broad patent (6,370,535) that it claimed covered the basic concept of generating a press release online, which it then used to sue a bunch of companies who had been in business since way before the patent was issued. At the beginning of this year, we noted that Gooseberry tried to expand the definition of what the patent covered, and sued a bunch of tech sites you probably read, including Fark, Reddit, Slashdot, TechCrunch and Digg. As we noted at the time, as with most patent trolls, Gooseberry was just a shell company, and the real owners of the patent were a secret. Tragically, even with the combined investigative power of those sites, no one was able to piece together who really owns that patent.

In February, Drew from Fark explained why patent trolling is so incredibly detrimental. Unlike most other bogus lawsuits, you can't just point out that the patent has absolutely nothing to do with your business and get the case dismissed. You basically have to go to court and spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to fight it. This is what makes patent trolling so successful. It's cheaper to just pay up. In fact, patent trolls totally rely on this, because going to court is expensive for them too -- and they almost always lose. So they have just as much incentive to avoid court as the folks being sued, in many cases.

So it's awesome to hear that Drew stared down Gooseberry and got them to agree to "settle" for absolutely nothing. Even more amazing is that he convinced them to wipe out the "standard" NDA on a patent troll settlement. Almost every settlement includes an ironclad non-disclosure agreement which says you can't say what the amount of the settlement was. This means that even if you pay nothing, they still tell the world that you "settled" and imply it was for millions and talk up how this proves their patent is valid. Not in this case:

Their patent had nothing to do with Fark. The patent troll realized we were going to fight them instead of settle, so they asked for our best offer. I said how about you get nothing and drop the lawsuit? They accepted.

Normally, we wouldn't be able to talk about any of the details. Terms of patent lawsuit settlements are usually bound by ironclad nondisclosure agreements. NDAs allow patent trolls to extract maximum settlements from each entity they've filed lawsuits against - as a result no one knows who paid what. In the last round of settlement negotiations we asked to strike the NDA provision. They agreed (and to the attorneys out there reading this, I'm as baffled as you are).

Striking the NDA was crucial because I wanted to be able to tell everyone what really happened: we didn't pay them a single dime

Unfortunately, Drew also notes that Conde Nast (the owners of Reddit) also "settled" this week, which probably means they paid something (not much), though I wonder if they were able to ditch the NDA as well. It sounds like TechCrunch/AOL is still fighting this (and hopefully will be emboldened by Drew talking publicly about getting them to back down). Still, the bigger point is how much of a toll this kind of thing takes on businesses. Fark is quite successful, but this kind of thing could have destroyed it. As someone who is too often threatened by completely bogus lawsuit threats, I certainly can understand the emotional impact these things can take on someone, which Drew discusses as well:

At any rate, this bullshiat is finally over. It was a nightmare. Imagine someone breaking into your home, then being forced to sit on the couch while their lawyers file motions over how much stuff they can take. My wife Heather said my first draft of this post sounded too angry, probably due to the fact that every third word was an f-bomb (among other things I paraphrased our best one-time settlement offer as "how about jack sh*t and go f*ck yourself", which may be a more accurate depiction of how I really felt at the time). I won't lie though, I was angry and I am still. Too much money was wasted on this, too many sleepless nights, too many hours away from running Fark, and all this because someone else decided that suing companies for bearing a vague resemblance to their patent (patents they don't even appear to use themselves) is a good business model. We're short a full-time employee thanks to these douchebags.

People who cheer on trolls and bogus lawsuits have no idea what a massive emotional impact such bogus lawsuits have on legitimate businesses. Kudos to Drew for not just standing up to one and winning in pretty much every conceivable way, but also being willing to express just what kind of emotional impact these kinds of bullshit lawsuits have on people.

Filed Under: drew curtis, fark, patents, press releases, reddit
Companies: aol, conde nast, digg, fark, gooseberry natural resources, reddit, slashdot, techcrunch

If You Think Writing For Free Undermines Your Profession, Just Don't Do It!

from the makes-me-want-to-write-for-the-huffington-post dept

I had kind of hoped we were done last month with the silly arguments about how writers should boycott writing for the Huffington Post because it doesn't pay people, when we explained how clueless the argument was. People who wrote for the Huffington Post for free did so out of their own free will. They did so for a variety of reasons, including the (free) exposure it gave their works. Assuming that any of those writers leveraged those works into greater success elsewhere (as some have), wouldn't we all think it's insane if Arianna Huffington suddenly called them up and demanded money for helping them get attention?

Of course we would. So why is anyone making the exact opposite argument? The latest is the Newspaper Guild, which should know better, but seems to be hellbent on attacking any innovative news platform that isn't a member of its old boys' club. It has called on all its members to boycott the Huffington Post with some really tortured logic. Let's dig in.

The Newspaper Guild is calling on unpaid writers of the Huffington Post to withhold their work in support of a strike launched by Visual Arts Source in response to the company’s practice or using unpaid labor. In addition, we are asking that our members and all supporters of fair and equitable compensation for journalists join us in shining a light on the unprofessional and unethical practices of this company.

Once again, "unpaid" is in the eye of the beholder. For many writers, the Huffington Post gave them a massive platform for attention, and attention is an incredibly valuable commodity. That the Newspaper Guild, of all places, doesn't understand this says some worrying things about the Newspaper Guild. As for "unprofessional and unethical," I would argue that the Newspaper Guild willfully misrepresenting the situation here is significantly more unethical and unprofessional than anything done by the Huffington Post. No one who wrote for the Huffington Post was misled about the arrangement. It's made quite clear upfront that if you're a blogger on the site, you don't get paid. You do get attention, however. It's then up to you to make the determination if it's worth it. If not, there are literally billions of other websites to go write for, or you can go create your own. Many people felt this was a fair trade: attention and platform in exchange for writing. Why claim it's unethical when so many people entered into it willingly?

Just as we would ask writers to stand fast and not cross a physical picket line, we ask that they honor this electronic picket line.

Good luck with that. The Huffington Post draws readers like almost no one else out there. If Newspaper Guild fans want to shut themselves off from that traffic firehose, that's their decision, just like it was their decision to use that firehose for free to get attention to their work.

In response to the Huffington Post’s refusal to compensate its thousands of writers in the wake of its $315 million merger with AOL, the Newspaper Guild has requested a meeting with company officials to discuss ways the Huffington Post might demonstrate its commitment to quality journalism. Thus far, the request has been ignored.

This is the part that bugs me the most. The whole $315 million merger bit is a total red herring, used to drum up emotion, but is meaningless. Again, would the Newspaper Guild support Arianna in asking someone who became successful, in part, by writing for the HuffPo for a cut of their earnings? Or, if the Huffington Post had run out of money, would the Guild have supported a request that the writers help hand over money to keep it running? Of course not. The investors and founders of the Huffington Post put the money in and took the risk. And they got rewarded for it. The writers did not. They didn't put their own money or equity on the line. They got the benefit of those who did. To then demand a piece of the $315 million suggests a complete misunderstanding of how basic capitalism works.

As Cherie Turner, one of the former writers, explained, "Certainly, we all have written for free for the great exposure the Huffington Post can give us, but what's the cost? Those of us on strike feel it undermines the value of our profession and is unethical, especially in light of great profits by those at the top. We are only asking for a fair share of what we are helping to create. We are also speaking out against real journalism being run side-by-side with advertorial.

"We feel it is unethical to expect trained and qualified professionals to contribute quality content for nothing. It is unethical to cannibalize the investment of other organizations that bear the cost of compensation and other overhead without payment for the usage of their content. It is extremely unethical to not merely blur but eradicate the distinction between the independent and informed voice of news and opinion and the voice of a shill.

In other words, Turner and her group want to get double paid. They know the deal they made: to get exposure. But apparently now that's not enough. They want to get paid for the exposure they got as well? And if they didn't get their "fair share" then why did Turner and her friends write for HuffPo in the first place? It's like the Newspaper Guild is flat out admitting that it's completely clueless on basic economics.

Honestly, I get two key urges out of this move by the Newspaper Guild: (1) figure out if there's any way to "short" the Newspaper Guild for pure economic cluelessness and (2) suddenly I feel like writing for the Huffington Post in protest against those who are now "boycotting." Oh, and one final point: it's not a boycott. It just means you're turning down the traffic that HuffPo gave you. I'm sure HuffPo can survive fine without you. Whether or not you can survive without that attention... well, we'll see.

Filed Under: payment, writing
Companies: aol, huffington post, newspaper guild

Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money

from the you-made-the-choice dept

We didn't mention the whole AOL buying Huffington Post story earlier this week, because there just didn't seem to be that much to say about it. It was an interesting deal, to be sure, and I'll be curious to watch what AOL does with the property, but, beyond that, it seemed like just another content acquisition deal. However, almost immediately after the deal went through, I started seeing some rumblings on Twitter, picking at the scab that has always annoyed a certain group of people about The Huffington Post: that it doesn't pay most of its writers. Sure enough, it didn't take long for this issue to start to spread, with the inevitable summary line of: "Hey, HuffPo became famous because all these people worked for free, and yet, they don't get a cut of the sale."

That story is now snowballing. Dan Gilmor wrote a blog post arguing that it was the "ethical" thing to do to start paying bloggers. Douglas Ruskoff said that he'd no longer blog on the site for free. And, of course, a bunch of cranky HuffPo contributors have created a whole campaign arguing that Arianna Huffington had no right to sell the site, since it was built off of their free labor.

They're all wrong.

Of course, we've been through this before. Five years ago, Nick Carr tried to argue that all the various big Web 2.0 sites like (at the time) Digg, YouTube and MySpace were really digital sharecroppers exploiting labor. As we argued at the time, this was hogwash. People were using those sites because they provided a valuable service. The reason they provided labor was because they got something of value in return -- whether it was attention or hosting or distribution or reputation.

Three years ago, we saw an almost identical controversy after AOL bought Bebo and musician Billy Bragg demanded some of the $850 million AOL paid (in retrospect, a massively bad decision). Bragg argued that Bebo made this money based on all of the "free labor" of musicians who used the site. But that ignored the fact that those musicians got tremendous value in using the Bebo platform to connect with fans and distribute their music... all for free. The folks who got to keep the money were the ones who took the actual risk. The ones who had to cover the expenses to keep the site and the service running, even when it wasn't making enough revenue. They took the risk, they should get the reward. The people who used the site did so of their own free will knowing quite well that the benefit they got from using the service was worth it to them at the time. Along those lines, if Bebo had struggled and faced bankruptcy instead of a massive buyout, would Bragg have felt obligated to give them money to keep it going? Similarly, if HuffPo had been running out of money, and Arianna had gone back and demanded that those who used the platform pay up retroactively, how would these people have reacted?

There are more ways to "get paid" than with money.

The reason that people chose to blog for free at the Huffington Post was because it's a fantastic platform for exposure. It brings traffic like no one else out there, and if you want to present something in a way that's likely to get more attention than on your own blog that no one visits, posting at HuffPo can be quite a good way to go.

And that's the point: the people who chose -- of their own free will -- to post at the Huffington Post for free did so because they clearly got value out of doing so. Otherwise, why would they have done so in the first place? To then say that the only proper thing is to pay them is completely missing the point. It's an attempt to retroactively go back and change the terms of a deal. If you wanted to get paid directly for what you write, fine, don't write for the Huffington Post. It's that simple. Go out and pitch your stories to publishers who pay freelancers. But don't go back and complain afterwards when the folks who actually did take the risk of putting together the site, financing it, organizing it, hiring the staff, buying the servers, paying for the bandwidth, and building it up so that it was such a successful platform, then get paid for their efforts.

Filed Under: business models, payment, platforms, value
Companies: aol, huffington post

Paul Allen Files Amended Patent Lawsuit; Shows It's Even More Ridiculous Than We Originally Thought

from the related-items? dept

Back in August, many people were surprised that Paul Allen had suddenly decided to go full on patent troll, using a bunch of patents he had received as part of his complete business failure, Interval Research, during the 90s. Interval was supposed to be kind of like Xerox PARC, a research center focused on inventing the future, but the plan was to actually commercialize what came out of the labs. However, in the end, Interval did little of anything and, after spending many of Allen's Microsoft millions, shut down. Yet, years later, he suddenly starts suing a ton of companies over incredibly broad patents? In this initial lawsuit (apparently more are planned), he sued Google (and separately, YouTube), Apple, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Office Depot, OfficeMax and Staples. Earlier this month, we noted that the lawsuit had been dismissed due to the failure by Allen to actually explain how these companies violated his patents. Of course, as mentioned at the time, he was free to try again, and everyone knew he would. He has now filed that amended complaint, complete with the "details" of what each of these companies has done that's infringing, and it's even more ridiculous than we originally thought.

As a reminder, here are the patents he's suing over:

• 6,263,507: "Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular application to browsing information represented by audio data."
• 6,034,652 & 6,788,314 (really the same patent, involving continuations): "Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device"
• 6,757,682: "Alerting users to items of current interest"

We have the full amended filing embedded below, but his claims of what's infringing are ridiculously broad. For the first patent (the '507 patent), he basically seems to be claiming that any website that offers a listing of "related items" or uses any kind of spam filter is infringing. Basically, that's a huge percentage of content-based websites out there. Does anyone really (honestly, now) believe that without such a patent, the idea of "related content" or spam filters would never have been developed?

Then there's the next two (related) patents ('652 and '314), about "peripheral attention." According to Allen, the use of products that pop up a little notifier in the corner of your screen window violate this patent: so AOL, Google and Yahoo all violate this because of the little instant messenger/email pop up tools they offer. Apple supposedly violates this because of the Apple Dashboard and related widgets that pop up information such as sports scores and weather. Really, Paul? You want to claim ownership of any system that pops up information in the corner of your screen? That's sickeningly broad.

Finally, the last patent (the '682 patent), he appears to be claiming that it covers making recommendations to users on things they might like. So, the fact that AOL will alert you to products you might like? Infringing. Same with all the other companies, who all offer basic recommendations of one form or another because offering recommendations is one of the most obvious things out there.

To say that Allen's interpretation of what these patents cover is extraordinarily broad would be to downplay the concept of broad interpretations of patents. Allen's interpretations are so broad as to make a mockery of the entire patent system, and how ridiculous concepts put forth in a patent can (years later) cover a significant number of all websites out there, all doing obvious things to make their websites useful to users. Honestly, reading through the details makes me wonder if the conspiracy theory that some have put forth -- that Allen is doing this just to demonstrate how silly patents have become -- seems somewhat more plausible. I still don't really believe that, but either way, this lawsuit certainly represents the madness of the patent system.

Filed Under: patents, paul allen
Companies: aol, apple, ebay, facebook, google, interval research, netflix, office depot, officemax, staples, yahoo

Paul Allen Becomes A Patent Troll, Sues Google, Apple, Facebook, eBay And Others...

from the those-who-can't-innovate,-litigate dept

Microsoft's "other" co-founder, Paul Allen, has had a long string of business failures since leaving Microsoft. It's actually quite impressive. One of his most high profile ventures, back in the 90's, was Interval Research, which was designed to be a pure research institute "done right." It was described as trying to replicate Xerox PARC, but that it would actually commercialize the amazing ideas. Of course, as we've pointed out for ages, ideas are only a small part of innovation. Actual execution is the really difficult part, and one thing Interval was never able to do was execute. After eight years and over $100 million of Allen's money, the operation was shut down back in 2000. That was about the last we'd heard of Interval... until now.

Because, while Interval was unable to actually execute, thanks to the wonders of the US Patent system, it was able to secure lots of patents, and now it looks like Paul Allen has gone full on patent troll. He's using those patents to sue Google (and, separately, YouTube), Apple, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Office Depot, OfficeMax and Staples -- you know, the companies that actually did innovate and did execute -- for being successful where he failed. Of course, Paul Allen has been tangentially related to patent trolling operations in the past, so perhaps it was just a matter of time. Still, this is a pretty disgusting situation all around.

The WSJ article about the lawsuits doesn't mention the actual patents (why do so few reporters actually point you to the useful info?), but they're the following:

• 6,263,507: "Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular application to browsing information represented by audio data."
• 6,034,652 & 6,788,314 (really the same patent, involving continuations): "Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device"
• 6,757,682: "Alerting users to items of current interest"

According to a report by Todd Bishop at Techflash, Interval may just be getting started: "This is the most recent step in a long process," he said in an email, "but it is not necessarily the end of the process." What a sad, sad legacy Mr. Allen is leaving behind.

Filed Under: patents, paul allen
Companies: aol, apple, ebay, facebook, google, interval licensing, interval research, netflix, office depot, office max, staples, yahoo, youtube

If You Have A Generic Domain Name, Don't Expect Trademark Protection On It

from the but-does-that-matter? dept

I remember, when first learning about trademark law, thinking how bizarre it was that having your name be considered "generic" was a bad thing. After all, when your brand became synonymous with the product you were selling (think Kleenex, Xerox, Band-Aid etc.) it meant that you had really dominated the product category. Except... if you're a lawyer. Because the fear, of course, is that if your brand becomes generic, you lose the trademark, and then suddenly others can make use of that brand that you worked so hard to build up. I'm still not convinced that's really a problem if you're a savvy business person, but it's the way things are.

However, as something of "natural" proof of this, just look at how much of a gold rush there was in the early dot com era for "generic" dot com domain names. Everyone involved in those businesses just knew why this was important. They believed that by having those key generic terms, "books.com," "pets.com," and even "sex.com" that you would be one of the first places people would go, even if they didn't know who you, as a company, were. Of course, it actually didn't turn out that way for many players who ended up with those domains. A lot of the early companies who had "great" domains faded pretty quickly. Execution matters more than just a good name.

And, of course, this whole generic business really gets in the way of that backwards trademark view, where having your name be generic is "bad." For example, in a recent lawsuit, AOL learned that its advertising.com domain name isn't really valid as a trademark because of its generic nature. In fact, the court notes that if people are asked about a company, it's perfectly reasonable to describe it as "an advertising dot com." I also like how the court smacked down AOL's claim that without getting a trademark on advertising.com it would take business away from the company:

this is the peril of attempting to build a brand around a generic term.

Exactly. If you want the advantages of building around a generic term, you also have to realize there are some trade-offs, and one is that you don't get to trademark it. However, as we noted when a similar ruling came down last year against hotels.com, it's not clear how much this really matters. It only matters if you overvalue the trademark. The domain itself is still unique and the brand is still unique. So does the trademark really even matter?

Filed Under: advertising.com, domain names, generic, trademark
Companies: aol

Journalists Worried About Content Farms Are Missing The Point: The Web Has Always Been Filled With Crap

from the stop-worrying-about-what-others-are-doing dept

There's been a lot of fretting lately in the journalism field about the rise of so-called "content farms." These are operations like Demand Media or Associated Content (recently purchased by Yahoo) or even AOL's "Seed" experiment, that focus on generating a ton of content at very low cost, mostly aimed at ranking high on search engines. Last year, Wired Magazine ran a pretty good story covering the details of this particular business model. Basically, you find really cheap freelancers, tell them to quickly write up content on "popular" topics, pay them very, very little and don't worry too much about quality. The whole point is to rank high in search engines when people search on various topics.

Not surprisingly, this state of affairs worries some journalists who fear that these "content farms" are "killing" journalism. In fact, a group of online content syndicators are even talking about setting up an official "online quality" standards guidelines for internet content, even to the point of considering "accrediting" whatever is considered "quality" journalism.

I certainly understand and recognize the concern. When you look at much of the content produced by these content farms (and it's certainly worth pointing out that these operations deny the whole "content farm" claim -- as well as the insinuation that their content is bad), it's hard not to quickly recognize that much of the content is really, really bad. It's not well written. It's not very thorough. It's often not very accurate or useful. But, even given all of that, the "concerns" that this is somehow harming journalism seem wildly overblown.

The internet has always been filled with a lot more crappy content than good content. That's what every internet-hater points out first. But that's always been a search and filter problem. Bad content does not directly impact good content unless you become obsessed over the fact that some people are reading the bad content over your good content. In the early days, it's why sites like Yahoo developed in the first place: as a directory to try to help you find the good content instead of the crappy content (so, yeah, Yahoo buying a content farm is a bit ironic). And when the concept of "directories" became overwhelmed, we moved onto search, mostly based on things like metatags. And when that got gamed to death such that crappy content crowded out the ability to find good content, we moved on to much better search algorithms, like those found at Google, which tried to solve that basic problem.

The situation that we're in right now is one where the current filtering mechanisms might not yet be good enough to distinguish quality content from crappy content. But that's a temporary state of affairs. On top of that, one person's crappy content may be good enough for whatever it is they're trying to do or understand. There is no rule that says the best quality content has to win. For those of us who like quality content (and, every so often, try to produce it), it may be painful to hear that, but welcome to the competitive marketplace. If someone's serving the need better than you, then that's the market you deal with. It doesn't mean that quality content producers should crappify their content, but it might mean they need to rethink some aspects of what they're doing -- such as not relying on crappy filters as the source of your traffic.

It's that last point that highlights the real "problem" that journalists seem to have with these content farms. The journalists have become so convinced that Google is where they need to get all their traffic, that when Google ranks web farm content higher, that's somehow the fault of the content farms. In reality, it means that relying on Google for traffic may be a mistake. Quality content is hard to figure out algorithmically, though my guess is that Google is working on this issue all the time. If Google starts realizing that people do, in fact, find content farm content to be useless, that content will eventually get rated down, no matter how much they try to play SEO games.

But, even beyond that, the way people discover and consume higher quality content is changing as well. The value of "passed" or "earned" links -- i.e., links that are sent around via email or social networks -- is growing rapidly, and that's the sort of filter that tends to focus more on "better" content, rather than pure content farm content. So, in the end, this seems like a "problem" that corrects itself over time. Sure, right now, these content farms are good at getting their content seen. But if that content really isn't that useful, the rest of the market will adapt and adjust.

Filed Under: content farms, journalism, quality
Companies: aol, associated content, demand media

Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why

from the sorta-missing-the-point dept

Last month, we wrote about a local news website in Illinois that was getting frustrated with the dialog in its comments, and it instituted a "cooling off period" where it shut down its comments for a while, hoping that it would drive away the less desirable comments. The whole thing made no sense to us. Those types of commenters would eventually come back, and the solution should be offering better incentives and better overall discussion for commenters, not blocking out everyone. And yet... (without giving credit to the site that led the way last month), it looks like super popular gadget blog Engadget has done the same thing, apparently after comments over the whole iPad thing got too heated. Engadget, of course, is owned by AOL -- and you would think that if there were any company out there that understood group dynamics online by now, it would be AOL. Honestly, I'm still really confused as to what this will actually do, other than make Engadget a lot less interesting for those readers who took part in the community.

Filed Under: comments, cooling off, engadget
Companies: aol