IBM Sues Company Selling Fake, Flammable Batteries 261
Bergkamp10 writes "A Computerworld article is reporting that IBM is suing Shentech for selling laptop batteries that catch on fire and sport allegedly fake IBM logos. IBM apparently followed up on a claim by a customer that an 'IBM' laptop battery bought at Shentech caught on fire and damaged his laptop. The customer reported the problem to Lenovo (who license Big Blue's trademark) who subsequently ordered 12 batteries from Shentech and found them all to be fakes. IBM is asking for US$1 million in damages for each dodgy battery sold."
$1,000,000 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not about generic batteries, if Shentech sold "Ibm compatible" batteries
that melted and burned then Ibm would say "not our battery...not our problem". Plenty
of companies legitimately sell 3rd party ibm compatible batteries of reasonable quality.
Shentech was supposedly selling counterfeit batteries with ibm logos.
Its about
1) Protecting their public image
2) Protecting their trademark
3) Protecting customers who are trying to buy legitimate ibm sold/authorized products
Anyone comparing this to RIAA is a clueless moron.
IBM has spent 70 years developing a sqeaky clean reputation. Heck they even spent money
developing linux products. When ibm products malfunction because of ibms mistake they just
replace things free of charge.
They have enough problems with legitmate batteries made by sony
They deserve to put counterfeiters heads on pikes...these counterfeiters are potentially
injuring ibms customers.
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If Shentech is a corporation, I'd revoke their charter and liquidate their assets at auction. Then I'd prosecute their executives for knowingly infringing on a trademark (is that criminal or civil?).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:5, Informative)
The overall potential damage to IBM of this infringement would be in the hundreds of millions, if not the billions both directly and indirectly for years to come. Asking for massive damages is not unreasonable under those circumstances.
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, they should have ordered a few dozen though.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fire (Score:3, Funny)
I'm writing to inform you of a fire which has broken out on the premises of
FIRE! FIRE! HELP ME! 123 Callington Road. Looking forward to hearing from you. All the best, Maurice Moss
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if they counterfeited 2 logos on each of 3 types of batteris, IBM is asking for $6M.
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't want money. They want *blood*. This is "holy thunder of God Himself"-level wrath, possibly because this is the first *American* seller of counterfeits they've been able to get their yellowed claws on. That I've heard about, anyways. They're going to make an example out of him worst case, and best case they're going to make an example out of him and learn more about any US assets that can be linked to overseas counterfeiters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And even acknowledging that nothing more than the pursuit of money (or the indirect pursuit of money through rigorously esta
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:5, Funny)
To counterfeiters: Prepare to be penny/asset-less.
Re:$1,000,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
These batteries could open IBM up to litigation, or could have, had they not been discovered. IBM are protecting their name, reputation, and business.
After all, a lawsuit from a single exploding battery could easily cost IBM more than a million dollars...
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since their slogan is I Burn Machines, they might successfully argue it was simply a misunderstanding that that abbreviation was already used by some smallish, obscure company.
Re:Shentech's only address is in Flushing, NY. (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed... and not just should it be really simple... as do they have a PO Box in Flushing (as someone else mentioned), but they have a Queens Fax Number: 718-504-3790. Verizon says it's a land line. "(718) 504-3790 is a land line based in New York City Zone 6, NY. The registered service provider is Global Naps**."
That means there has to be someone somewhere in NY... and in NY, as mentioned in the article, making money through criminal activities is treble damages... (3X)...
In addition to that, someone indicated it would be difficult to sue the company if it was based in China. There is (1) obviously someone in the US involved in this (Shentec), and (2) IBM does business in China... but first step would be US, and (3) Shentec is also using Lenovo's trademarks... and they definitely have a major China presence (to initiate suit there).
Im sure IBM's lawyers are smart enough to know what they are doing, and wouldnt be surprised that IBM lays the groundwork for them - or Lenovo - to continue in China.
As of now, Shentec is still selling "IBM" & "Lenovo" batteries...
I think IBM (and Lenovo) are gonna burn Shentec even faster than Shentec's batteries burned!!!
Dubious Scammers (Score:5, Interesting)
I absolutely love their ironic tagline... "Shentech - Get Your Money's worth!
Re:Dubious Scammers (Score:5, Informative)
So yeah, Shentech is evil.
Flammable Batteries (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Flammable Batteries (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Flammable Batteries (Score:5, Informative)
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm [lawandhelp.com]
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm [lectlaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, misleading, and idiotic. (Score:5, Interesting)
The general consensus among coffee aficionados is that the proper brewing temperature is about 200 F (Source [coffeereview.com], also Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]). This was also the conclusion of another judgement [findlaw.com] in another lawsuit against Bunn-o-Matic on the same grounds (which was thrown out.)
Juicy tidbit from that link:
(Emphasis added)
Yes, coffee served that hot will do serious damage to human flesh in a short period of time. So will all sorts of properly prepared foods if consumed immediately after cooking.
Yes, many establishments and home brewers deliver tepid coffee. This is sad, but it does not make McDonalds a villain for serving properly prepared coffee (or, at least, coffee that's closer to properly prepared than other places.)
Yes, there are a lot of dipwads that complain to McDonalds after they've burned themselves by spilling coffee or drinking it too soon. McDonalds is not responsible for their idiocy.
In my opinion, the McDonalds case says very little about torts and tort reform, but quite a bit about our legal system in general.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
Not true.
more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade
This is true- there were 700 burns (of ALL severities) over 10 years. Now, when you factor in how many cups of coffee were sold, you see the real figures: one burn for every 24 MILLION cups sold. That means, for every idiot who burned himself, 23,999,999 managed not to. So... how's that make the
Re:Flammable Batteries (Score:5, Informative)
And as I like to point out whenever this topic comes up because a lot of people don't seem to realize, "3rd degree burns" means burns like these [google.com] which can only be treated with these [google.com].
Now imagine that was on your crotch.
There's always somebody who says something like "LOL what an idiot, everyone knows you have to be careful with coffee because it's HOT!" Well everyone I've ever met must be an idiot, because I've never seen anyone treat coffee like it could do that to you in seconds. It'd be like seeing someone casually set a lit acetylene torch in their cup holder as they drove around. There's oops-ouchie hot, and there's skin-grafts-on-the-crotch way too fucking hot.
Knife is too sharp! Teflon is too slick! (Score:2)
You don't stick hot liquids between your legs.
You don't try to balance hot liquids on your gut.
You give hot liquids your full, undivided attention or you should NOT be handling them. If this means pulling the damn car over and walking in to get your caffiene fix DO IT!
There's also the "spilled it into clothing which holds it against your skin and continues to burn you" hot too. It's not like you get a peltier effect by dropping hot coffee on yourself.
And FT
Re:Knife is too sharp! Teflon is too slick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if the definition of "hot" that everyone assumes is nothing like how hot the liquid actually was. "Hot" is not binary.
You give hot liquids your full, undivided attention or you should NOT be handling them. If this means pulling the damn car over and walking in to get your caffiene fix DO IT!
I don't know anyone who actually treats coffee like that. Nobody treats coffee with their "full undivided attention", they walk around with un-covered cups all the time chatting with co-workers and what not and basically try not to run into anyone -- but even then they don't cautiously peer around every corner to make sure no one is coming. But based on what you are saying, the (pulling a number out of thin air) hundreds of thousands of people who drink coffee every day while commuting are knowingly putting themselves at risk of third degree burns and painful skin grafts.
Or, perhaps more plausibly, nobody actually considers a normal cup of coffee to be that serious of a threat, and everyone's "coffee==hot" equation does not apply for such high values of "hot".
Do you seriously walk around holding your coffee cup in two hands, blowing off anyone who attempts to engage you in conversation or otherwise distract your full attention from the danger in front of you? Or do you treat it like you would, say, a hammer, that would hurt like the dickens if you dropped it on your foot but you would hardly expect to hospitalize you? If the former, kudos to your caution, but you're completely abnormal.
There's also the "spilled it into clothing which holds it against your skin and continues to burn you" hot too. It's not like you get a peltier effect by dropping hot coffee on yourself.
Yes, that made the burns worse. What's your point, that she shouldn't have been wearing clothes? She still would have received third degree burns almost immediately. Maybe she would have only had to be in the hospital for four days instead of a week if she'd been wearing jeans instead of sweat pants. Maybe her genitals would have merely been badly scarred instead of requiring skin grafts.
Just about every coffee drinker has spilled coffee on themselves at some point. I don't know any who have been scarred as a result even if they spilled it on their pants, and I don't know anyone who was surprised that they were not seriously injured. A perhaps second degree burn requiring some aloe vera cream is about what any normal person expects.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Polystyrene melts at 240C, which is well over twice the boiling point of water at sea level, so your claim is an excellent example of the phenomenon of rectal vocalisation.
Dunno... I am not sure at all (Score:3, Informative)
Similar lawsuits against McDonald's in the United Kingdom failed. The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench division, rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving not-so-hot coffee:
If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C (149 F) will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55-60 C (131-140 F). But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85-95 C (185-203 F).[10]
Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[13]
And moreover, it seems to me that the coffee had the right temperature (more so, considering that it was served at a drive thru which means people will indeed drink the coffee while driving over long distances):
Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[14] The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91-96 C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." [15]
I have always thought that such a suit is only possible in the happy suing USA.
Now, returning to the IBM case (and this main story subject), I really hope they sue these bastards as they are counterfeiting merchandise. This is a company trying to profit from a regi
Re:Dunno... I am not sure at all (Score:5, Interesting)
Emphasis changed to point out why this is not a contradiction.
And moreover, it seems to me that the coffee had the right temperature (more so, considering that it was served at a drive thru which means people will indeed drink the coffee while driving over long distances):
Long distances is a reason to put the coffee in an insulated cup, not a reason to serve at a temperature so hot that it would physically damage you to actually put it to your lips.
Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[14] The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91-96 C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
While I may be mistaken, I don't think "immediately" is meant to imply "straight from the brewer at 91-96 C" because that would cause 3rd degree burns to your esophagus. I would rather think it's meant to imply that if you aren't intending to drink any coffee at the time and are going to let it sit, that it should maintained at the high temperature to maintain the flavor, and still allowed to cool down before serving so it's possible to drink.
And I've seen people spill "hot" coffee on themselves before, and never have I seen them fall to the ground screaming where they had to be taken to the hospital to receive skin grafts, and I've never seen anyone treat their lidless cup of coffee as though that were a possibility.
I have always thought that such a suit is only possible in the happy suing USA.
Regardless of the merits of hot coffee, I just can't see this as an example of that, because "happy suing USA" to me has always meant "person sues for $CHA-CHING because of emotional distress or skinned knee", where this lady initially only tried to recover her medical expenses for an actual severe injury she received, and it was the jury who decided that McDonald's dismissive behavior warranted the large punitive damages.
There are many, many better examples as far as I'm concerned. Off the top of my head, a lady once sued her employer because she's racist and they made her work with black people and this caused her emotional distress.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Flammable Batteries (Score:4, Informative)
No, no, no.
Stella Liebeck, a passenger in a car, took a cup of hot McDonalds coffe, placed it between her (pointy) knees, and proceeded to PULL the lid off, thereby dumping the coffee in her lap. Instead of pulling the hot-coffee-soaked cloth away from her skin (she was wearing sweatpants), she sat in the puddle of coffee for at least 7 seconds. This resulted in severe burns to her crotch and legs.
McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. And you know wht? THEY'RE RIGHT! The National Coffee Assosiation of USA, Inc. (and who would know more about making coffee??) Says you need "a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and that "Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!", but if you don't serve it right away "the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."
And, just as a slam dunk, even HOME coffee makers use water that hot: check out This link [bunnomatic.com], which clearly states things like "The water is approximately 50F hotter than what's available from your hot water faucet" and keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200F
So, right there goes any claim that the coffee was "too hot".
Second- yes, McDonalds has a record of coffee causing burns. The defense was able to find 700 cases (of all severities, from first degree (red skin) to third degree(blisters). In the last 10 years. Nationwide. That's like, 0.003 burns per day per state. Actually, when you factor in how many cups of coffee were sold, you find that only 1 in every 24 million caused a burn. That means, for each person who burned thenselves, 23,999,999 were able to buy coffee without injury.
How does this make McDonalds coffee 'unreasonably dangerous'? A: it doesn't.
Look, getting burned is horribly painful. And skin grafts are not pleasant, either. But don't let your feelings of pity toward Stella cloud your Reason. She suffered. Horribly. But it was her own fault, not McDonalds.
Re:Flammable Batteries (Score:4, Interesting)
Starbucks, and many other coffee shops sell their coffee at the same temperatures to this day. My wife, who worked for 3 different coffee shops in college verified this personally.
Really? The only applicable law I've heard of sets a minimum brew temperature. If there's a law setting maximum serving temperature of coffee at the time the coffee is served, I'd love a reference.
Coffee has been served at these temperatures, industry wide, for decades, and continues to be served this hot to this day. At starbucks, customers actually request temperatures of up to 160 degrees F for their steamed milk drinks (lates, etc.) (that upper bound is based *solely* on the fact that the milk will burn and taste terrible if it gets any hotter), and drip coffee is brewed at 200+ degrees F (which is the ISO standard for brewing machines).
Yes, the woman required reconstructive surgery. She was also an idiot who wasn't appropriate careful with her coffee, and then preceded to sit in the scalding liquid for over a minute and a a half . Anyone with two braincells to rub together should have jumped out of their seat instantly.
If the McDonald's coffee case had any real merit, it would have had coffee-service-industry-wide effects. Short of a "Caution: hot liquid" disclaimer on hot beverage cups, it simply hasn't. While there have been similar suits brought against every major coffee retailer, they've largely failed.
See for yourself -- tell your Starbucks Barista you want your late at 160 Fahrenheit. They'll scribble a note on your cup without hesitation. Order a cup of their drip coffee and stick a thermometer in it. You'll find it's no cooler than the coffee in the McDonald's case.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When multiple people sue you for severe burns, it's time to turn the thermostat down. Supressing information regarding these incidents is not the answer.
McD's rightfully got slammed for egregious information hiding.
Transfat and coffee that can give you 3rd degree burns is fine so long as there's full disclosure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because one person in every 24,000,000 can't handle it?
Was it a valid suit? yes.
I disagree. The plaintiff's case was based upon a key point: The coffee was too hot. The fact is, it was not. (I've posted detailed elsewhere in this thread.)
Because Mc D's acted like asshats and the jury saw it
Acting like an asshat is not illegal. Neither is preparing beverages in the proper manner. What should be illegal is suing o
Unhelpful summary (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unhelpful summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that and they're stamping IBM's name on them and selling them to customers who think they're getting genuine IBM replacement batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The whole ensemble
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unhelpful summary (Score:5, Informative)
I call bullshit. Please cite where you got your information as well as back up all of your claims.
Here are lists of advantages and disadvantages of current Li-ion batteries. I have included citations.
Advantages:
* Lithium ion batteries, like all rechargeable batteries, are recyclable. (Greenbatteries.com)
* Li-ion has the highest power density compared to NiCd and Ni-MH batteries (QSL.net)
* Do not suffer from the "memory effect", unlike NiCd and Ni-MH (Wikipedia)
* Low self discharge rate of 5% per month (NiCd is 10%, Ni-MH is 30+ per month) (Wikipedia)
Disadvantages:
* Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated (Wikipedia)
* Usually more expensive (Wikipedia
* Lithium-ion batteries also require sophisticated chargers that can carefully monitor the charge process. (Greenbatteries.com)
* Has more mandatory safety features than other battery types (Wikipedia)
* Reduced capacity at High discharge rates. (QSL.net)
* Li-ion batteries can be smaller or lighter than Ni-MH and NiCd (Greenbatteries.com)
* Are not available in AA, AAA, C or D sizes. (QSL.net)
* Approximately 1% of Li-ion batteries are the subject of recalls. (Wikipedia)
Citations:
(Greenbatteries.com) http://www.greenbatteries.com/libafa.html [greenbatteries.com]
(QSL.net) http://www.qsl.net/ac4fd/battery/Battery.html [qsl.net]
(Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery [wikipedia.org]
A rather shady looking parts dealer (Score:4, Interesting)
The store mentioned in TFA looks pretty shady to begin with, with products like "iPod Nano Alike" and such [Quote from site; "Why pay more for iPod Nano where you can get this better funtioned MP3 player for just 1/5 of the price?"].
Usually it's a question whether the consumers should wise up, or whether cheap knockoffs should be removed due to copyright infringement. But in this case where one company is blatantly putting another company's label on their inferior product, that's undoubtedly when the law needs to fix things.
It's good that Big blue is doing something to stop this, but part of me doesn't have much sympathy for someone who would order parts from a site like that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fake Flammable Batteries?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fake Flammable Batteries?! (Score:5, Funny)
They sell fake Apple laptop gear too (Score:5, Informative)
The punchline? I ordered the adapters from a different company and had the same problem. Getting a refund was easier this time, and I gave up and went to the Apple store. So much for trying to save a buck.
This is different though (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Fire Batteries (Score:2)
Whislt perusing the site... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Whislt perusing the site... (Score:5, Funny)
Was this an intentional pun or one that just happened?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, shit. I didn't even think of it that way!!!!!! There goes my coffee, all over my amp!
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't New York "Eastern"? (Score:2)
Good move (Score:2)
Mislabeling batteries will make them less reliable, since the manufacturers have a chance of getting away with it. Just look at this article: The manufacturer is not mentioned!
Bad summary (of course) (Score:5, Informative)
Geez.
Shentech = Scam Artists (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm confused, how is Lenovo involved? (Score:2)
Hurray! (Score:2)
They sent me once a wrong graphics card (with fan) - totally different from the picture shown on the web (fanless) and the person on the phone had the nerve to claim that it's the same.
Must be a different dimension they are living in.
Shentech (Score:2)
Looks like they've gone way down hill.
What? (Score:2)
How to tell; remedy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do work, & even have more amp-hours than the original, however, the probability of incidents is higher than with factory batteries, & it will be difficult to get warranty repair.
They look EXACTLY like the genuine article.
If I put one in my pocket... (Score:2, Funny)
ObSimpsons (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What possible international law enforcement agency would enforce a ban on work-alike/look-alike products? Who would you have enforce the copyrights and trademarks of IBM? Would you leave this to the Chinese government (never happen) or do you think that US Customs should be the filter and prevent such purchases from entering the US? And if you bought something like this on the Internet and it was confiscated, should the customer just lose their money? Or should the merchant refund
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WIPO.
Who would you have enforce the copyrights and trademarks of IBM?
The Department of Justice.
do you think that US Customs should be the filter and prevent such purchases from entering the US?
Check this [cybercrime.gov] out.
And if you bought something like this on the Internet and it was confiscated, should the customer just lose their money?
Pretty much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:mis-represented? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, if people want to buy third-party components like batteries, more power to 'em. Manufacturers will usually fleece you for things like replacement batteries, but you're reasonably assured that they'll work correctly. You can often find reasonably-priced third-party batteries that have higher capacity or other advantages, but you give up the peace of mind you get with the "official" replacement. Still, as long as the chance of failure isn't negligently high (which in this specific case might be true), I don't really see a problem with it.
Now, printing IBM on the products is a different story, and takes the batteries from "third-party" to counterfeit. It's also possible that Shentech bought from a shoddy supplier that gave them counterfeits, but the end result is the same.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<deadhorse action="flog">Why buy an IBM Thinkpad T61 when you can buy an IBM Thinkpad T61 Alike for 1/5th the price?</deadhorse>
Aware of IBM, what of others? (Score:2)
When I bought an extra cell for my tablet PC it came with no stickers, though the seller stated it was an HP battery. I wonder now if I'm not using a time-bomb from this company or another like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily - most of the aftermarket batteries I have purchased or (we) ordered at a major retailer (some with labels, some without) have worked admirably well. None of them (after anything from a few years to a few months) have exhibitted issues.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never going to see court, much less a dime (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Never going to see court, much less a dime (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Federal Courts will, I'm sure, be immensely sympathetic to the argument that they have no jurisdiction over Shentech, Inc. of 1513 132nd St., Flushing, NY 11356.
Re:Never going to see court, much less a dime (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM is suing an American company. The batteries are being sold from the US. Made in China yes but sold from a US address.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just to be fair, I wouldn't pinpoint this as an American capitalist problem only. It's in human nature. We are evolved gatherers through 6000 years of intelligent design. A better deal is a better deal, and the fine line where the better deal becomes unrealistic is subjective. So you bought a VCR recorder on the streets of (insert random name of a bustling ci
Re:A check with a one and a zillion zeroes after i (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)