Europe Blog
Our views on the Internet and society
Troll-proofing Europe’s patent system
Thursday, September 26, 2013
As the European Union moves towards a
unified patent system
, we’re excited about the prospects for a harmonised patent regime that promotes efficiency and long-term competitiveness.
After all, the whole point of a patent system is to promote innovation. Patents encourage inventors to publicly disclose their inventions, sharing knowledge and spurring further progress while recouping their investment.
But in the United States, the abuse of dubious patents is having the opposite effect, impeding innovation and harming consumers.
Patent trolls
- litigation shops that use
questionable patents
to extort money from productive companies—are placing a huge drag on innovation. Trolls use the threat of expensive and extended litigation to extract settlements, regardless of the merits of their claims.
The economic impact of patent troll litigation has been enormous, draining an estimated
$29 billion
in direct costs from productive enterprises in 2011 alone. Over the years Google has faced down hundreds of patent claims, mostly from patent trolls, but only after paying millions of dollars in legal fees.
Europe now has a clear opportunity to adopt rules that limit the risk of fostering
patent trolling in Europe
. Patent trolls have no real business interests to defend. So, at the very least, trolls should have to prove their patents are actually valid and consumer harms should be considered before giving trolls blocking orders that would impact 500 million Europeans.
Today, we’ve joined 16 European and U.S. companies, including Adidas, Deutsche Telekom, Apple and Microsoft in an
open letter
, suggesting improvements to the Unified Patent Court’s proposed rules. These fixes will help the EU system avoid the issues that have plagued the U.S. and will ensure companies are investing in innovation and growth—not patent litigation.
Posted by Catherine Lacavera, Director of Patent Litigation
European consumers embrace online content
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Internet has been disruptive for the media industries - film, television, gaming, music, books and news. But it’s now becoming clear that whilst initially painful, this disruption is proving positive, as three recent studies released by
Booz & Co
,
Floor 64 Research
, and
Boston Consulting Group
show. The digital era is starting to benefit both Europe’s content producers and consumers.
Boston Consulting Group’s “
Follow the Surplus
” report (disclosure: commissioned by Google), published this week reveals growing confidence in online content. Three quarters of consumers surveyed in nine European countries judged that online content had improved in quality, and nearly two thirds expect continued improvement.
The report also noted that two-thirds of respondents value the diversity of information and opinions available to them online, and substantial majorities (as high as 75% in some countries) are more excited about the benefits of the Internet than they are worried about any perceived risks.
This optimism is generating a large ‘consumer surplus’ - the theoretical value consumers attribute to a product or service above and beyond what they paid for it - valued at an average of EUR 1,100 per person per year for online media.
It’s clear too that European consumers are increasingly willing to pay for content.
Booz’s
report (disclosure: also commissioned by Google) calculates digital revenues at €30 billion higher in 2011 than in 2001.
Floor 64’s
research shows that in 2007, there were just 11 legal digital music services in Germany, in 2011 there were 68. The British Recorded Music Industry’s recent
annual report
says UK digital music revenues last year overtook sales or records and CDs for the first time. And according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s
Digital Music Report
2013, digital revenues now account for 34% of total global revenues for the recording industry.
These reports all paint a picture of a large digital opportunity for the creative sectors - and of an industry in the process of reorienting itself to the online world. We’re keen to partner with the creative sectors and answer growing consumer demand for quality online media.
Posted by Simon Morrison, Public Policy Manager, Google
Translating patents with the European Patent Office
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Last March
, we signed an agreement with the European Patent Office (EPO) to break down linguistic barriers and improve the machine translation of patents. Today, we’ve released an update to our Google Translate system that incorporates the EPO’s parallel patent texts and allows translation between English and French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Swedish.
This improved system is now part of the EPO’s
Espacenet
service, and goes under the name Patent Translate. Espacenet provides free access to millions of patent documents worldwide - and its users can use Patent Translate to read patents from around the world in their own language. Here’s a video that shows how it works:
Using the EPO’s parallel texts, we’ve been able to improve our ability to translate patents, as the following examples show:
Polymerisable ink
Source: une tête d'impression pour diriger une encre polymérisable par rayonnement vers un substrat reçu sur le support
Old translation: a print head to direct a radiation curable ink to a substrate on the support received
New translation: a print head for directing radiation polymerisable ink to a substrate received on the support
Ultrasonic vibration
Source: The crystals supply the required ultrasonic vibration needed to drive both the horn and the attached cutting tip during phacoemulsification and are controlled by the console.
Old translation: I cristalli di fornire la vibrazione necessaria ad ultrasuoni necessari per guidare sia il corno e la punta di sezionamento annesso durante facoemulsificazione e sono controllati dalla console.
New translation: I cristalli forniscono la vibrazione ultrasonica richiesta necessaria per pilotare sia il corno e la punta da taglio allegata durante la facoemulsificazione e sono controllati dalla console.
We share a similar vision to the EPO, that machine translation can help to overcome language barriers - and help to make the information contained in patents universally accessible and useful. Whilst the improved system is pretty good, machine translation is a challenging computer science problem and does not always deliver perfect results. But it can be a very useful way for people to search and read patents that aren’t written in their language.
We’re excited to continue our collaboration with the EPO. We look forward to adding more languages - and showing how this public-private partnership will further improve access to patents for people around the world.
Posted by Jeff Chin, Product Manager, Google Translate
Helping African artists manage their rights globally
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The
contribution
made by African musicians and their music throughout history is unquestionable. The continent’s musical landscape is rich and contributes not just entertainment value but also a way of sharing tradition and culture. Unfortunately, even today, only a few African artists have been able to make money from the popularity of their music, and most of them struggle to make a living or to get the recognition they deserve. Inefficient rights management systems, difficulties in cross-border licensing and payment, and other challenges, mean that artists frequently don’t earn as much money as they should from their work.
In order to address some of these challenges, the
World Intellectual Property Organisation
(WIPO), has undertaken a number of initiatives intended to benefit musicians in Africa. Among the initiatives, is a collaboration between WIPO and Google focused on building software that will make it easier, faster, and simpler for musicians and composers in 11 West African countries to get paid for the use of their music worldwide - and help increase their music’s visibility internationally at the same time.
When a broadcaster plays a song on the radio, a movie studio includes that song on a film soundtrack, or a music service streams it to consumers, they need to know who owns the rights to that song and obtain a license. One of the places they might consult to figure out who owns the rights is a collecting society--an organization dedicated to managing rights for composers, musicians and performers. You might need to contact a music publisher, or a record company, or the artists directly. Information on rights can be hard to find, impeding revenue opportunities for artists.
The 11 countries in question -- Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Togo -- sought a solution for this problem, and asked WIPO to come up with a solution that would allow information on their music to be more widely shared. With Google as its pro bono technology partner, WIPO will improve its
existing rights-management software
to do just that.
The aim is to make it easier and more efficient for artists to get paid for their work. Performers, composers, record labels and music publishers will be able to register their music and have that information automatically shared and globally accessible. Current and potential licensees will be able to work out who owns the rights to a work more efficiently, and information about how these licensees are using these works will be immediately available to all these countries’ collection societies, replacing what is often now a manual process of updating various databases.
By working with rights holders and public institutions like WIPO, Google aims to contribute open technology solutions, making it easier for new online services to emerge and for consumers to discover and access creative works. In the case of music in developing countries, this need is especially important: African artists can now reach a global audience and get paid, but only if the rights management information is readily available. This collaboration will considerably help make this happen and we are proud to be helping WIPO in furthering the dissemination of African culture and helping African artists reach listeners around the world.
You can learn more about this project on
WIPO's website
.
Posted by Ory Okolloh, Policy and Government Relations Manager, Google Africa
Keeping counterfeits out of ads
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Thanks to the Internet, it’s never been easier to start a business and reach a huge audience, at an incredible scale. Unfortunately, some people misuse legitimate online services to try to market counterfeit goods. Of course, this isn’t a problem unique to the online world, but as the Web has grown, so have attempts to sell counterfeits online.
With over one million advertisers using AdWords in over 190 countries, how do we weed out the bad actors who violate our
clear policies
against advertising counterfeits? In the last six months of 2010 alone, we shut down approximately 50,000 AdWords accounts for attempting to advertise counterfeit goods. But there’s no silver bullet here. Instead, it’s a cat-and-mouse game, where we are constantly working to improve our practices and tune our systems to keep out the bad guys.
That’s why today we’re announcing three improvements designed to further improve our collaboration with brand owners to address the problem and prevent counterfeiters from abusing our services:
We’ll act on reliable AdWords counterfeit complaints within 24 hours
. In 2009, we
announced a new complaint form
to make it fast and easy for brand owners to notify us of misuse. For brand owners who use this form responsibly, we’ll reduce our average response time to 24 hours or less.
We will improve our AdSense anti-counterfeit reviews.
We have always
prohibited
our AdSense partners from placing Google ads on sites that include or link to sales of counterfeit goods. We will work more closely with brand owners to identify infringers and, when appropriate, expel them from the AdSense programme.
We’ve introduced a
new help centre page
for reporting counterfeits
. That way, we aim to make it easier for users and brand owners to find forms to report abuse.
These steps are our ways of facilitating co-operation with brand owners, which is absolutely essential in tackling the sale of counterfeits online. AdWords is just a conduit between advertisers and consumers and we can’t know whether any particular item out of the millions advertised is counterfeit or not.
Of course, we do more than simply respond to brand owners’ removal requests. We use their feedback to help us tune a set of sophisticated automated tools, which analyse thousands of signals along every step of the advertising process and help prevent bad ads from ever seeing the light of day. We devote significant engineering and machine resources in order to prevent violations of ads policies, including counterfeiting.
In fact, we invested over $60 million last year alone, and, in the last 6 months of 2010, more than 95% of accounts removed for counterfeits came down based on our own detection efforts. No system is perfect, but brand owner feedback has helped us improve over time - as our system gets more data about ads it has misclassified before, it gets better at counteracting new ways that bad guys try to cloak their behaviour.
While our systems get better over time, counterfeiting remains a complex challenge, and we keep investing in anti-counterfeiting measures. After all, a Google user duped by a fake is far less likely to click on another Google ad in the future. Ads for counterfeits aren't just bad for the real brand holder - they're bad for users who can end up unknowingly buying sub-standard products, and they're bad for Google too.
Posted by Kent Walker, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Google
European Court of Justice rules in Google's favour
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Google aims to provide as much information as possible to users so that they can make informed decisions. For this reason, we have been awaiting a series of decisions by the European Court of Justice that explore the extent to which trade mark rights can be used to restrict information available to users. The first of those decisions was delivered today.
The question before the court was whether advertisers should be allowed to choose keywords freely when reaching out to users on the Internet. In other words, if advertisers are allowed to show advertisements when another company's brand name is entered as a search query.
Trade marks are part of our daily life and culture, helping us to identify the products and services that we may be looking for. They are key for companies to market and advertise their products and services. But trade mark rights are not absolute.
We believe that user interest is best served by maximizing the choice of keywords, ensuring relevant and informative advertising for a wide variety of different contexts. For instance, if a user is searching for information about a particular car, he or she will want more than just that car’s website. They might be looking for different dealers that sell that car, second hand cars, reviews about the car or looking for information about other cars in the same category.
And, contrary to what some are intimating, this case is not about us arguing for a right to advertise counterfeit goods. We have strict policies that forbid the advertising of counterfeit goods; it's a bad user experience. We work collaboratively with brand owners to better identify and deal with counterfeiters.
Some companies want to limit choice for users by extending trade mark law to encompass the use of keywords in online advertising. Ultimately they want to be able to exercise greater control over the infomation available to users by preventing other companies from advertising when a user enters their trade mark as a search query. In other words, controlling and restricting the amount of information that users may see in response to their searches.
Today, the Court confirmed that Google has not infringed trade mark law by allowing advertisers to bid for keywords corresponding to their competitors’ trade marks. It also confirmed that European law that protects internet hosting services applies to Google’s AdWords advertising system. This is important because it is a fundamental principle behind the free flow of information over the internet.
Our guiding principle has always been that advertising should benefit users, and our aim is to ensure that ads are relevant and useful. We will study the decision as we move forward in order to make sure that we continue to deliver advertising that is perceived as both valuable and relevant by our users.
Posted by Dr. Harjinder S. Obhi, Senior Litigation Counsel, EMEA
Embracing disruption
Monday, March 15, 2010
How should the European Union approach innovation policy over the next five years? That was the fascinating question that I came to Brussels this month to discuss at the
Lisbon Council
. It’s not an easy question, but it is one that Europe as a whole needs to address, as innovation is vital for competitiveness.
We all talk about innovation, but what is it really? At a high level, it can probably be broken down into three broad categories. Firstly, there's the incremental innovations which improves an existing product or process. In the 70's & 80's it meant moving the tools closer to the workers, and that saved time and improved efficiency. All of which is useful. A more recent example is something like our own Gmail team, which operates Labs to showcase additional features to the core email product, such as
Mail Goggles
. This allows you to check check that you're really sure you want to send an email you might later regret.
The second order of innovation is similar to the first, but where the incremental innovation has a distinct side effect. Consider our Adsense programme. We’ve developed an system to match advertisements to the content of Publishers' websites. This makes it possible for people not only to tell their story in their local language but also get paid! Instead of a few big publishers being the only ones to benefit, the side effect enables anyone with an Internet connection can participate and has made the Internet an incredible platform for free speech.
Finally, there's the holy grail, and what most people think of as real innovation. Consider our data centre infrastructure. In the past data centres were built with expensive, ultra-reliable hardware. In contrast, most of our data centres run on cheap hardware; in fact, cheaper than the average game console. We’ve designed software that can recover when these machines fail, making the consumer experience just as reliable. We published a
paper
a while ago on costs compared to guaranteed reliable hardware, and claimed that our approach generated a 10x price per price increase on cost per Mb vs traditional approaches, a game changing number.
So what does this mean for policy makers? I shared the platform with Anthony D. Williams who presented his paper on
Wikinomics and the Era of Openness.
Much of the subsequent discussion of his emphasis on collabaratory innovation focused upon the consequences for intellectual property regulation.
Innovation Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn gave the
keynote speech
. She outlined an agenda that rightly embraced a broad definition of innovation. In addition to innovation by lab workers in 'white coats', she recognised that real innovation is possible outside of the R&D laboratory in all sort of industries.
For my part, I offered the following ideas for innovation policy:
Put the consumer first
: We have a core product philosophy within Google that goes like this: “Follow the user and all else will follow”. It turns out not to be a new idea, as Henry Ford learnt when he famously said: “If I asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have asked me to build a faster horse”. The key is understanding user behavior and building and iterating products by ‘following the data’ on aggregated usage. (The Economist recently provided a excellent introduction to the
power of data
.)
Remove barriers to innovation
: Speed matters. Consider
Playfish
, the company behind the super popular Facebook App Animal farm. They started 2 years ago in UK, and built their entire service on Amazon’s ‘infrastructure as a service’ platform (that enables business to rent data centre capacity rather than build it themselves). They recently
sold to Electronic Arts
for $275m. We sometimes talk of a new ‘innovation without permission’ culture, and facilitating that would be a good goal to set for legislators.
Diversity in the hiring process matters
, as without multiple perspectives innovation will die because everyone sees the problem the same way. Europe’s universities must educate a
broad cross-section of students
in maths, science and computer science. In particular more women need to be encouraged to take careers in technology.
Risk taking is as important for large companies as for start-ups
: We encourage employees to take risks, and we tailor our compensation model to encourage risk taking. Otherwise people quickly learn that to get ahead they shouldn’t try anything new, especially if there is a risk of failure. The result: innovation dies.
We need a broad culture that truly embraces innovation. This may sound obvious, but innovation brings disruption that quickly mutes the enthusiasm. Embracing disruption is perhaps the new Commissioner's real political challenge.
Posted by Rian Liebenberg, Engineering Director
Threatening Internet freedom in the UK
Monday, December 7, 2009
All too often, the public policy world focuses on subtle legislative distinctions and on regulatory details. But once in a while, an issue comes along that strikes to the heart of the big principles. Such an issue erupted last week in the UK - an issue that incorporates two of the most important subjects on these pages: privacy and innovation.
The British Government's
Digital Economy bill
includes ideas that worry us - as well as other Internet companies such as Yahoo, Facebook and Ebay. In particular, we are concerned about the bill's Clause 17 which, in an effort to fight piracy, would allow the Secretary of State to amend the Copyright Act to "prevent or reduce the infringement of copyright by means of the Internet" without additional legislation. All of us have joined together and written the UK government to express our opposition.
Let me explain why. The government's stated attempt to spur Brits to get online in an ambitious
Digital Britain
project is laudatory. We do not object to fighting against infringement of copyright: in fact, we are often inventing new technology solutions to help content creators protect their material. A good example is our Video ID technology which identifies copyrighted material when it is uploaded onto YouTube and then helps the copyright holder sell advertising tied to the video. We also understand why the UK Government wanted to make their legislation future proof, to cope with technical change. But, as we have said many times in the past, legislation is often like a slow moving tank in the Internet world. Innovations happen faster than most politicians can even imagine, and to try and future proof laws requires laws so big and so powerful that the risks of misuse far outweigh the benefits.
While we remain unsure of how this Clause 17 is intended to be implemented, we fear it could require the Government to start gathering more information about users Internet habits, even when no illegal practices have taken place. The first step required of any government using these new powers would be to carry out some sort of assessment of whether significant copyright infringements are taking place. That assessment would have to be based on independent facts - and what "facts" exist other than through user data? Crucially, such an assessment would require examining the behaviour of all UK Internet users. This is wrong. We fiercely protect the privacy of our users across the world and do not believe that fear of illegal activity
somewhere
on the Internet is enough to justify intrusion of activity
everywhere
on the Internet.
Another concern with the Clause is that it could stifle the Internet's innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. Great new business models need legal clarity and regulatory space to come to market. Having powers like these in the back pocket, able to be used without significant Parliamentary oversight is enough to put off any young entrepreneur wanting to invent new ways of making content legally available. This was almost certainly not the intention's of the Clause's intentions. but good intentions don't make great laws.
Posted by Sarah Hunter, UK Policy Manager
Brussels buzzes with ideas for the future
Friday, September 25, 2009
Brussels is buzzing with ideas for a new technology agenda. The European Commission recently distributed a questionnaire on the
post-i2010 Initiative
and the EU's Swedish Presidency is seeking views on a
Green Knowledge Society
. Not to be outdone, the European Parliament's
European Internet Foundation
(EIF) has just published a
paper
on the Europe of 2025, including room to comment on their site. The Foundation is a
Parliamentarian led
organisation funded by businesses (full disclosure: Google is a
member
) and industry trade associations.
The Foundation's secretariat penned the paper, building upon three workshops held earlier in the year. Google provided a speaker on
cloud computing
at the
technology workshop
. Debates also took place on
economic
and
socio-political
issues.
The resulting paper does not pretend to be a common position of the Foundation's members, it contains few dramatic policy recommendations, and is clearly meant to stimulate new debate.
But it does shine a spotlight on some key issues, starting with the crucial concept of "mass collaboration", which has for example led to a globally accessible repository of information called
Wikipedia
. It's not so much the technology in itself is not so exciting; what's cool is how humans adapt it to accelerate our natural inclinations to communicate and share ideas. This concept of "mass collaboration" is fueling debate about intellectual property rules (our recent submission can be found
here
) and whether Europe needs to join with the
FCC
to promote a strong set of net freedoms.
Secondly, we cannot rely on the next generation alone to fuel innovation. As the paper points out, "70% of Europe’s workforce of 2025 is already part of our work-force today." I can't think of a more powerful statistic about the need to embrace change.
A third point to note is the notion of a "data-driven world" where "our ability to capture, measure and analyse our collective, collaborative behaviour will itself have become a defining feature, driving force and economic engine in the digital world". This is unquestionably true, and Google is a pioneer in this space. As the ability to collect data grows, the paper recognises the need to debate the privacy issues that emerge. A
consultation
on Europe's data protection directive is underway and it will have the challenge of balancing data-driven growth & jobs while protecting fundamental rights.
Google is going to be involved in all of these debates. We published
some policy proposals
back in June. You may want also to take a look this
recent speech
by our CEO Eric Schmidt, which provides a real vision of the opportunity.
But you don't have to be based inside the Brussels 'Ring' to join in - the debate is open, and stakes for Europe's society and economy are high.
Posted by Simon Hampton, Director of Public Policy
Preventing Advertising of Counterfeit Goods
Friday, June 19, 2009
Many of us have long forgotten how hard it was to travel around Europe or to buy something in other European countries before the
Schengen agreement
or the
Euro
. In the same way, we tend to forget how time consuming it was to find the best deal for plane tickets or hotels, or to compare qualities and prices of products before the Internet. Google is proud that its online ads enable consumers to compare goods and services, and businesses, small and large, to promote their products, locally and
across borders
.
Yet these new powerful online advertising tools must not be misused to support the sale of counterfeits.
Google
has always prohibited ads for the sale or promotion of counterfeit goods. We now are taking measures to further improve our cooperation with trademark owners. Our new
Counterfeit Goods complaint form
streamlines the way trademark owners can inform us about ads they see for counterfeit goods. This allows for faster review and take down of offending ads when necessary. We will continue to innovate to develop solutions that prevent ads for counterfeit goods.
When Europe knocked down borders, customs officials needed to adapt and trademark owners faced new challenges to cope with circulation of counterfeits. Similarly, the Internet has provided new opportunities to unscrupulous advertisers. Yet Europe did not back away from tearing down borders and pursuing the benefits of the single market. In the same way, we will continue to work with trademark owners to fight against ads for counterfeit goods while allowing both users and advertisers to reap the full benefits of the web.
Posted by Antoine Aubert, Policy Manager, Brussels
Labels
Academics
18
Advertising
10
Africa
26
Austria
7
Belgium
25
Big Tent
11
Bosnia and Herzegovina
2
Browsers
1
Brussels Tech Talk
7
Bulgaria
5
Campus
2
Child Safety
24
Cloud computing
17
Competition
16
Computer Science
35
Computing Heritage
37
Consumers
11
controversial content
2
COP21
1
copyright
34
Crisis Response
2
Culture
116
Czech Republic
16
Data Centre
15
Denmark
4
Digital News Initiative
6
Digital Single Market
1
Diversity
7
Economic Impact of the Internet
57
Economy
24
Elections
7
Energy + Environment
16
Engineering
6
Environment
5
Estonia
6
European Commission
21
European Parliament
14
European Union
104
exhibitions
1
Finland
13
France
77
Free Expression
88
Free flow of information
47
German
1
Germany
65
Google for Entrepreneurs
9
Google in Europe Blog
846
Google Play
1
Google TechTalk
2
Google Translate
1
Google Trends
3
Google+
4
Greece
16
Growth Engine
3
Hackathon
3
Hungary
16
Innovation
70
Internet Governance
7
IP
10
Ireland
16
Israel
17
Italy
42
Journalism
34
Latvia
1
Lithuania
1
Luxembourg
3
Maps
17
Middle East
18
Netherlands
6
News
2
News Lab
1
North Africa
6
Norway
3
online
1
Online Safety
2
Open data
8
Open Government
7
Open source
2
Poland
24
Portugal
6
Power of Data
25
privacy
49
Publishing
30
Right to be Forgotten
9
Rio+20
1
Romania
3
Russia
18
Safer Internet Day
4
San Marino
1
Science
5
Security
7
Single Market
7
Slovakia
16
Slovenia
2
SMEs
24
Spain
39
Startups
6
State of the Union
2
STEM Education
36
Street View
38
Surveillance
1
Sweden
13
Switzerland
11
Telecoms
11
The Netherlands
4
Tourism
1
Transparency
12
Tunisia
4
Turkey
3
Ukraine
3
United Kingdom
94
Vatican
2
Youth
2
YouTube
42
Archive
2016
Sep
Introducing YouTube Creators for Change
Announcing a Google.org grant for XperiBIRD.be, a ...
Bringing education to refugees in Lebanon with the...
Juncker embraces creators -- and their concerns
Tour 10 Downing Street with Google Arts and Culture
European copyright: there's a better way
Digital News Initiative: Introducing the YouTube P...
#AskJuncker: YouTube creators to interview the Eur...
An extinct world brought back to life with Google ...
Project Muze: Fashion inspired by you, designed by...
Come Play with us
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2015
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2014
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2013
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2012
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2011
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2010
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2009
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Feed
Give us feedback in our
Product Forums
.
