31:
638:
Furthermore, the act stated in section 3(b) that if misappropriation is, "willful and malicious" the court may award damages up to twice what would otherwise be entitled under section 3(a). Restrictions similar to those imposed on the duration of injunctive relief are imposed on the duration of damages as well.
424:
The UTSA contained a prefatory note followed by 12 sections of proposed law. Each section was followed by a "comments" section that provided clarifications and examples as to the intent of the law. Section 1 presented definitions of key terms as they are used throughout the act. Sections 2–4 provided
400:
As a result, the UTSA sought to alleviate the uneven development and "uncertainty concerning the parameters of trade secret protection" by recommending a uniform trade secret law and, at the same time, allowing the states the flexibility to meet local circumstances by modifying the text as enacted in
580:
Regarding reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy, the UTSA maintained that actions such as restricting access to a "need-to-know basis" and informing employees that the information is secret met the criteria for reasonable efforts. The UTSA stated that the courts do not require procedures to protect
613:
Section 2 of the UTSA provided for injunctive relief from trade secret misappropriation. Section 2(a) stipulated, "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined". However, the length of the injunction was limited to the length of time the trade secret exists (i.e., remains unknown to some
637:
In addition to injunctive relief offered under the UTSA, parties may also receive damages. Section 3(a) states that, "Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss".
833:
Each party shall provide the legal means for any person to prevent trade secrets from being disclosed to, acquire by, or used by others without the consent of the person lawfully in control of the information in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices, in so far as:
485:, and published literature. The comments also clarified that improper means included actions that were, "improper under the circumstances; e.g., an airplane overflight used as aerial reconnaissance to determine the competitor's plant layout during construction of the plant".
534:
The UTSA noted that the types of accidents or mistakes that would lead to use of a learned trade secret being misappropriated did not include actions or mistakes that "constitute a failure of efforts that are reasonable under circumstances to maintain its secrecy".
569:
A trade secret ceases to exist when it is common knowledge within the community in which it is profitable. This means that the secret does not need to be known by the general public, but only throughout the industry that stands to profit from
408:
remedies that have emerged in many states. These remedies are based on legal precedent set by previous cases, and therefore allow for greater uncertainty, particularly in less industrial states where there have been fewer trade secret cases.
655:
Section 5 provided for the "preservation of secrecy"; namely that a court should take reasonable means to protect a trade secret during any legal action concerning the trade secret. These secretive measures can include sealing records and
552:(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and
629:. As an injunction may have prevented necessary equipment from reaching U.S. armed forces, the judge ordered that the misappropriator pay an appropriate royalty to the trade secret owner rather than imposing an injunction.
468:
Although not included in the definition itself, the original text of the UTSA provided clarification regarding the definition of proper and improper means. The comments refined the definition by listing several
866:'s Act Against Unfair Competition states, "any person who, in the course of business activity for purposes of competition, commits acts contrary to honest practices" and hold violators responsible for damages.
674:
remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret". The section also made clear that the UTSA did not affect (1) contractual remedies, (2) civil remedies not based on trade secret misappropriation, or (3)
368:
In view of the substantial number of patents that the courts invalidate, many businesses now elect to protect commercially valuable information by relying on the state trade secret protection law.
667:, requiring that any action under the UTSA must be "brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered".
621:
in place of an injunction under exceptional circumstances. The UTSA, in the comments for section 2, referenced a court case in which a misappropriated trade secret was used to build
614:
party who could profit from knowing the secret) plus sufficient time to eliminate any competitive advantage that could have been obtained by misappropriation of the trade secret.
978:
742:
646:
Section 4 of the UTSA stipulated that the court may award attorney's fees to the prevailing party for actions made in "bad faith or willful and malicious misappropriation".
365:
If, however, the courts ultimately decide that the Patent Office improperly issued a patent, an invention has been disclosed to competitors with no corresponding benefit.
412:
The UTSA notes that any confusion caused by having strictly common law remedies to trade secret misappropriation was exacerbated by omitting trade secret rules from the
338:
Of course, achieving the goal of uniformity depends upon the number of states that choose to adopt it. As of
November 2020, the UTSA has been enacted by 48 states, the
525:(C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
573:
A party that reverse engineers a trade secret may also obtain trade secret protection for their knowledge, provided the reverse engineering process is non-trivial.
701:
As of June 2019, the UTSA has been adopted by all states except New York and North
Carolina (but its law is very similar and seems to borrow heavily from the act
449:
The UTSA provided several definitions of terms as they are used throughout the act. Some of these definitions are replicated here for the benefit of the reader.
397:
of individual state legislation. For example, goods may have been manufactured in State A, warehoused in State B, sold from State C, and delivered in State D.
897:
463:" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.
95:
885:
1112:
1433:
735:
704:). On May 2, 2013, Texas enacted Senate Bill 953, becoming the 47th state to adopt the UTSA. The Texas statute took effect on September 1, 2013.
502:(i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
290:
576:
Knowledge preventing loss of funds, such as that a particular idea does not work, is valuable and as such qualifies for trade secret protection.
1136:
1405:
752:
1100:
1001:
80:
1088:
702:
383:
198:
520:(III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
925:
692:
Sections 11 and 12 provided a date when the act took effect and the opportunity to explicitly list other acts to be repealed.
156:
213:
115:
331:
uniform, which is especially important for companies that operate in more than one state. Historically, the law governing
853:
826:
767:
441:. Sections 5–12 made additional provisions related to the implementation of the law, and the relationship to other laws.
283:
670:
Section 7 stated that the UTSA superseded any existing "... tort, restitutionary, and other law of this State providing
404:
In addition to providing some recourse for any uncertainty associated with a patent, the UTSA also serves to codify the
1064:
549:" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
1284:
1038:
617:
In addition to the possible enjoinment described in section 2(a), section 2(b) allowed for the payment of reasonable
245:
70:
1128:
193:
362:
A valid patent provides a legal monopoly for seventeen years in exchange for public disclosure of an invention.
880:
393:
In the United States there existed a prevalence of interstate commercial transactions that extended beyond the
276:
1104:
566:
Multiple parties may hold rights to the same trade secret, as they may all individually derive value from it.
511:(B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was
539:
489:
453:
413:
1063:
Glovsky, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris; Renaud, Popeo PC-Michael T.; Armington, Nicholas W. (6 September 2018).
1152:
1116:
860:, those who obtain the trade secret in confidence shall not take unfair advantage of it without consent.
378:
The UTSA made note of the commercial value and competitive advantages inherent in trade secrets. Unlike
1238:
505:(ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who
1261:
100:
517:(II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
1378:
904:
875:
555:(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
1132:
350:. As with other Uniform Acts, some states have modified language in their version of the statute.
105:
75:
65:
1448:
671:
664:
562:
The UTSA also provided refinement through comments to the definition of a trade secret itself:
312:
176:
1175:
1443:
1108:
829:(NAFTA) has provisions providing for uniform minimum standards for protecting trade secrets.
22:
1195:
1124:
682:
Section 8 stated the goal of making trade secret law uniform among states enacting the UTSA.
711:
339:
1218:
8:
1307:
910:
719:
622:
478:
347:
166:
722:. States are not required to pass the act exactly as is, and some have made amendments.
1330:
250:
60:
40:
1096:
1039:"Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act signed into law, becomes effective September 1, 2013"
849:
602:
438:
30:
1438:
514:(I) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
332:
161:
1410:
Uniform Law
Commission, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
685:
Section 9 provided a short title to refer to the act and section 10 described the
890:
474:
171:
1120:
707:
Massachusetts adopted the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act effective October 1, 2018.
218:
181:
110:
55:
1021:
1427:
1092:
893:, charged in 2008 with stealing $ 1 billion worth of trade secrets from Intel
324:
240:
135:
917:
686:
676:
590:
426:
394:
358:
A prefatory note to the UTSA states some original motivations for the act:
328:
266:
235:
230:
203:
125:
85:
1358:
715:
626:
343:
316:
225:
151:
120:
852:, trade secret protection is predicated upon the common law concept of "
1084:
914:
addressing whether social media accounts could constitute trade secrets
594:
430:
405:
387:
320:
657:
618:
186:
130:
50:
508:(A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
857:
262:
208:
45:
429:
for potential wrongs committed in violation of the act, including
863:
598:
482:
434:
845:
679:
remedies, which may otherwise be of use to the aggrieved party.
379:
90:
581:
against "flagrant industrial espionage" were not necessary.
1065:"Massachusetts Adopts Uniform Trade Secrets Act | Lexology"
327:. One goal of the UTSA is to make the state laws governing
386:
level, trade secret misappropriation was addressed at the
1331:"S. Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp"
811:
Southern
Nuclear Operating Co. v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp.
730:
The following cases have directly referenced the UTSA:
1062:
822:
Trade secret law varies more from country to country.
898:
Data
General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc.
744:
Comprehensive Techs. Int'l v. Software
Artisans, Inc.
335:
of trade secrets developed separately in each state.
1359:"Overview of International Trade Secret Protection"
1087:of some of the states that have passed the UTSA:
848:are dealt with on a country-by-country basis. In
1425:
979:"Uniform Trade Secrets Act with 1985 Amendments"
736:Rivendell Forest Prods. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
477:, including discovery by independent invention,
1262:"Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court"
1239:"Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Group, Inc"
901:addressing secrecy given widespread disclosure
787:Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Group, Inc.
593:for wrongs committed under the act, including
1036:
793:Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court
284:
1002:"Legislative Fact Sheet - Trade Secrets Act"
817:
81:Integrated circuit layout design protection
1379:"The Case for a Federal Trade Secrets Act"
1219:"R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC"
1032:
1030:
696:
414:second edition of the Restatement of Torts
291:
277:
1353:
1351:
1349:
1147:
1145:
922:The Case for a Federal Trade Secrets Act
856:"—i.e., regardless of the existence of a
373:Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Prefatory Note
1300:
1231:
1211:
589:The UTSA provided for several potential
315:(ULC) in 1979 and amended in 1985, is a
1434:United States intellectual property law
1371:
1323:
1254:
1027:
996:
994:
973:
971:
969:
967:
965:
963:
961:
382:protection, which was addressed at the
199:Limitations and exceptions to copyright
1426:
1346:
1188:
1176:"Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp"
1142:
1037:Glatzer Mason, Jessica (May 8, 2013).
959:
957:
955:
953:
951:
949:
947:
945:
943:
941:
754:DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner
710:The UTSA has also been adopted in the
1083:The following are links to the state
926:Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp.
886:Glossary of legal terms in technology
157:Artificial intelligence and copyright
1196:"Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp"
1168:
991:
608:
116:Supplementary protection certificate
1277:
938:
827:North American Free Trade Agreement
775:R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface
768:Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp.
649:
13:
641:
444:
14:
1460:
1398:
761:Ajaxo v. E*Trade Financial Corp.
725:
246:Outline of intellectual property
71:Indigenous intellectual property
29:
16:Uniform act in the United States
1077:
1056:
1014:
881:Economic Espionage Act of 1996
1:
931:
353:
319:promulgated for adoption by
7:
1406:"Uniform Trade Secrets Act"
869:
584:
419:
194:Idea–expression distinction
10:
1465:
632:
1308:"Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan"
818:International application
305:Uniform Trade Secrets Act
905:Non-disclosure agreement
876:Defend Trade Secrets Act
1153:"Justmed, Inc. v. Byce"
697:Adoption by U.S. states
106:Plant genetic resources
76:Industrial design right
66:Geographical indication
842:
665:statute of limitations
560:
532:
466:
376:
313:Uniform Law Commission
177:Criticism of copyright
101:Plant breeders' rights
839:NAFTA Article 1711(1)
831:
663:Section 6 provided a
537:
487:
483:licensing arrangement
451:
360:
23:Intellectual property
854:breach of confidence
712:District of Columbia
340:District of Columbia
311:), published by the
911:PhoneDog v. Kravitz
805:Othentec v. Phelan
720:U.S. Virgin Islands
625:for use during the
623:military technology
479:reverse engineering
348:U.S. Virgin Islands
167:Copyright abolition
259:Higher categories:
251:Outline of patents
850:England and Wales
844:Trade Secrets in
609:Injunctive relief
595:injunctive relief
431:injunctive relief
301:
300:
1456:
1420:
1418:
1417:
1392:
1391:
1389:
1388:
1383:
1375:
1369:
1368:
1366:
1365:
1355:
1344:
1343:
1341:
1340:
1335:
1327:
1321:
1320:
1318:
1317:
1312:
1304:
1298:
1297:
1295:
1294:
1289:
1281:
1275:
1274:
1272:
1271:
1266:
1258:
1252:
1251:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1235:
1229:
1228:
1226:
1225:
1215:
1209:
1208:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1192:
1186:
1185:
1183:
1182:
1172:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1162:
1157:
1149:
1140:
1081:
1075:
1074:
1072:
1071:
1060:
1054:
1053:
1051:
1049:
1034:
1025:
1018:
1012:
1011:
1009:
1008:
998:
989:
988:
986:
985:
975:
840:
813:(11th Cir. 2008)
801:(S.D. Ohio 2008)
795:(Cal. App. 2008)
777:(N.D. Ohio 2009)
771:(Cal. App. 2010)
763:(Cal. App. 2010)
757:(Cal. App. 1994)
739:(10th Cir. 1994)
650:Other provisions
497:Misappropriation
374:
333:misappropriation
293:
286:
279:
162:Brand protection
96:Peasants' rights
33:
19:
18:
1464:
1463:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1424:
1423:
1415:
1413:
1412:(official site)
1404:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1363:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1347:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1292:
1290:
1287:
1285:"NCR v. Warner"
1283:
1282:
1278:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1223:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1203:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1180:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1143:
1082:
1078:
1069:
1067:
1061:
1057:
1047:
1045:
1035:
1028:
1019:
1015:
1006:
1004:
1000:
999:
992:
983:
981:
977:
976:
939:
934:
891:Biswamohan Pani
872:
841:
838:
820:
807:(4th Cir. 2008)
789:(4th Cir. 2011)
783:(9th Cir. 2010)
781:Justmed v. Byce
749:(4th Cir. 1993)
728:
699:
652:
644:
642:Attorney's fees
635:
611:
603:attorney's fees
587:
447:
445:Key definitions
439:attorney's fees
422:
375:
372:
356:
297:
261:
257:
172:Copyright troll
61:Farmers' rights
41:Authors' rights
17:
12:
11:
5:
1462:
1452:
1451:
1446:
1441:
1436:
1422:
1421:
1400:
1399:External links
1397:
1394:
1393:
1370:
1345:
1322:
1299:
1276:
1253:
1230:
1210:
1187:
1167:
1141:
1076:
1055:
1026:
1013:
990:
936:
935:
933:
930:
929:
928:
923:
920:
915:
907:
902:
894:
888:
883:
878:
871:
868:
836:
819:
816:
815:
814:
808:
802:
796:
790:
784:
778:
772:
764:
758:
750:
740:
727:
724:
698:
695:
694:
693:
690:
683:
680:
668:
661:
651:
648:
643:
640:
634:
631:
610:
607:
586:
583:
578:
577:
574:
571:
567:
559:
558:
557:
556:
553:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
523:
522:
521:
518:
515:
509:
503:
465:
464:
461:Improper means
446:
443:
421:
418:
370:
355:
352:
299:
298:
296:
295:
288:
281:
273:
270:
269:
256:
255:
254:
253:
243:
238:
233:
228:
223:
222:
221:
219:Right to quote
216:
211:
206:
196:
191:
190:
189:
182:Bioprospecting
179:
174:
169:
164:
159:
154:
146:
145:
144:Related topics
141:
140:
139:
138:
133:
128:
123:
118:
113:
111:Related rights
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
78:
73:
68:
63:
58:
56:Database right
53:
48:
43:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1461:
1450:
1449:Trade secrets
1447:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1431:
1429:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1380:
1374:
1360:
1354:
1352:
1350:
1332:
1326:
1309:
1303:
1286:
1280:
1263:
1257:
1240:
1234:
1220:
1214:
1197:
1191:
1177:
1171:
1154:
1148:
1146:
1138:
1134:
1133:West Virginia
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1080:
1066:
1059:
1044:
1040:
1033:
1031:
1024:, Texas, 2013
1023:
1017:
1003:
997:
995:
980:
974:
972:
970:
968:
966:
964:
962:
960:
958:
956:
954:
952:
950:
948:
946:
944:
942:
937:
927:
924:
921:
919:
916:
913:
912:
908:
906:
903:
900:
899:
895:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
873:
867:
865:
861:
859:
855:
851:
847:
835:
830:
828:
823:
812:
809:
806:
803:
800:
799:NCR v. Warner
797:
794:
791:
788:
785:
782:
779:
776:
773:
770:
769:
765:
762:
759:
756:
755:
751:
748:
746:
745:
741:
738:
737:
733:
732:
731:
726:Notable cases
723:
721:
717:
713:
708:
705:
703:
691:
688:
684:
681:
678:
673:
669:
666:
662:
659:
654:
653:
647:
639:
630:
628:
624:
620:
615:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
582:
575:
572:
568:
565:
564:
563:
554:
551:
550:
548:
544:
543:
542:
541:
536:
524:
519:
516:
513:
512:
510:
507:
506:
504:
501:
500:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
462:
458:
457:
456:
455:
450:
442:
440:
436:
432:
428:
417:
415:
410:
407:
402:
398:
396:
391:
389:
385:
381:
369:
366:
363:
359:
351:
349:
345:
341:
336:
334:
330:
329:trade secrets
326:
325:United States
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
294:
289:
287:
282:
280:
275:
274:
272:
271:
268:
264:
260:
252:
249:
248:
247:
244:
242:
241:Public domain
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
201:
200:
197:
195:
192:
188:
185:
184:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
149:
148:
147:
143:
142:
137:
136:Utility model
134:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
67:
64:
62:
59:
57:
54:
52:
49:
47:
44:
42:
39:
38:
37:
36:
32:
28:
27:
24:
21:
20:
1444:Uniform Acts
1414:. Retrieved
1409:
1385:. Retrieved
1373:
1362:. Retrieved
1337:. Retrieved
1325:
1314:. Retrieved
1302:
1291:. Retrieved
1279:
1268:. Retrieved
1256:
1245:. Retrieved
1233:
1222:. Retrieved
1213:
1202:. Retrieved
1190:
1179:. Retrieved
1170:
1159:. Retrieved
1079:
1068:. Retrieved
1058:
1046:. Retrieved
1042:
1016:
1005:. Retrieved
982:. Retrieved
918:Trade secret
909:
896:
862:
843:
832:
824:
821:
810:
804:
798:
792:
786:
780:
774:
766:
760:
753:
747:
743:
734:
729:
709:
706:
700:
687:severability
645:
636:
616:
612:
588:
579:
561:
547:Trade secret
546:
538:
533:
496:
488:
470:
467:
460:
452:
448:
423:
411:
403:
401:each state.
399:
395:jurisdiction
392:
377:
367:
364:
361:
357:
337:
308:
304:
302:
267:Property law
258:
236:Pirate Party
231:Patent troll
214:Paraphrasing
204:Fair dealing
126:Trade secret
86:Moral rights
1093:Connecticut
716:Puerto Rico
689:of the act.
627:Vietnam War
344:Puerto Rico
317:Uniform Act
226:Orphan work
152:Abandonware
121:Trade dress
1428:Categories
1416:2024-08-06
1387:2011-11-07
1364:2011-11-07
1339:2011-10-18
1316:2011-10-18
1293:2011-10-18
1270:2011-10-18
1247:2011-10-18
1224:2011-10-18
1204:2011-10-18
1181:2011-10-18
1161:2011-10-18
1125:New Jersey
1089:California
1070:2018-09-10
1007:2020-11-20
984:2020-04-19
932:References
718:, and the
658:gag orders
540:UTSA § 1.4
490:UTSA § 1.2
454:UTSA § 1.1
406:common law
354:Motivation
346:, and the
1117:Minnesota
619:royalties
499:" means:
475:discovery
473:means of
187:Biopiracy
131:Trademark
51:Copyright
1129:Virginia
1105:Illinois
1097:Delaware
1043:Lexology
870:See also
858:contract
837:—
677:criminal
591:remedies
585:Remedies
427:remedies
420:Overview
371:—
263:Property
209:Fair use
46:Copyleft
1439:Secrecy
1137:Wyoming
1109:Indiana
1101:Florida
1048:May 15,
864:Germany
633:Damages
599:damages
435:damages
390:level.
384:federal
323:in the
1121:Nevada
846:Europe
601:, and
471:proper
380:patent
321:states
91:Patent
1382:(PDF)
1334:(PDF)
1311:(PDF)
1288:(PDF)
1265:(PDF)
1242:(PDF)
1199:(PDF)
1156:(PDF)
1085:codes
1020:S.B.
672:civil
388:state
1113:Iowa
1050:2013
825:The
437:and
309:UTSA
303:The
265:and
1022:953
570:it.
1430::
1408:.
1348:^
1144:^
1135:,
1131:,
1127:,
1123:,
1119:,
1115:,
1111:,
1107:,
1103:,
1099:,
1095:,
1091:,
1041:.
1029:^
993:^
940:^
714:,
605:.
597:,
481:,
433:,
416:.
342:,
1419:.
1390:.
1367:.
1342:.
1319:.
1296:.
1273:.
1250:.
1227:.
1207:.
1184:.
1164:.
1139:.
1073:.
1052:.
1010:.
987:.
660:.
545:"
495:"
459:"
307:(
292:e
285:t
278:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
