 Today's seminar focused on our development studies project that conducted six country studies over the last four years and that project responded to two recommendations on the YPOS development agenda that called for evidence-based policymaking in developing countries. We worked in six countries throughout the world. We worked in three Latin American countries in Chile and Brazil and in Uruguay. We worked in China and Thailand and we worked in Egypt. At the outset of each of these country studies we sat down with government, with national stakeholders. We discussed what are the kinds of policy questions that they are interested in and on the basis of that we proceeded with the studies. One important common element of all of these studies was that up front we created a new databases that laid the foundation to gain new empirical insights into the relationship between intellectual property protection and socio-economic development. Well I would start with with the data. We created databases on IP use drawn from the operational data that exists in intellectual property offices, but we also worked a lot with these data. We cleaned applicant names, we provided bridges between intellectual property data and firm performance data and that not only served as an input to our study work, these are public goods that we hope other researchers can use as well. Secondly we conducted a number of analytical studies that allowed us to gain new insights on how IP use affects socio-economic development. Some of the things that I suppose we suspected were born out in the studies that we conducted. For example the studies highlight the importance of trademark use among small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries. Other things I think were more surprising such as the reliance of firms in Chile's mining industry for example on the intellectual property system. And finally I think a third important outcome of the project was the creation of research capacity. We worked with local economists in the countries in which we conducted the study work and also in the intellectual property offices. There was economic research capacity created and in the case of two countries, Chile and Brazil, you now even have full-time economists working in these offices conducting economic research work. Well I would point to two limitations. One is that of course we had an empirical focus and I think some of the really interesting questions there just was not sufficient data to answer all of the questions one might be interested in. Also I think one has to be careful as always is the case in social science about causality. You know quite often I think we are able to uncover interesting correlations that I think do inform the policy discourse but I think one has to be careful not necessarily to infer causality from some of our findings. What next? Well first of all all the studies that we produced are available on our website. Just go to WIPO Economics, search for it in Google and you would find our development studies page where you would find all the country studies that were conducted as part of the project. Also our member states approved a second phase of this project so we will be continuing with this work. We will follow up in some of the countries in which we've already worked. We will also work in new countries in which we have not engaged in economic research work so far and we very much hope to take this work to new regions especially in Africa and also explore topics such as the impact of copyright protection that so far we have not considered.