 I think we have time for a couple of questions. Anybody has a question? Mike? John Podesta. I'm not sure who I'm addressing this question to. Maybe it's to Carl. But given the description that Prita used to describe the vast bulk of data and the complexity of the different organizations issuing data, if you will, or creating data, is it a trivial matter if the formatting at the front end is right to organize this, or is it a very complex architectural and structural matter? Maybe Professor Martin wants to comment on that, or Carl might want to comment. I'll suggest the following as an indirect response to your question, John. And that is that if you look at the states that have done court decisions right in my judgment, they tend to be smaller states with smaller volume. That suggests that getting it right up at the front end is easier to do when you are simpler and smaller. It also suggests, as my remarks did, that you are less likely to find yourself bound in already somewhat disabling commercial entanglements if you are small. I mean, New York's code of regulations is not up on the web. And one of the reasons it's not is because of the commercial relationships that have for years governed the dissemination of those ranks. The formatting issues of hyperlinks. I mean, for the reasons I stated, to simply have an appellate division opinion online without a hyperlink to the decision below, or ideally to the briefs, or any number of other ways or to be able to follow the path of a case from the state Supreme Court to the appellate division to the Court of Appeals to the Petitions for Review, all of those kinds of things. And I think it would be an enormous service. And I hope that law.gov pursues it in that way. Hi. Am I on? Paul Verkile, chairman of the administrative conference in the United States. I'm just trying to figure out the economics of the obstacles that you face. It seems to me, until we understand that, it's going to be harder to pierce all these problems, which I admire all your work concerning them. But one is, I could understand, for example, if you put up the opinion that's unofficial, that satisfies a public need to be informed about the law in some sense. It's not a professional need. If the professional need to be satisfied is a lawyer's need to be able to cite and do things like that and use it in subsequent litigation. So maybe one could say that's a charge on lawyers. You could say it's a kind of rule for lawyers to protect their territory, because only they have access because they have the economics to carry it out. So we might debate that. But how much of it is just accidental? The other issue is these building codes, which is fascinating in California, is the reason the building codes are charged for, because they are provided by a standard-setting organizations who have to recover a fee in order to stay in business, and that we're actually paying for them for maybe a sensible purpose, which is to provide these standards, which otherwise government would have to provide itself. I'll extend your question or set of examples by referring to the lowest level in Carl's spectrum. And that is municipalities. Many of these municipalities have such small scale that they lack the capacity to do a significant compilation job of their ordinances. And so they contract it out. It's cost-effective for them to do so, but part of the quid for that quote is that then proprietorship over those codes and the sale of any copies or access is bestowed upon the other party. So it's a trade-off. Now, I want to go back to your lawyer observation. Even if one supposes that fully-edited revised and site-filled decisions are of interest only to lawyers, and I would dispute that, there is still a strong public interest in having full competition in that lawyer model. And I think that's a very important part of the marketplace. And to have one proprietor with an exclusive or at least a privileged access to the citation apparatus and to the revisions is not in the public interest. Ed Walters from Fast Case. And I guess I just wanted to pick up on John's question, which is, if I can paraphrase, how important are Peter Martin's metadata standards so my company Fast Case is a multi-million, not multi-billion dollar publisher of legal information, and we collect the stuff from the many thousands of courts and legislatures that produce them. And I can tell you, it's a huge problem. Having standard data formats or even agreed upon ways of delivering them would be a huge advantage. I can tell you right now, it's a dog's breakfast. It's a huge mess. And for anyone who's trying to publish these things online, as Tim or even Mike Walsh could tell you, it's an enormous headache. So not just for the public, but also for commercial publishers who have to deal with these standards. It would be a huge, huge advantage. I think Peter's spot on. Thank you very much.