 Thanks for having me, and apologies for not being able to join this morning. It was a great conversation, so I will insert myself into this conversation completely without any information other than the gossip I got over lunch, but hopefully I can bring some useful information and perspective to the conversation. So some of you may know I've been working for a number of years on something called the defensive patent license, and this is a license which came kind of from a different sector of access and knowledge similar to universities, which was the library community. And specifically, if any of you know Brewster Kale in the Internet Archive, he, working with a number of technologists and librarians, were thinking as we invent new things that could be patentable, what should we do with them, right? And he had kind of come from an open source perspective, a kind of open access perspective obviously from his work in the archive, and he's like, so what do we do? Do we just dedicate it to the bulk domain? You can't put a credit of commons license on a patent. Like what do we do? How do we do it? So the details of the license, obviously I could show and talk about it in some other context for a long time, but I want to give you the general gist of it, which is that he said, well, people talk about defensive patenting, but that sounds like bullshit to me. That sounds like something you say when you commit someone to sign a document and then later you basically undermine it by doing something else and claiming that you didn't or do something else. And so he's like, so can you legally commit people to being actually defensive? Like in this, you won't ever assert patents unless someone else asserts it against you or people you care about in some sense around that. And has anyone ever done that? And we were sort of shocked because we looked around at the time and realized that no one had actually kind of written a license just to do that, like only that. That was the whole idea is just commit you in some sense to, if you get a patent, can you do this one thing with it and only this one thing with it? And what was great about it is, like many of these conversations, it was a conversation that other people were having at the same time. And so if any of you have been following the Twitter, IPA employment agreement, I think it's called the Innovator's Patent Agreement, it's a kind of employment agreement that allows Twitter employees to have some say in how the patents that are mentors on are used. The Open Invention Network, the Mozilla now, like a bunch of different people have been sort of talking about these ideas or lots of them out there. And but the notion is that this only works if you have a community that cares, a community that has some ideals, some principles which they share, so that the collective action kind of concerns aren't something left to the end of the process, but actually part of the beginning, right? And this is where all open source and kind of open pre-culture kind of approaches start, which is we all agree that we should try to do a certain kind of sharing or a certain kind of collective endeavor. So the basics of the license in the end are that you can get all the patents you want, you can do anything you want with it to the world outside of this network, and the network is composed of people who all agree that they'll be defensive as to everyone else in the network, right? And so the idea being that you issue licenses relatively free to everyone else who makes the same reciprocal agreement, could be individuals, could be universities, could be companies, could be anyone. And that if someone inside the network of all these different sort of spiderweb licenses offensively sues, the person who's suing, the sort of aggressive person or entity, their licenses can be pulled, but everyone else gets to keep theirs, right? So the incentives are obviously not to sue because everyone else keeps their irrevocable license and can kick your lawsuit out of court. Of course, you lose yours and they can also sue you. For anyone outside the network, it's fair game. You can be as offensive as you want, which of course creates incentives to join the network because if you do, then you won't get sued. And there are lots of details about leaving and if you leave, we sort of put in a license that your license converts from royalty fee to free to a fran license for reasonable royalty, lots of details, things like that. But the, the sense was that you could give some certainty, some space to people of like mine who don't actually want to offensively sue each other. And it kind of has a couple of benefits as we walked and talked through it that we hadn't realized in the beginning. The most obvious benefit is this defensiveness that you actually have some certainty as to everyone else in the network. So you kind of know that there's certain people where you're building trust and you're sharing knowledge. You can share knowledge freely knowing that they're not running out and secretly patenting it and trying to undermine you. Because if they did, you just get a free license to it anyway. And there's a lot of kind of collective identity that could come from this. But the other things were that when people started talking more and more and more about patent assertion entities and patent trolls and these kind of things, one of the biggest concerns in the open source community was that, well, we did it first. But why did they get a patent, right? And how does the patent office gonna understand that we did it first? Because it's buried deep in a code repository or on a mailing list or something else like that. And that feels very difficult to get in front of a patent examiner. And usually we don't find out until the patent issues because most open source people don't follow the publication schedule in the federal register. So the other idea is, well, you could preempt all that by patenting it. You could actually patent it. But if you did it under a license that promised to only use it defensively, that would be a compromised position, right? Which would again allow you to assert offensively against every single other entity in the world who didn't make a reciprocal commitment. But for all the people in your community, whether that be an open source community or perhaps a university community or some other kind of community that you form where you make this agreement, this reciprocal agreement, you would all get to the patent office first. And especially under first of file now. And that means that every other second comer would have you as prior art. And would have to think about whether they wanted to fight that fight, right? Whether it's worth trying to get a patent on top of what you'd already submitted and how much more extra leverage they could get, given that your patent is pretty much free to the world if anyone makes a reciprocal agreement not to sue offensively, right? So the kind of business strategy of kind of how are we gonna make our money and should we be patenting this really could kind of have these kind of waves across other industries even if they're not part of the DPL network as we call it. The other piece of this is directly affecting patent acquisition entities who then go on to assert or sort of marketplaces. In the sense that these, we did design these licenses to survive, transfer bankruptcy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So this is something else that I think universities have done some good work on and I've been encouraged by their thinking around it. But even if we believe that universities are good actors, which I think we have to, I hope that's been sort of the premise of today, is that there's this idea of what are the collective costs and how do we assess these collective costs to universities, right? For what we want universities to be doing both on the super technical side but also on the basic research side, right? And if the cost of licensing from outside patent entities, whether they be trolls or whatever, is too high by kind of having an approach to patents that makes it freely available, royalty free within a community that all comes to a kind of collective understanding of that we're doing this for defensive purposes to protect ourselves, the access to the knowledge and the technology become a lot cheaper, right? So anyway, so that's the basic idea. Happy to talk more, but I just wanted to say like when we were developing this license and it was, like I said, a conversation with many other efforts so it was not like some solo idea that we had, there really just seemed to be a lack in the patent space of really like clear legal instruments to use when a number of actors felt like they were willing to use patents only for particular purposes. They didn't want to reserve all options on the table. They really wanted it for particular purposes and that they could maybe carve out a little space there. Thanks.