 With copyright, if I scribble something on an appkin, I automatically have copyright protection for it. And it's pretty easy to tell, have I infringed somebody's copyright or not, because you only infringe if you actually make a copy. With the patent system, there's a whole application process that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. It's very difficult to tell, am I infringing somebody's patent or not? And if there's an infringement case, it can easily cost millions of dollars to litigate whether or not somebody's patent has been infringed. And so if you're looking at a movement like the open-source software movement or 3D printing, where the whole idea is that a single individual has these very powerful tools where they can build things from scratch or using building on top of the work of others. If you have a legal system where you really need to hire a patent lawyer before you're allowed to really do anything, which is effectively if people are really trying to follow the rules that the patent system lays down, you really need a patent lawyer to understand and comply with them. That really precludes DIY innovation. And so what happens in practice is that people just ignore the patent system and then they get a nasty shock. If their idea becomes successful, people get all these patent holders come out of the woodwork and start suing them. And it really, I think, becomes a disincentive to the kind of innovation that the patent system is theoretically supposed to foster. So I think that for some categories of innovation, really would be better off without, if we didn't extend patent protection to those categories. So I think software is a good example of this. The patentability of software is really a recent phenomenon. There was some sort of equivocal Supreme Court decision and there was one in 1981, but then some lower courts really decisively said you could patent software only as recently as 1998. And this was a very controversial decision in the software industry. You had people like Bill Gates and companies like Oracle expressing concerns that would really harm innovation in the software industry. And I think they were basically right. And the explosion of litigation we've seen in the cell phone industry, for example, I think is a good example of that. Now in other industries, I think there are industries like pharmaceuticals where the patent system does promote innovation. And so I wouldn't want to scrap the system all together. But I think the first step is to really take a hard look at the recent changes to the patent system that allowed you to patent things you couldn't patent before and maybe reverse those. And I think also there are things you can do, it should be more difficult to get a patent. And it should be harder if someone isn't a court find someone has infringed a patent. It's right now, I think, too easy to get an injunction where you actually force the other company to stop using the patent as opposed to merely making them pay reasonable royalties for infringing the patent.