 This is nothing new from a consumer point of view. And I can see a lot of consumer blows around the table, but you can live with it. However, I think that things are changing definitely. And the process itself, it is opening up a bit. There's one very quick historical remark then. If we had for the last 25 or 30 years an open platform, or reasonably open platform in PC, is because there has been one antitrust undertaking involved in IBM. Otherwise, very, very unlikely we would have had the same openness. And today, when the paradigm is shifting, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same exercise trying to keep as much as possible. The general computing machine that is nowadays becoming the tablet or a portable device as open or nearly as open as PC has been. I don't see any reason why. And from an antitrust point of view, I see many, much, much more many reasons to keep it open. Chris, have you got more comments on these areas? Yes, I would like maybe to add just a point on the, from a consumer point of view, you know that people are using tablets, I use the desktop, et cetera. But they're also using more and more digital television. And you might know that the distribution way of the digital television is different according to countries, et cetera, et cetera. But this is also a big, big issue of openness or lack of openness. And I wanted to know if anyone would ever maybe have thought about it. I'm asking the question instead of being asked the question. Can I? Yeah, absolutely. But if no one wants to intervene, no problem at all. We've also got two questions. If anyone's got any comments on the digital television, it's probably a little bit outside most people bring in. The gentleman there first, yeah. Well, just in response to Carlo's question, I was quite closely involved with the case against IBM in those days. What is lacking is the complainant. In the IBM case, Bull, ICL, Siemens, Nixdorf, Olivetti were in a clear OSI favorable consortium complaining against IBM's dominance in the SNA. The industry has moved on. And IBM has changed sides. Welcome on board. But where's the complainant? Somebody's got to bring a case. So I was actually going to do that. That's a good lead to respond to a comment that was being made up here. One of the problems I have is with this distinction between consumer and supplier. Because I think that is a dying distinction. Are you going to be extinguished, you mean? No. The problem is that most legislation assumes that it is not the consumer who is likely to create content or products. And I believe that everything from digital editing and originating software to 3D printers to software development tools that can be manipulated easily even by children means that creation and consumption will be happening in the same place at any given time. And that's why there's a problem with making the complaint. Because a complaint would have to be made by a competitor. But in this case, the competitor is all of us. So should the citizens be able to make the complaint? So the question is, who is going to make the complaint on behalf of the creator-consumer citizen? And the answer is, I don't believe there's anyone to do that at the moment. Because consumer groups will speak on behalf of the consumer. But there is a new class of citizen out there now. People who have got an interest in the openness of technology and content, because they may well turn out to be the creators of future derivatives of that. So one of the things that I'm trying to do at the Open Source Initiative, just to mention a different OSI to the one that you mentioned there, is to provide a venue for creator-consumers to take actions like that. So I'd invite you to join OSI and encourage OSI to be the complainant in that case. Can I just pick up on that and just draw together some threads? What we're hearing about is the fact that when copyright in particular was drawn up, there weren't all these kind of creators. I mean, there were just a few writers and few publishers. We're trying to apply the 1710 Statute of Anne conditions to the 21st century. And it's this clash of two completely different cultures that's the problem, that copyright just isn't suitable for this world of sharing, co-creation, this fusing of the creator and the consumer, which no longer exists. And I agree absolutely. When 3D printers start being more widely used and you're starting to print out your cups or your cars, actually there are projects for printing out cars and planes. I mean, this just changes the entire landscape, not least in terms of things like liability and such like. So there's a whole raft of problems which politicians, governments, legal systems have got to grapple with. And we're really just seeing the first kind of wave and its copyrights and lesser extent patents that are showing us the problems that we're going to have massively throughout other areas. If I may answer to my own question, which is always a good thing, antitrust is the last resort. So before going to antitrust, you have a big problem that you try to solve with something which is not very fine-tuned. So always antitrust remedies are a blunt aches if you want to. So we should think ahead of an antitrust complaint by investigating the market, trying to get figures and to build a theory behind what the market should do and what the market is not doing, and trying to fix it before to go to a full antitrust. On the other hand, you see, who is the complainant? Well, we're working on it. I'm sure that people are putting an eye on the situation. Of course, going and complaining without the help of the industry and without a hearing partner at the commission is very difficult. And I think that the Microsoft litigation has strained the ability of the commission to get involved into the IT market very, very, very much. And can you expand why? It was a very time-consuming, very resource-consuming activity. And the Microsoft case was enormously difficult for the commission to try. And of course, they had some very good friends and people very conversant with the technology to rely on. But internally, it has caused a stretching of their resources over a very long period of time. So I'm not sure they are willing to take the same effort yet again. So we have to provide energy to this engine and see that at least the threat of antitrust investigation is likely. So awareness is one key to keep an eye on what's happening, not just saying, OK, we have moved on, and everything is fine now. This is not the case yet. We have not won, even in the antitrust case. So every old post, keep an eye on the ball. The ball is still rolling. It's not over there. OK, thanks. Are there any more questions? I think we're beginning to run out of time now, so gentlemen there. Hi. My name is Lionel de Rico. I'm an open source professional. And as a hobby, I'm a politician because there is a local election. And I was here as a professional. And I see a lot of people, well, from the corporate. Nobody from the panel seems to be from the political level. And I thought that I was in a political speech. It's incredible. And it's good. And my question is, do you think it's normal that non-political people like you are basically just having a political discussion, highly political discussion? Is that because there is a problem? Or is that the normal evolution of the society? OK, it's a great question. It is because there is a problem. And it's normal now, so. Politics has now, politics has been, there has been a regulatory capture that's taken place. Politics is now under the control of the very corporate voices that it originally sought to control at the beginning of the 20th century. And consequently, the only place that the citizen creator consumer has a voice is if they use their own voice. So I've just looked you up on the web here. I noticed that you're from the pirate party. So that is the reason that we have a pirate party, whether you like the name or not. It's there because citizen creator consumers have got to have a voice. And the current political system is not giving them one, is not respecting them, and is not producing legislation that acknowledges them. And consequently, people like me, who I'm not part of the pirate party, and people like others here, have to speak up because otherwise who will? And don't forget that democracy is the people, and we are the people, so we are here. And the good news is that, OK, it's been a pretty depressing session. I'm sorry about that, it's supposed to be very upbeat. I'm just going to go out and hang myself after this particular one. But the good news is we have the internet. And the internet is a transformational tool, which we have and we know how to use. And the other lot may have much more money and much more power than we have, but they don't really know how to use the internet. So I think one of the messages for me is that we've got to learn to use the internet even more intelligently. We're already doing that in terms of the things that have been done so far in the pirate positive example of a, if you like, a net-based political movement. And I think that's an important message for the future, that this is one of the few things we've got going for us. And so let's use it. And one remark, I appreciated this morning a remark on ITU and what's going on in the internet. Because we have to assure that internet remains a neutral vehicle for the flow of information and all the things that people are trying to do, like traffic shaping, imposing levies and taxes and targeting liabilities on intermediaries are kept as much as possible away from this. Because attacks on the internet are now attacks on democracy. I mean, we need the internet. And you're right. If you destroy net neutrality, it's actually an attack on democracy. Absolutely. So the internet is nowadays what freedom of speech and freedom of correspondence and secrecy of correspondence has been in the 18th, 19th century. OK, perhaps on that thought, we can. And it's not a fundamental right? Oh, no. And it's not a fundamental right yet. No, that's right. Yeah, guys, I skipped a question before. So I'm going to try and. You claim one back. I'm going to claim one back. And try and end on a semi-positive note as well. That's good. OK. So Open Corporates is an openly licensed database of companies. We try to have every single, you know, the goal is to have an entry for every single corporate legal entity in the world. We've got a long way to go yet. But in 20 months, we've got to 45 million companies, mainly thanks to the open data community, which has been fantastic. They've helped us do it. They've scraped websites. Governments are increasingly giving us data because one part of government thinks it's a great idea. Another part of the government thinks it's a bad idea, but the anti-corruption, the anti-forward, people think it's a great idea. So they're starting to expose some of those tensions. But it couldn't have been done without the open data community. It couldn't have been done without open source software. It couldn't have been done without the internet. Now, and actually, we've now got customers who are really quite, you know, only a small number of customers because we're not actually trying to.