 Thank you so much to the organizers for including me in the event. So if I think back, the first encounters with open source were, of course, through my CSIS advisor, Eric von Hippel, who latched on to open source as an important phenomenon very, very early on, which was maybe not surprising coming from MIT and having in the many precursors to what happened 30 years ago, which Ines Torvalz calling out to others to help him in an important project, as he said. I think we have come a long way from then. I recall that when I started my professorship in Munich, I was involved in a book project on source. This was about the time when Munich switched to open source software. They switched back. They switched back again. And I think that the road to open source software utilization and also to the proliferation or the greater use of open source hardware has been an arduous one, but we're making progress here. I think that's very good. If I look at the results of the study that we're looking at today, I think we now also have a sound foundation to claim what the welfare gains are that we're looking at. Now what I will talk about is welfare gains from openness in general. And by openness, there are essentially two terms out there. The two uses of the term open innovation. One is coined by Henry Chesbro. And what he means really is bring an integrated innovation chain that was done within the corporates into something that is more collaborative. For that, we need, at the transition points, IP, contracts, and all of the things markets for technology, this is not what I mean. What I mean is really openness in the sense of relatively or completely free access software to hardware to data. So please allow me to speak to that. And the key pitch that I'm trying to bring over we're currently seeing a transition from industrial innovation, which has strongly influenced our policymaking and many others, to digital innovation, which is working by rules. And that means that we will have to adjust innovation policies as well. I don't know about that. Essentially, what I mean is that we see what I can get this to full beauty here. I have to. OK, it worked. So what I mean by that, by that transition from industrial innovation to digital innovation is captured in this paper that Ivan was alluding to already, which we finished also about September. And I think Knud Blind stumbled over it and saw it and then sort of suggested to the organizers that it might be good if I talk a little bit about this. So this is by Jason Potts, an Australian economist and Rutoran's legal scholar. I'm the sort of add-on and Eric von Hippel innovation scholar. And many of these folks in the list of authors have already pointed out that industrial innovation is not foreign to openness. Even in the 19th century, we have in some communities and some ecosystems, forms of organization that mimic very much the innovation sharing, the free revealing regimes that we also find in the 20th century. But the role of openness gets significantly larger in digital innovation because we now have information that can be shared easily, that can be searched easily. So getting to the information is very easy in these worlds, at least comparatively speaking. And moreover, it is information itself that becomes the innovation of interest. And that has profound implications for what we want to do in innovation policy. So let me first turn to this innovation comments term that some of you might find bewildering. The economists among you know that Nobel Prize was given out to Eleanor Ostrom for her work on comments, meaning on communally sort of managed property, price void, various shortcomings that we have in the presence of externalities. So what we do here is we define innovation comments as repositories of freely accessible open source quote unquote and more about innovation related information. We put open source in quote because we don't want to hijack the term here. I know that some of you feel very emotionally about the term. So please take that as a sign of respect. And what we have in mind really is that data and information is now an important prerequisite and input to the innovation process. So it's a significant resource for anybody who's in or adopting innovations and be that firms, be that individuals, be that households, whatever. So we think that the basic welfare enhancing factor associated with innovation comments is that they reduce the specific private or public investment required from innovators when they make the next advance. So the secret here really is the freely accessible, the reduction of access codes, no market for technology, no licensing transactions or low touch, light touch licensing transactions, whatever. So freely accessible here means that if I'm interested in using particular data, I can gain access easily and work with the data. So trying to make innovation as easy as possible. Oh, there are many types of comments, okay? So for example, the physical resource comments that Eleanor Ostrom has described really turn about goods that are rival in nature. Now the information comments that we are talking about have something, information, data that is not necessarily rival in many cases clearly non-rival. We also find very interesting similarities to what archeologists or also historians call midden heave comments. This is sort of the midden heave in the archeological perspective is sort of the collection of everything that a village throws away, okay? A lot of innovation away. I think Bellingcat using pictures that were made by bystanders, by families in order to piece together the history or narrative that describes how a civilian airliner was shot down over Ukraine. Now there are also government provided comments. And one example that we discussed in the paper is Pubcam. Pubcam has been the focus of a lot of attention. It was attacked strongly by private information offers but the government has maintained it and that it has a very, very important role in facilitating information and in providing access at very, very low cost. And then there are of course also hybrid comments and you may not want to believe this but the patent system is a hybrid comment because after the exclusion period is out anything you can see in there that has passed gone to the 20 year boundary or threshold of statutory term is of course usable and you are of course informed about what is in there very, very early on. Now with that come for many open sources the nasty exclusion, right? That's with a patent but the disclosure part of it makes it in our view a hybrid comment. What are the gains from free access to innovation comments? I give you this what oblique sentence already that said enabling. Innovation comments reduce innovation specific private and public investment. And that allows us to enable people to innovate that classically we have not had in our visor that the policy makers have advisors. If you look at physical innovation policy tools like R&D, tax credits, subsidies for corporations, incentives for patenting and so forth then this all focus on what Eric Canipple calls the manufacturer, the mirror of things. And we do that because we think that this economic entity has scape advantages, scope advantages and so forth. So the production of innovation can be of course incentivized at that particular locus but there's an alternative view especially in the data world that there is a local owner of an innovation problem and following Hayek that information and innovation opportunities are local in nature so that the big data hedging, data owning, data monopolizing enterprise and of course thinking about completely fictitious enterprises they don't really exist in reality that those do not have the information about all local needs, all innovation opportunities and by releasing data we enable local innovators. Now, we know that this works. Why do we know that this works? Well, crowdsourcing is by now an old hat, right? Crowdsourcing of knowledge allows us to really bring in knowledge from very, very diverse dispute sources. We have this term broadcast search and innovation economic which essentially says I'm not just working alone on my problem but I can't put myself on a mountain, use the megaphone and announce to the world that this is the problem I have please help me, please help me for money, please help me for good, whatever, okay? And of course we're using innovation contests by now where we let very different parties compete in contests for a prize because we initially do not know who brings out the best innovation. So all of these contexts point to something that we call the advantage of innovation comments in freely allowing people to tap into data to innovate. So in order to make that happen, what should we do? The key thesis of our paper is this that the industrial innovation model is no longer appropriate as the guide posed for policy-making. Now I think in that spirit and in that statement we're very close to what the authors of the study that we're discussing today have in mind and what the open source community has in mind. Now we focus on data-driven innovation and we think they are urgently need new concepts and policies. For example, that concept of innovation comments which in our view is something like a substitute for markets for technology. Markets for technology mean what I had told you before transactions cost, they mean to sort of manage somehow the uncertainty that comes with innovation that comes with new technology and new uses of technology in some contractual and some auction framework which automatically leads to an increase in the price for access. So data is no longer freely available. So frictionless access to data for innovators is very important and policies that favor that we think will create welfare gains. Now government can also invest on its own and support open data. And again, this is something that we know. This is not something new that pulled out of the hat. We know that open data policies can create tremendous gains for communities and favor innovation. But we still haven't made the leap in our public administrations, for example, certainly not in this country in Germany to release data that could possibly be relevant. And of course, there's a trade off with privacy issues and so forth. I'm not talking about that. All I'm saying is not in the least against privacy protection and so forth. But the openness of data can be granted once privacy has been taken care of to a much greater extent than we have doing it in the past. So altogether, you may also want to think about incentives for private data provision without monopolization. And in the paper, we have a little scheme where we say, OK, the Digital Markets Act says that in the new world, sort of the early intervention via the DMA provisions, that data should be released to anybody who is on a platform so that the gatekeeper alone may not maintain the data. We go a little bit further and say, OK, why not even go beyond that circle of platform members in releasing the data? And if that cuts too much into the incentives for private data collection and provision, let us think about an scheme. Maybe the most recent, the freshest data can remain private in order to maintain the incentives. But everything that is older than seven days should be released into the evaluation comments. So let me conclude, because my time is close to up. Let's get back to the study at hand, because today we are studying something that is truly breakable. And I want to applaud the authors for doing this. I want to applaud anybody who has contributed to executing it, to financing it, and so forth. And I applaud the European Union for, again, making an attempt to put open source much more into the focus of innovation policymaking. So I think that this is a really impressive achievement by the team. I think it goes beyond the usual academic contribution even, of course, I'm fond of our paper, but our paper is 35 pages reasoning. What we have here is more than 400 pages of really great data that allows us to assess the contribution of OSS and OSH to our economies, to our societies. And I've highlighted a few points here, and they will become the focus of debate, I'm sure, during the date. And I'm truly stunned by the diligently effort that has gone into this study. I think it will be a very, very important cornerstone for further policy discussions on open source. Let me conclude by simply saying openness has in the form of open source software, in the form of open source hardware, but certainly also in the form of open and opening data, great benefits for growth, and for digital autonomy. I cannot go into the last point, I'm doing that in a different paper, but I think that we urgently need to take our eyes off the classical toolbox that we have for fostering innovation. That type of innovation will still need the intervention, great that we have it, but we need to take our eyes off it now and look at that other guide post, which is open source. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you.