 Hi guys, all six of you have managed to make it in here. Thank you for being here. I actually wanted to bring in a coke can with me, but I think I drank it and I left it at home, completely forgot about it. I just wanted to get a sense of how much people know about intellectual property. I found one of the easiest ways is to present them with one of the most recognizable icons in our modern culture and show it to them and ask them what kind of intellectual property rights they think resides in the bottom of a can of coke. Anyone? Your quote, the formula, the code shape. Yes. So that's page 3, I think. How is that protected? I think it's known only within the company. It's not only what's on it. The formula, how is it protected? Very tightly, for like, you know, it's created in a certain way. Yeah. Anything else? The shape, the logo. The shape, the design. How the can opens or how? Yeah, that could be a patent, yeah. The shape of the bottle. Yeah, the design, yeah. Anything else? But it buzzes when you open the bottle. That's a good or a bad thing, yeah. Anything else? The real obvious one? Logo, trademark, yeah. Anything else? The copyright and all the text, all the taglines, the trademark, the logo, the branding, the look and feel, the design, the actual formula for the gunk itself. All of that is its matching property. And I think what's interesting to note is that, especially in India, a lot of people seem to bunch it all together as, I think that'd be one thing, you know? They don't sort of differentiate it into the different strands, but they're all extremely different things. But anyway, I just wanted to give that as a little bit of a primer before we go into the talk. I'm conscious that this is DroidCon, so I thought someone needed to put an Android cartoon up there before the day was out. So I'm going to leave you two minutes to see. I don't know. Is the light enough? Can you actually look at it? Yeah, okay. So this is one of my favorite ones. Actually, that was my, the title for this talk was Who Let the Lawyer in the Room, but I think you could equally have said who let the iOS user into the room, given that I'm an Apple fan and not an Android fan, but that's probably because I'm a lawyer and I can't actually develop anything to save my life. So this is one of my favorite cartoons about the whole iPhone Droid scenario, and this was no use for purpose whatsoever, other than to wake people up. So this is kind of what I just brought you into with the Coke bottle scenario. This is the sort of terrain of our crazy icon universe, copyright, backwards trademarks. Some countries have database rights, because there's this sense that a patent might be too strong or it might not be applicable to code. Copyright might be too weak, and certain kinds of things like libraries, for example, might not really come under copyright protection, and you may not want them to be protected for so long because of the dynamic nature of these kinds of products. So there is a sense in some countries, the European Union, that you need to treat databases separately from copyright and not give them, because copyright protection lasts for life of the author plus 60 years. So you don't want the database to last that long because every time you update fields, they're changing the nature of the database. So they felt that you need to treat databases completely differently. We don't have such a concept in India. We treat it the way you would treat anything else under copyright. You have design rights, domain names, trade secrets, confidential information. Technically, domain names, trade secrets, confidential information, and hard-cored intellectual property in the way you legislate and we have legally think of them. But they are very useful tools in the way that you manage intellectual output. So you would protect trade secrets. You could, like the Koch formula, for example, is allegedly only known to one or two people on the planet. That's why everything is bottled and concentrated and shipped out. Nobody actually knows the exact nature of what goes into it. Confidential information would protect you and be on disclosure of confidentiality even, even though it's not something that's legally thought of as a category of intellectual property. Here's another cartoon. So I just wanted to use this to illustrate the fact that people don't often think about intellectual property up front. It's something you think of after the fact. For example, I've had clients who, industrial designers who design products and come to me and said, you want to register these. We've gone through the laborious process of creating everything in duplicate and sex duplicate and everything and putting in the blueprints, the drawings, the specs, the claims, all of that. And five minutes before we file something and I say, you're sure this isn't out in the market? And they go, no, it's not. I mean, I've been selling it in the store for about five years, but apart from that, no. And you sort of think you didn't think that counter is being in the public domain. And they kind of assume that because the background information isn't out in the public domain, the fact that the product itself isn't really relevant. So we've actually had to claw back design applications because we didn't see that distinction and they didn't think of, excuse me, think of it before they actually put this thing out in the market. So this is just one of those cartoons where everyone has an idea, everyone thinks it's really cool. There's nothing about it and then you have Facebook or you have Amazon's one click and you think, I knew that, I got to that years ago. So now I need to get money out of it. So this is just kind of a funny illustration of the fact that everyone thinks they're meant to do everything. Would you make questions right now or at the end? At the end, I guess it's so urgent you can't control it. Which is fine, yeah. So are you saying then that before you put a product, you do the patent. The patent has to be, you have to find the discovery, something around that. Before the product is put up? There should be. Yeah. Something out there, it is in the public domain and they say it's no longer new or novel or original. So the standards for patents, for example, are extremely high and I think one of the problems we have with patents in particular is that people fire for patents. Those are kept secret for a while, while it's going through the process. There's a particular stage at which they become public and people can search them and they can make objections. But before that actually happens, people have done tons of work around filing the claims. But sometimes there's an infringement action and you say, well I did this. You sue somebody saying, oh, you're using something that I did years ago. And you go after them because the product has been on the market since 2010. And you sue them and you say, well, I've been using my product since 2008. But when you actually look through the patent literature, they may have filed a patent in 2005, even though they haven't actually tested it and brought it to market. So they may have filed a preliminary spec. They may have a certain time trial which will file a formal final spec. They may be testing certain things. They may be responding to objections from the patent office. A lot of that process is often invisible to the outside world. So I think one of these, forget the name of the company, had this issue around voice over IP where they tried to sue and they found out that they couldn't prove that they used the product before 97 and in 97 nobody patented this kind of thing. So you often need to look at the literature before you put it out there. In cases of say copyright or trademarks, it's not so critical because you don't need registration in quite the same way. And trademarks, I'll just go into the categories. I think you'll kind of get it more when I go into it. So the first thing is registration necessarily. In the case of trademarks and copyright, you don't actually need to register. In the case of patents, industrial design and geographical indications, which I guess are not so relevant here, you do need to register in order to be entitled to the right. So copyright is what we consider a natural right. It automatically exists from the second you create something. So I wouldn't, I mean, wouldn't be surprised to people to know me that I created these slides on my radio. And the second I actually tried these in, my copyright started picking from the second I, you know, put finger through keyboard. If I were to amend one of these, if I got into one of these and changed it, a new copyright would begin in the new work. So, you know, you create a song, you scribble a drawing, you write a poem somewhere. All of these things give rise to different kinds of copyright, artistic, literary, cinematographic, sound recording, all the different categories that we have. From the second you create something, you don't need to go to a registrar, you don't need to go to a public authority to seek registration. So, which is why you find almost websites and things, you know, you can just throw a copyright disclaimer at the bottom of your website without really thinking about, oh my God, do I need to, you know, go to anyone to get this validated? So, copyright in anything exists the second you start scribbling. There is this idea expression that I copied which I really wanted to highlight because this is one of the things that differentiates copyright from patent and which people often get wrong. The idea of a copyright is that you don't protect ideas. A patent protects an idea, it protects it in a very stringent, monopolistic kind of way. But a copyright is a weaker kind of protection where you're only protecting the way that an idea is expressed. So, for example, 20 people may have the idea to come up with a movie where two long-lost brothers meet after 10 years and I should write somewhere or whatever. 20 people may come up with the same idea. They write books about it, they make movies about it. Every single person's treatment of this plot might be completely different. And the way that the law works is it doesn't want to start with creativity. So, it doesn't want to say only what the first person who had this idea is protected. And everybody else who comes up with this, you know, any person's idea can't actually protect it after that. So, copyright is generally considered a weaker form of protection, which I guess in your context is why software is often protected under copyright because there are a lot of things that keep getting reused. There's no real idea in something. You know, to combine something or to make a particular functionality work, there are hundreds of ways you could deliver that result. But everybody's code might look different. So, if you were to say that only the first kind of code to achieve a certain functionality would work and be protected, nobody would bother writing anything ever again. So, copyright is stated to be a weaker form of protection for this reason, which is why patent is a much stronger form. You have to fulfill all the way you have to jump all kinds of hurdles around originality and novelty. Which brings me to this next point about originality and copyright. When you say the work has to be original, you don't mean that it has to be original, mind-blowing, fantastic, something non-as I've thought of before. In copyright, when you say something is original, you make origin as in it originated from you. You created it, you didn't copy it from somewhere else. So, originality only means that they're tied to you as the origin of the source of something. So, you could create really, really bad poetry, but it's still original. It's not original in the way that a patent would look at it. So, the quality is not what's at stake. It's the act of authorship that's relevant. So, I think a weak standard equals good because most people tend to think this is a good thing. You know, you don't want to clamp down on people creating things, everyone's free to be as good or bad at poetry or a songwriter as you like. The period of protection is usually, or in India, the life of the author plus six years, most countries are pretty much the same. It's a combination of personal and proprietary rights. What do I mean by that? When you take a property rights or proprietary attributes, the kinds of rights you would get, I would copyright the right to reproduce a work, a right to distribute it, release, license, you know, mortgage, whatever you want with it, exhibit the work, perform it, have it translated into different languages. So, only a person who is the author of something can do all of these things. Nobody else can. So, I might not want to write the Kannada version of this presentation, but I'm the only one who can have it authorized. So, I can't speak Kannada, I can make someone do it, but it's still my work, unless I pay them or you know, unless the terms say something different. So, technically I'm the only one who has all these derivative rights out of the one work that I create. So, all these auxiliary rights only flow out of the original work that's created. And when we talk of personal rights, what we mean is all these rights that are in the propriety category, I think that really couldn't be executed by anybody else. You know, I can parcel out all these things, outsource them to eight different people and say, you adapted for a screenplay, you make a movie out of it, you turn it into a song, you do a drawing based on it. So, I could theoretically outsource it to everyone, but the personal rights that the law says can't be outsourced to anyone and that must be struck to the author and never, ever used in any other way. How about we call modern rights? So, these are the rights of attribution and integrity. So, even if I gave, you know, say, Kiran a license to take this presentation and go and do this for various other audiences that he interacts with and I can't be there personally and I give him a license to do this on my behalf, I need the right to be attributed. So, he has to say that this is my work, you know, so he will have to attribute it to me and acknowledge the source and that's something I can't waive. And the other thing is the right of integrity which is that, say, for example, you know, Shekhar Kapoor gives somebody the right to, or say a novelist gives Shekhar Kapoor the right to create a movie version of Added Green. I might license away the right to do it, but when the movie is created, if I think the movie does the disservice to my vision of what the book was all about, I can actually turn around and say, you know what, you made such a crap version of my book. I don't want to have anything to do with it and you're actually gonna take my name away from it and not say this is anything to do with my book. So, the right for the work to have a certain sense of integrity and to respect the author's original vision and idea is preserved in copyright. So, even if you parcel out and, you know, deal with these rights in other ways, these two rights are things that you retain. So, which is why you often see that even if someone has died, the estate of the author has a right to approve or disapprove. So, if Douglas Adams Widow doesn't approve a new version of the Sheikhar's Guide, then that can't be published. So, those are the sort of model rights we're talking about. When are you not infringing? I think, you know, I don't need to tell you when things are legit. Most people are worried about what they can't do. So, these are all the categories of use where you don't need to get a license. You don't need to get permission from someone. So, if you're using something for your own private purposes or research or entertainment, you know, to study something. So, I look at an article on the internet and I print off a copy so that I can read it on my way here in case someone asks me about it. It's private. I'm not making money off it. I'm not dissenting it to anybody. So, that's fine. I don't need to get permission from, you know, WIRED or whatever my scene I took it from. Reporting of current events. So, if something has happened, it's true. It's out there. It's in the public domain. A newspaper is, you know, free to report on these events and quote people without having to take their permission. There's an absolutely thing about definition if they go wrong, but I'm not going to go into that now. Translating and reproducing small amounts for use in a sort of academic context are fine. You know, so if I were to put half an article in there or three paragraphs of somebody's analysis of something that would be fine, I would need to take permission. Quotation of an appropriate portion, that's the same thing. And when you have a license, obviously, if you've got permission and you have a license to use, there's no question of infringement for the scope of that license. But there could still be a situation where I may license someone to use, you know, to distribute a film in Southeast Asia and I might need 20 countries where that applies, but if they were then to go and distribute that film in Canada, it could still be infringing. So, you still need to look to terms of the license to see what is and isn't within the scope. When is the idea, not the expression involved? You know, so you look at something and you think, wow, that's a really cool widget. I'm going to create one like it, but I'm going to tweak this that the other because I think this doesn't quite work. You know, I want to increase the speed in which the speed loads or whatever. It's actually without needing to go and say, can I have permission to use your idea? There's sort of a tricky idea when it comes to reverse engineering because you can look at an idea and say, I'm going to do something similar, but if you've actually taken someone's product apart or you've looked at code and reverse engineer from it and then you specifically worked around it and they can show that that's the case, then, you know, your intentions are a little more suspect than they say, you haven't actually copied the idea, you copied the expression, and then you've specifically done a few things to avoid being infringing, which is why often software developers will throw an absolutely dummy data in there. It's either junk code, junk lines, it could be the name of their girlfriend, it could be all kinds of commands that do absolutely nothing useful, and they just throw in there like 10,000 lines of code. You may have 20 lines that are nonsense and not needed for the product. And when they're looking to see that someone has copied it, you will find all of these things copied as well. And they've done this with telephone directories, for example, so, you know, say, AT&T has produced a particular telephone directory or, you know, yellow pages on the internet and someone else produces a similar product and they say, oh, no, we didn't copy it. We went out there and checked everyone's addresses on our own and we created it from scratch. There have been instances where they've shown that there are addresses of people who don't exist on streets that don't exist and cities that don't exist. So they say, really, you didn't copy it and how do you have these 20 addresses that we threw in there specifically to create such copying? So all of this sort of comes into a logic category of what you call fair use. You know, when is it fair and unfair to take or borrow or copy or display certain parts of a work? I was going to go into this quick little case study just to show you how copyright and copying can work. The half of law school used this as a case study and there was this digital artist called Mark Napier who created what he called a web art installation. So he had these images of the Barbie doll which he manipulated in various ways. He created animations, he created collages, you know, so there were still photographs, there were drawings, there were all kinds of things. And this was sort of an art project that he did and which he hosted online on his website as well as on this other electronic magazine. And the idea he said was to comment on Barbie as a cultural icon as a commercial symbol. And you know, this was all this very philosophical project about how commercial things are becoming or how sexualized stories are becoming. So he was making all kinds of commentary about society as it stood. Mattel of course saw this and said, good grief that's our Barbie doll and we have rights in the symbol, the image, the likeness, the trademark and they got their lawyers to send him this hideously worded cease and desist letter saying, you know, we're the owners of all the rights in this doll, you can't go and do this nonsense with it. Interestingly, they sent the letters, not to the guy himself, but to the easing that actually hosted this and also to his ISP. Presumably on the grounds that they had no money that this artist did, presumably that they could pull the content easier and that they'd be more susceptible to threat. And you often see that these are the strategies that companies use. They go either for the deepest pocket or the people that they feel are the most likely to fold it. You know, free to the idea of a lawsuit and say five years for the information ticket. You know, like a RI and Blackberry kind of thing. So they sent this to him and he sort of thought about it and said, well, I could change the address, I could host it somewhere else, I could move the location. But he said, look, this is something that, you know, he's got a certain amount of traction and he didn't want the traffic to recite instead was he actually changed the content. So he replaced the image, so it was a distorted image of Babi which looked absolutely dreadful. And he changed the name, earlier it used to be called Babi. He changed it to distorted Babi with a dollar sign and said, okay, so now I can, you know, get on with this. And the editor of the EZ Enterzone, Enterzone on which this was hosted, actually thought this was a great example of free speech and, you know, a selfie copyright. And he said, look, this is ridiculous. You know, this is corporate America gone crazy. So he actually published an update every day of what was happening on this action and called it the Daily Babi. So he actually published updates every single day about how this was spanning. And, you know, making material absolutely ridiculous and saying, you know, look at them coming after this quality of artists who's, you know, trying to do social commentary. And he actually encouraged other users to actually create websites. So he said, so if the ISP actually cave in and said, no, we don't want to host it anymore. So he said, fine, why don't you people out there in the internet community do something about free speech and allow this to be heard. So he created this meme whereby you had sites of this all over. So, you know, you had the legal actors throwing something and closing it down and you have something else cropping up elsewhere. So the idea was to allow this to perpetuate. So some of the sort of questions that came up in this was, you know, what if you can make a case that Media himself was engaged in free speech, he wasn't, you know, trying to infringe copyright in the social commentary. But it's a little great idea with all the people who were creating mirror sites. Can you say that they were also protected by the same thing because they didn't create the art. They didn't, you know, they didn't have any social commentary to make. So by mirroring it, were they actually infringing? Could Babi, you know, Babi's bonus material have gone after them? I'm just gonna quickly move on to Trademark now because I don't think I have much time. So trademark work, it is logo symbols, et cetera, all these sorts of things that can be protected. Interestingly, it's the first to use the mark that's protected, not the first to register, unlike the question that we had earlier. You can register it from different classes of products, even for just one or for many classes. I think in the proposal for this talk, even wanted to know the time frames and stuff, so I just thrown in this here. And the idea is that the law wants to prevent people from creatively going and registering trademarks that they have no intention of ever using. You know, kind of like people going and registering domain names and being cyber-squatters in the hope that one day they'll get paid tons of money to hand it over to co-comment dollars or whatever. So there are actually provisions in the law that say someone hasn't used it in five years, someone else can go after them and say, look, this is stupid, you're not using this, and get the trademark office to cancel it and make it open for use by somebody else. Licenses don't need to be registered. So if I give you a, if I have a trademark and I give somebody a license to use it, you don't need to go to the trademark office and have it stamped on any kind of paper or anything. The fact that we have a contract between us is sufficient. Patents, like I said earlier, they're monopoly unlike copyright or trademark. Therefore, you have a much higher standard. It has to be new, it has to be useful. So patents are very much from the whole sort of industrial revolution that reminds it, where it has to have utility to society. So it can't just be something like a design which looks pretty. It can't just be the look and feel of a website. It can't be the shape of a bottle or the design of your own MacBook Air. It has to actually be something that has a functional output. It has to be non-obvious. And this is why you sort of go into the prior act to say, could somebody else have created this without having looked at the past specs? You can't patent a computer. I'm sure you guys are all aware of the whole debate about where the software patents can or can't be registered. Most countries don't allow it, some do, some countries go crazy in allowing it. Forget you do these reasons and then they get objected to and thrown out. But the idea and the noise that you can't patent a computer program per se, which is a really silly splitting of heads. So what you have to do is actually combine software with hardware and show that it has a practical effect or a technical effect and actually produces an advancement in the app for it to be protectable. So it's kind of saying that you can't patent the program, but if the program is linked to hardware that produces a certain result, all of it can be patented, not just the software. So there's a lot of interesting work on how you draft the patent claims to sort of get around this cynical kind of criteria. So the only people who benefit from this are unfortunately lawyers like, not like me, I don't write patent states, but people who make a lot of money doing this. It's a 20 year period and it's a two to four year process. So given that it takes so long to examine the patent, to look at the prior act, to look at the specs and all of this and people might object. So it's a very long process to actually get it registered, but it works retrospectively. So it's actually from the data filing that your patent will work. This is something a little more relevant to the overall keeping abreast of all the patent wars in the smart phone market. And this was, Yale Law School had a, something called the Android IP project, where they were looking at all the intellectual property issues raised by Android. And this was a map that the guy put together of what the entire lawsuit, cross licensing, cross patenting, cross sewing, scenario looked like. It's not very clear on the sum of rate and unfortunately, I've either got a broken link or the project doesn't exist anymore because I couldn't actually get into the site when I tried this morning. But it just gives you an idea how completely they're saying the whole scenarios right now. This I leave you, I mean if you distribute the PowerPoint you can look at this with Roger K. and Article Informs was just outlining what it might look like to the outside world. You may have all these backers around patents and who's beefing up their portfolios and who's buying companies only for their patents and all the flotel and article and Motorola kind of stuff. And this was just to do with how Microsoft is actually venturing from this whole scenario. And it's a pretty funny take on it which I think I don't have time to let you see. So this is kind of one of the things in that article. People were talking about how you need to, whether you're going to actually have a uniform standard one of the developers that Roger K. talked to said you know we coordinate in different languages we can amplify different voices for the same stupid answer if we have to. So this might be where it all pans out but I'm happy to talk more about this if you want to do it. I've just given you to help me like a whole bunch of resources about because I wouldn't have time to go into the intricacies of the patent battles but this is a whole bunch of articles on various blogs and legal and non-legal articles about various patent battles in the language space. And I am a lawyer I don't give just claimers and credits where they do so I'm just giving you my credits for the cut dreams here. So that's it, anyone have any questions? Sorry? What were you going to say? Should I go ahead and ask or? Any particular side? The last one, the best one. This one, this one. What will you have to get in the eyes? With my contacts, oh, okay. So my question is about filing a patent in India versus US. Does it, how do you decide whether it makes sense to file it in both countries? And there's a sort of second question which is let's say I'm filing in India. One of the things that has to be something that's new. If something similar has been done in a different country then would that mean that the patent can't be filed in India? How, I'm basically asking for a one on one of the international. I find it a tricky one because patents are territorial. They are meant to be granted country by country. But you have what's called the Patent Cooperation Treaty with which most countries are taking a T2. So they give reciprocity so you can file in one country. So if you file under the PCT you have an option to designate certain countries where you want it all to be filed as a sort of one-stop shop. So you don't need to file in India and the US and Japan and you know, so you have that option. Patents aren't cheap, it is expensive to file one but it works out cheaper if you actually file for five countries than once rather than have to do them individually in between countries. And usually what would happen is depending on the subject matter of the patent, when you go to a patent attorney who would actually look at the prior art, they would do a search. So they would do a patent search to see what that did. They would look at databases which would link patent offices of different countries and get a sense of what's out there. And based on that they would take a view on what's the most sensible jurisdiction to file it in. Where you might have difficulties, where you don't. So say to certain countries completely clear there's nothing in that space. They might suggest that you file it there. And once you file it there based on reciprocity you may have a better claim in other countries to go ahead. So it's a very case by case kind of thing but that's the general approach. Do any of these Android patents, are they valid in India? Like can Apple go off to say MicroMax if they? It depends where they file it. So if they want to file it in India they couldn't. But again, what I also meant to say in response to the earlier question is that patent offices while awarded patents would also look at what's going on in the rest of the world. Even if technically there isn't something filed in India they will look and see what there is. So when they look at prior art they will look at something larger than what's just filed in India. So they aren't really aware. So if there is an action it might bring up everything that's happening elsewhere in the world. Now I have two short questions. One, you said that trademarks need not be registered but in your site you said that you talk about registration of trademarks. So that's one clarification idea. And the other one is when somebody says copyright or trademark. There are some special symbols which he put into it. So is that a mandatory thing or how does it work? You don't need to register a trademark in order to use it. So you might have what's called a category called unregistered trademark. So say I come up with a completely silly something name that I want to use. I haven't bothered to register it. I haven't bothered to see if anyone else is using something similar. I might just say I might come up with a droid law, for example. I decide I want to create a book or a blog about legal issues relating to Android. So I might create droid law and I think that sounds kind of interesting. I've never heard it before. It must be new and you start putting it on all your literature, your brochures, your blog, your whatever. Because you put it out there and it's in use if someone else were to use this and copy it, you could go after them and say look I've been using this since 2010 October. You've started copying this since April 2011. So you're passing off. So this infringement action is called passing off. So you're trying to pass yours off as mine. But it's something I created. I haven't registered it but it's kind of well known to everybody that you know it's out there and I can show you my documentation that it existed first in my world and not yours. So you can have a right to get some. The only difference is in the kind of legal remedies you can have. In the way that you can stop them and the kind of damages you can get, the kind of amounts you can take. So the legal remedies are different but you can sue somebody for passing off in the same way that you could sue them for trademark infringement of an actual registered trademark. So when you use those symbols, you can use TM on anything. So today if I decide to set up a blog, I could write droid law and write a TM on top of it. And I'm sort of showing the whole world that I consider it my trademark. So I'm putting the whole world on to notice to the fact that I consider it proprietary to me but I haven't registered it. So tomorrow I might decide to register it in six months down the line or whatever. It might take a year for that registration to come through. When the registration is actually granted, then it becomes a registered trademark which is when you use the R in the circle. So R implies that it's a registered trademark. TM usually implies it's not registered but you want to sort of assert rights over it regardless. And the scene of circle for copyright you can use literally the second you create something. So I could have put copyright all over this presentation if I wanted to. But I'm an open source kind of person, so I didn't. Is that your first name or something? I have a question. Yeah. Okay, go ahead. So in the slides you mentioned that software can't be branded in most areas. Can't it be branded in the US? US is accepting all kinds of jumpcaps and finals and granting it. Because I remember reading in the news two days ago just before the word constructed that Google was recently granted a patent for the patent in long screen and that's entirely software. So, but that kind of thing if I, because it's registered in the US, I can't use it here for a completely different application. The way that the US works is they sort of register it as a business method patent. So they don't necessarily say it's a product patent in the way that you would in the rest of the world. You would say it's a method of doing business and you would sort of get it out of this whole technical thing. So again, it's splitting hairs. So business method patents are quite casually granted in the US. But what we're seeing now is that a lot of patents that have been granted in this space are now being taken back. So people have objected, it's gone to court, it's been treated, it's gone up to the Supreme Court and then it's been thrown out and they turn out that this should never have been granted, to actually look at the criteria for patentability that had been something that was granted. So I would say that the status of some of those patents is a bit dodgy. But yes, they can use it to go out to people and say this is patented. So the funny thing about the problem with the internet is that property is something tangible and fixed. Intellectual property is something nebulous in someone's head and it's the expression of people's ideas. So it's hard enough to protect a tangible intellectual property. But then bringing the internet into the mix is kind of like intellectual property on steroids. It's gone completely nuts because you don't have the kind of borders that you used to in the offline world. So to say that something can or can't be used or enforced becomes completely strange when you're being with the internet because you could have created software somewhere, it might be, your code might be hosted somewhere, your product might be somewhere, your users might be in a third country, your terms of service may say, you know, we're a Denoway corporation so the laws of Denoway will apply to this contract. But the way that the law works is that even though through your contract in terms of service, you might actually choose a particular jurisdiction that applies to your, you know, delivery of service or product, the law could just still intervene and override that and say, look, your product is available in my country. So I don't care what law applies under your contract, I'm going to override that and impose French law on this contract. So for example, when someone was trying to sell Nazi memorabilia on eBay, France had all kinds of very stringent antisemitic statutes which prohibited this kind of sale. So they went after eBay and said, you can't sell this. And eBay turned around and said, well, we don't have any such law in the US. So we're free to allow people to sell this and wear US company government by US law. We actually don't give a damn what French law says. And French law said no, our users and the people who are accessing eBay can do so in France. So we will actually impose French law on this even though the contract has chosen a particular jurisdiction. So jurisdiction becomes really tricky when you're dealing with stuff like this. So you know, you could go after someone under a patent or a trademark simply because it's theoretically accessible to someone. So your offline boundaries don't work anymore. All right, I'm sure you'll have many more doubts but we have a time limitation, so please take your questions outside if they're during the break. Thank you.