 Next speaker on the program, Mr. Keith Burgle. What I wanted to do is, I appreciate the opportunity to be here next to the organizers. What we end up doing, Open Invention Network is an entity that was formed ten years ago in the wake of SCO, which was litigation that was filed and supported and funded by Microsoft. It's done some UNIX patents that were owned by a small company called SCO. And essentially, IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Sony, NEC, and Philips got together and recognized that if they didn't do something that there was potential that patents could slower stall the progress of Linux and open source. And they recognized that their futures were inextricably bound with the availability of choice. Choice for vendors, choice for carriers, choice for individual developers, coders. Everyone should have the opportunity if they want to build around a platform, whether it's proprietary or open, they should have the ability to do so. We have no business model, we have no agenda. We're well capitalized, but mainly because of the foresight of those companies and Google, who more recently came in and contributed to this activity, so that we could do a better job and live longer in terms of protecting Linux and open source. And so one thing that I think was important for me when I came in to lead this effort eight years ago, is the whole notion that the power is not so much in the technology that's produced or the code that's written, but it's in the modality. It's the idea that by filling on each other's ideas, the simple humility-laden message that was sent down 20-plus years ago by Linus when he invited and encouraged individuals to build on what he put out there. I think the whole notion that 1 plus 1 plus 1 doesn't equal 3 anymore, it equals 6 or 10 or 20, we're able to distill the collective intelligence of creative people from all around the world. And what we're doing is merely to be part of the background. We're there to enable and ensure that individuals do have that opportunity to participate with each other and to be to express their creativity in a manner which yields a certain level of innovation. You think about projects, this is just a sampling of some of the projects the Linux Foundation is managing, and there are obviously hundreds of other projects if you look at Sourceforge. Some of these though are quite significant. Automotive-grade Linux, Toyota has announced that they'll be standardizing on that platform and not just for the cabinet of the future or the infotainment systems, but ultimately it'll be the digital DNA for all vehicles. And so what we hyperledger essentially will transform, the legal profession will transform the accounting profession and payments globally. Those who don't participate run the risk of being disenfranchised through their own inaction because it's one of the fastest growing young projects launched in mid-December. Most Money Center banks in North America and Europe are behind this. The Japanese banks are coming out in support of it, and I expect the Chinese will participate as well. We've been talking about blockchain technology for some time in different environments in the world. I think people misunderstand blockchains not just about Bitcoin. It's just one, that's one manifestation, one application. But blockchain supports this hyperledgering kind of activity, which I think is incredibly important. So you have a whole variety of areas. The Internet of Things represented Tizen, which is an alternative potentially mobile platform. It hasn't got a lot of uptick, but they did launch a phone, a $39 phone in India just about two years ago, or a year ago actually. And so you look at the range of activities here, the cloud, the open stacks not on this list because they don't manage that project, but it's become more and more important that we think about how we manage projects and what we do when we kind of architect the project. And that's really what I want to talk about. My colleague Kevin will talk a little bit more about OIN in particular, and I'll kind of run through some things, but I'll get to one slide and focus most of my discussion there. So we're really looking, you know, higher-paced innovation. You know the story because you're participating in it on a daily basis. We've got a basic notion that was the fundamental of what OIN was about, is that the idea that we cooperate and compete. Where we cooperate, we don't sue each other. Where we compete, all the normal rules apply. If you're in favor of patents, you can file patents. If you're not, we'd encourage you to file defensive publications to make sure nobody else can file on your ideas. It's a simple kind of activity and a simple notion that, you know, there are unilateral and multilateral approaches. One multilateral, multi-party approach was OIN. The whole idea was fostering community. It's not so much about the model itself. It's about what the model yields, which is the transformation of norms around how we behave toward each other. If the GPL provides a set of norms around how we look at copyright, what we've done over the last 10 years and the architecting of this with Free Software Foundation, SFLC contribution was essentially to come up with something that worked in a similar way on the patent side, developing a code of conduct and a set of norms. The concepts, as I said, it's quite simple. We define what is core by soliciting nominations for packages from the community, understanding what's truly core in terms of how it's being utilized, and then we carve that area out and everyone that participates agrees that they're going to not sue each other on the patents that they have and for bare litigation and provide a cross-license. This is an indication of how we look at the packages. 80% of the packages, of the 2,200 packages that we have in this patent no-fly zone, that cooperation zone, are essentially common packages come from Linux kernel, system command programs, common libraries and set up tools, and then the tools to essentially develop code to write our make up 11%. So 90% of it is essentially fundamental building blocks of open source. And then we've added enterprise computing, network security, web, cloud computing, and mobile. We'll continue to move forward and be adding core OS packages in the next two years, Chrome packages, Tizen packages on a moderated Linux packages to do blockchain when it matures open daylight, which is software defined networking, and Internet of Things packages. We try to make sure that there is significant use of these packages to ensure that we're properly creating this patent no-fly zone in areas where people are truly committed to a certain functionality or technology. I highlighted Asia and Red because we've doubled in size two and a half times since 2012. We're the largest patent non-aggression community in the history of technology. And we've done this in a quiet, humble way because as I said, it's the people in this room that are writing code, the people that are putting their careers out there and they're devoting their time, their energy and their creativity to make this open source reality. These are the people that we consider to be the stars of the show. And we're there, again, in a support role to make sure that there's less friction in the market so that people can actually participate and, again, make choices. Asia is the largest growth area for us. During this growth phase of two and a half times growth since 2012, Asia started out at 14%, so it's had a disproportionate percentage of growth. We spent a lot of time in India. I was just there two weeks ago in Mumbai and in Bangalore doing legal network events where we bring lawyers together as well as business leaders from various companies. We had Reliance Geo signed on behalf of the Reliance Group a couple of weeks ago. We have a commitment from Wipro to join as well. And we're in advanced discussions with TCS and a number of other leading companies because they recognize that to not participate is essentially to be repugnant to the idea that we all need to be recognized that there's a win-win when we all participate in this cultural norm, much like a permissive license or participating in the GPL. So in order to encourage people to participate, we spend $95 million buying patents. We make all those patents available on a royalty-free basis and we encourage people to build around the content that we're delivering them in terms of the inventions. But really it's to inoculate people so that they're the cross-license area that we require in return for access to our patents. That's where the real value is so that you can play freely and participate in the market freely. It's a pro-competitive and anti-trust standpoint. I have regular meetings with MAFCOM in Beijing, with DGCOMP in Brussels and with the U.S. Justice Department. I talk to officials all the time about how they can set up within their country programs and how projects should be set up. And that's again what I want to talk about. The companies that are part of our community have over 1.5 million patents that they own. Some significant percentage of those that relate to the Linux system are neutralized, if you will, and there's no cost to this. It's a global solution. As I said, it's not designed to be an American solution. In fact, the Americas represent an appropriate position. We look to build up Asia to the point where it's 25% or 30%. Reduce Amia as a percentage and then we'll probably have the right mix, which is a third, a third, a third. As I said, it's royalty-free. This is just a sample of the kinds of companies that are in there, Ford Motor Company, Hyundai, Kia on the auto side, Meizu, major Chinese seller of handsets, HTC, Fujitsu, Docker early on in its existence recognized that this was very important to do. They didn't look at it as a poison pill that would affect in any way, in a negative way their ability to actually go public. And so they recognized, Dropbox recognized that. Twitter signed on before they went public as well. Google, as I said, is a significant supporter as IBM is and Red Hat and a number of other companies. And so Juniper, you know, it really spans the spectrum of technologies and application areas in terms of the companies that are participating. There's major carriers like Verizon as well. Essentially, the only reason that people don't join is that they want to reserve the right to sue on their patents. And you start to self-select out. So after having, you know, close to 1,975 participants, if you look at the Info World articles that are written by Simon Phipps, even as recently as last week, he keeps basically, you know, encouraging Microsoft to pass the litmus test that he's established. He's written three or four articles on this over the last 18 months. We will believe that you truly love Linux and it's a supportive open source and it's not just a practical convenience that you're opening your platforms to open source. Once you sign the OIN license and you agree to disarm. So essentially, quietly, we become a macro solution to be able to handle patent non-aggression, to neutralize threats and to reduce friction in the environment so people can do what they do, which is create and not worry about FUD. Because I think when I first came into this eight years ago, there was still a fair amount of concern so the people were distracted. If you looked at message boards, you looked at blogs, comment sections, you saw a lot of people focused on, you know, the sky is falling, a lot of misinformation, a lot of concern in places that's counterproductive. And we want to keep that, you know, out of the public consideration and deal with these issues as they arise. We're constantly working with companies that are being attacked by patent trolls. We're working with companies to ensure that they have more prior art. We're writing defensive publications in key areas. We're buying patents and inventing on a regular basis. As I said, we have the incredible luxury of not having a built business plan. If anything, I would call this an alternative return fund. The return is to make sure that there's freedom and choice and that that's preserved. My first career was as a diplomat where in the Cold War I felt I was doing my part to make the world safe for democracy. This is like coming full circle in my career to make the world safe for the democratization of innovation. How we participate, how we engage with each other to create this new novelty that's really driving us ahead as a culture and as a community. You have the OIN structure and I think this is what I'm proposing to those who manage significant numbers of projects. This is a work in progress and I want to introduce it to you here because this is what I hope the projects of the future are as a complement to what OIN does. Projects need to become and project managers need to become more involved in looking at creating project-centric cross-licenses for platforms, distributions, operating systems. They need to recognize that they need to kind of mirror what OIN does but in a more granular way so that they're ensuring there's patent non-aggression. The people who come to a project to participate need to make a commitment that the patents that they own that read on what's core to that project are actually not going to use those patents. Right now we're in this hyper growth phase where we rush to projects because we're concerned about new areas, new ways of innovating and new applications spaces. The reality is that we're not doing all the homework we should do in creating structures that are going to prevent us from having issues down the road because not all companies who participate in projects are, I would say, authentic open source companies. There are some companies who are, I would describe as somewhat inauthentic and concerning from my perspective. We see them all the time, we interact with them and so we have a unique perspective probably on this and so what I'd like to do is prevent mischief by ensuring a parallel micro solution in terms of a patent non-aggression pact between participants in a project and that the project also manage a process of creating defensive publications which are statements of prior art. They're not patents, they don't give you a negative right, they don't allow you to restrict access, which patents do. It essentially allows for the patent trademark officers around the world to have access to the fact that you've invented something so no one else can ever get file on that invention. These are very low cost, they're free pages, they have a diagram and they have a summary. They don't have claims for those of you who are familiar with what patents are so they're much easier to write and they're much less expensive to maintain. They're maintained on a single database. In fact, I met with the director, head of the patent and trademark office in India two weeks ago right before he announced the essentially reinforced the notion that software patents are not going to be part and parcel of the Indian culture going forward. In that conversation we committed, I said you're still not going to capture everything. You're still going to have patents, software that's enabled and labeled hardware, software that sneaks through. The Europeans have a similar kind of approach and they still have 8% to 9% every year of software patents being granted. The way to deal with this is I described it as a proactive program where we're going to train the trainer, work with counsel at various companies around India, work with private counsel as well so that they can basically create a defensive publications program. He committed that he would set up a website that would sit on the desk of every patent examiner and that they would use it religiously to ensure that they're consulting these defensive publications and using them as prior art so that we can further limit the number of patents that ultimately get issued in that environment. It's very rare when you get to work with a clean slate, but India represents that in a very unique way. Pre-issue and submissions, this is a program that we were the most active user in the world in an American program that came out of the American Vents Act where we attack and eliminate applications that are overly broad and we get the patent claim scope either reduced dramatically or we get the application rejected out of hand. Post-grant IPR, this is another activity where if you see that there are patents that already exist in the space that a project wants to inhabit, you basically go in and you have those patents rejected because they're overly broad and so you essentially get a patent, have it standing reduced to the point where it no longer has validity, it's about a patentable subject matter. And so essentially we attack existing patents, we attack published applications, we build publications as well so that we're building this new sense of prior art to prevent people from getting patents. These are the things that I think in the future we're going to see projects start to implement, central solutions to allow for the project to be more hygienic and safer. Just to close, there are a couple of other things that I think people need to look at. Unilateral pledges, companies that you're in, small, medium, large-sized companies, follow the lead of Google, Red Hat and IBM in pledging non-aggression around patents that they own and then there are other multi-party initiatives that even for very small companies can be quite affordable. For example, a troll interdiction entity like RPX has RPX open, it's free to very small companies. Unified patents, they also provide a free program for small companies where they'll attack existing patents that are overly broad to try and get them to be rejected by the trademark offices around the world. Lot Network, which is an anti-privateering cooperative, privateering essentially is when you take your patents as an operating company, you give them to a third party and they sue under your behalf. You share in the benefit that needs to stop. That's a program that Google actually pioneered. And Proactive Patents does the pre-issue and submissions that I talked about. So thanks very much. That's okay. I've got a question. Can you just go back one slide? Sure. There's a modular patent license for something. Excuse me? Mozilla issued a license. Sorry. Mozilla issued a license for preventing patents, something like where license can be given, kind of like license last year. Mozilla? Yeah. It's license on Mozilla patents. Oh, Mozilla. Sorry, sir. I think Mozilla is trying to get people to, you know, it's like anyone, I think they're trying to be right-thinking and put something out there that encourages more neutralization of print. And we see all these activities that I'm describing are complementary. And that's why, you know, I talked about Google's, you know, over the last five years, Google's introduced a whole series of things in addition to joining OAN as a full member. They've introduced a whole series of things because you have to kind of step up and have a leadership position in this area. That's what Mozilla is doing in Marathon. We are part of OAN. And I am also in SSEC. So back to it's closely associated. Yeah. Yeah, my question. Yeah, sure. Yeah. I guess there are two parts to it. One is the, first part is the East Texas court. What can anything be done about that? You know, what we do when it's a typical troll venue for those who are aware, where patent aggregators will file multiple allegations at one time, simultaneously. You know, I think a lot is actually happening because the Alice ruling. The Alice ruling has eliminated what is, or reduced a lot of the patents that are out there already to the point where they're not enforceable because they have patentable subject matter issues that are critical. And so they've been, they've been in record numbers of IPRs where existing patents on Alice grounds are being essentially rejected. They're being invalidated. And then new patents are being, but patent numbers are down in the U.S. You know, it's actually a part of the trend of the last three or four years. The others where patent numbers are up significantly in China because they didn't get the memo. And so they're moving in a direction where they, as expected in 2018, they'll have 900,000 patent applications, which is moving, as what I would say, it's counterintuitive considering where everybody else in the world is going to higher quality and fewer numbers of patents being filed. So I think there's a significant reduction in patent threat in the U.S. markets because of legislative reform in terms of the American Benz Act now having a few years to be effective and because of the courts being able to hear cases that give them good options to be able to carve back what is patentable and to reduce the scope of what, you know, the effect of software patents in the marketplace. We try not to get into the debate should software be patentable and not patentable. We just try to work in environments where people are looking for impact for input like, you know, with the Indian regulator to make sure that they have information that we collect from around the world. And as I'm going to see, you know, basically put together the platform that was ultimately adopted by the government, which we thought was quite a good reflection of how, you know, government solicits input and is able to sort and set between ideas and come up with a positive, you know, understanding positive recommendations versus, you know, noise. My second one would be, have you spoken to the Intellectual Property Officer here in Singapore? No. I think we need that because they just don't, we don't have software patents in our system here. But at the same time, they are not keen to specifically put it in there like what India has sort of done in terms of saying no software patents. So I think we probably need help from OIN to probably engage with the IPOS in Singapore too. You know, we're a resource and that's how we view ourselves. We're happy to talk to, you know, government organizations. We've been working with the Chinese to patent trademark apps to adopt a defensive publication program which they instituted about four months ago, five months ago, and they've been accepting publications and as they recognize themselves, even though they've been sent from government, they haven't been pushed out of their patenting, they recognize this is not terribly productive. So they try to reduce ultimately much capital. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much everybody. Thank you very much for having me. Thank you.