 Hi, everyone. I'm Charles One. I'm with the Public Interest Group, Public Knowledge. We work on consumer issues in the technology policy space. So thanks, Yarden, for organizing this really interesting conference. I've really enjoyed the discussion that we've had so far. So my background is that I used to be a patent attorney. I prosecuted and litigated patents and now work on primarily patent policy issues before Congress and the agencies. When I look at matters of patent reform, I generally break them down into two categories. The first being patent assertion, the ways that patents are used. The second being patent quality, the types of patents that issue and that exist out there. My original plan was arbitrarily to go with only the patent assertion side of things. But it seems like we've actually had a lot of discussion of that already. And there have been a number of threads talking about patent quality. So I'm going to attempt to make up an entire talk right now on the second topic of patent quality, which I think is actually really interesting. So hopefully I say something that's somewhat useful. Patent quality is the question of what sort of patents should be out there. Initially, when people hear patent quality, they think good patents versus bad patents. And there's a large degree of that. I think that this is one of the big initiatives over at the USPTO. I know that Dana's been looking at this quite a bit. But patent quality, the word quality doesn't just imply better or worse. It also implies type. And so I think that there's been some discussion of what sort of patents ought there be within the system. I mentioned in one of the previous discussions that I see patents as a form of government marketplace regulation. And if the government is going to be saying, well, we want to encourage certain types of behaviors, we want to encourage certain types of market practices, it makes a lot of sense for the patent system, thus to say these sorts of patents are more valuable to that sort of marketplace behavior, and these sorts of patents are less. Recently, subject matter of patents has become a pretty big topic, as some of you know. This is the Alice versus CLS bank decision and the Bilski case that came before it that decided the patentability of things such as software patents, computer implement patents. But patentable subject matter goes back much further. Probably the most famous origining case in the United States at least is O'Reilly versus Morse, which is the case over the patent on the telegraph. Morse had filed a patent that had a number of claims direct to telegraphy, methods of sending telegraphs. And then he had this one claim at the end of his patent. And he said, besides all of that, I claim the use of electrical signals to cause things. I think he might have said like motion things, but it was more or less, I claim the use of electrical signals to cause things at a distance. That could be used for communication or any number of things. And the Supreme Court said, telegraphy that's okay, but saying that, claiming the broad idea of electromagnetism to cause things is just a step too far. You shouldn't be able to claim, to preempt an entire field of technology. I think this actually is fairly important when it comes to university patents because as we've mentioned, I think a number of people have mentioned, a lot of the technologies that come up in this space are technology that they're very inception. They're very, very new technologies for which the applications aren't very well known. And there is a pretty substantial risk that when somebody's trying to patent one of these new, very early stage technologies, that the patent does tend to cover a large portion of the field without knowing where the direction of that field might go, how expansive it might be. I think that Yardana alluded to this a bit with regard to some of the CRISPR patents, which I will not comment on for various reasons. But I think that patent quality is a fairly important thing to be considering and of course the courts have rules of dealing with this, but it's also something that I think is important for to be dealt with kind of on the private sector side as well or on the side of the applicants as well. There ought to be some sort of like filtering process to determine whether or not somebody is trying to claim too large a portion of a technology. For many years, I think, at least in the software field, the incentive was to try to claim as broad a technology as possible because the rules that the Federal Circuit had enunciated on software patents allowed for this sort of thing. Besides, before the Supreme Court saying that these sorts of things were impermissible, we did see a pretty good amount, we did see the problems of that sort of regime in which people would get patents on very, very broad technologies. One of my favorite examples was the EONnet case. This wasn't a patentable subject matter case, it was decided before then. But what happened was that the patentee had a patent on a method of transmitting files by faxes, so paper files by faxes. Through a number of continuation patents, they were able to convince the patent office to grant them a patent not only on transmitting pieces of paper via fax, but also on transmitting files, which they didn't define, via electronic communications, and then basically said that this was a patent on email. This would be an example of where somebody has taken a fairly narrow concept and attempted to take advantage of the patent system to broaden the patent out to a far larger thing, and then to attempt to assert this against authority. I think my first point would be that besides all of the discussion of patent rules that we've had, I think it's very important to be looking at the types of patents that ought to be applied for, that universities ought to be looking at, and especially the degree of breadth that ought to be sought in these sorts of patents. Now, of course patent assertion is fairly important with regard to universities as well, and the other thing that I want to talk about, so I'll skip all of this, what are some lessons that we can take from other areas in terms of ways of licensing or making arrangements with patents to further the commercialization of technology? Three examples came to mind when I thought about this. The first was the compulsory and mechanical license in copyright, and copyright, of course, if you want to make a cover song, you are allowed to make a cover song by providing notice to the original composer and paying a certain specified fee. This has a pretty substantial advantage that it allows for all sorts of innovative creativity upon existing songs, because you can take advantage of an existing song, come up with some sort of new electronic or metal version or something like that, and make for substantial innovation in the creative space by taking advantage of that. A lot of times the problem that you would face as a small composer is if you wanted to take advantage, if you wanted to make a cover version of a song, absent the mechanical license, you would have to negotiate with potentially a fairly large, with a fairly large copyright holder, and that would be fairly difficult from an information perspective and just from a negotiating perspective. So the mechanical license, I think, is one example of a way in which we can look at licensing in sort of a different light. The second is this guy, so this is Elon Musk, of course, and he did a thing about a year ago, which I think was pretty notable. He declared that all of the patents on Tesla's electric vehicle technologies would just be dedicated to the public. He said, no license is required, you just get all of this. His reasoning for this was they had applied for the patents on the theory that potentially this technology could become very big and they wanted to have the value of patents for commercializing their electric vehicle technology, but it turned out that that didn't work. And at the point that they realized, look, this isn't going to work, the only way we're going to have substantial development of the electric vehicle space is if we allow a lot of people to come in is to allow people to take advantage of our patent and technology without having to pay licenses. And so I think that that's a second example of a way in which, of an approach to looking at patent licensing. First, try out your commercialization strategy. If that doesn't work, just have at it. The third is how many of you are familiar with these three acronyms by show of hands? Anybody? One, okay, a couple people. These are reflective of a patent licensing strategy used by standard-setting organizations, SSOs. So IEEE, I am now blanking on other, NIST is another example of these. Organizations who make technology standards that allow for communications between computers, that specify the format of DVDs, things like that. And one of the issues that comes up in standard-setting bodies is they take a lot of technology ideas and from different companies that they consider incorporating the standard, some of those might be patented. And so if the standard's body were to just say, all right, we'll take this technology because we like it, even though there might be a patent on it, that means that anybody who's implementing the standard suddenly now potentially is at risk of patent infringement and the patent owner can charge more or less as much as they want because if you don't make something that complies with the standard, then you're not gonna be compatible with other people, with other companies' devices. So standards bodies basically impose a number of requirements on people who contribute ideas to the standard saying, if you're going to contribute an idea to a standard and you have a patent on it, then you're required to license the patents on what are called fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. And the idea behind this is it helps to accommodate the dissemination of the technology. I think, again, the dissemination of technology is something that we've talked about quite a bit. And so in terms of looking at ways that universities can use their patents, I think that this is actually another area that's definitely worth looking at for getting ideas for how to go about licensing. All right, I think that's it. All right, thanks.