 in their day-to-day life. When they receive a patent that's related with a standard, they must have access to the standard document. If they don't, how do you want to assess novelty? So, I agree with you, I don't provide a solution, but the idea of having, if we allow the patentability of some computer implemented innovation, where you have software and technology, why not? But provided, all the information is accessible to assess novelty and inventiveness, then I agree. But that's where we need a collaboration between standard setting of organization and the examiners. If you don't have this exact disclosure, how do you want to assess whether a patent should be granted or not? And I had a final quote that I forgot to mention because it was not on my PowerPoint, but Mrs. Cross mentioned about friends, you know, the fair, and I fully agree. Friends, what is fair? Okay, that's a discussion. But it's key to have a friend on patents that deserve to be granted. Because if you have a friend on low-quality patents, which means patents that were granted when they shouldn't have been granted, this has nothing to do with fair. It's an unfair tax on innovation or entrepreneurship. And I like always to put the black barricades in the US, five patents granted by the USPTO. Blackberry or RIM had to pay 612 million US dollar. It was a software patent, wireless communication device. 612 million US dollar had to be paid to NTP, a small company. And the date was paid, well, it was April 2006. The next month, the USPTO said, oops, sorry, we did a mistake. None of these patents should have been granted. And the problem is that once a patent is granted, it is granted. You don't cancel it easily. Or you can go up to the Supreme Court. Six years of uncertainty, you lose six years of customers. And in these fields, six years, you prefer to pay rather than risking losing customers. So it's the danger of patent system. You have quality. It's good because you provide appropriability mechanism to young entrepreneurs. You don't have quality. Don't talk about fair approach. Are there any burning questions? Yes, we have one of the panelists. Just somewhat more skeptical about your assumption that beyond software, patents clearly are productive. I think yours about the evidence you mentioned, you had dinner with Brown and Law, it was paper with the donors sending it up to the industry, that showed actually that appropriability was not that important in fact.