 Unfortunately over the last five years we've been dealing with undue creativity and onboarding on illegality and we're having to deal with the hangover from it. In the same sense, we've had a situation where we've had creativity in patent rolls and in large strategics who are looking to utilize a court that was never intended for these kind of cases with the International Trade Commission's court where they are only, if they find infringement, the only thing they can do is issue an injunction. They don't have the ability to apply appropriate remedies. And as a result, you have trolls that don't have standing to get an injunction in the district court utilizing this ITC court and we've got dozens of cases that are actually being brought by trolls and companies like Microsoft and Apple are also using it as a complement to their district court cases to apply pressure because in that situation, when you're faced with the potential loss of access to the U.S. market, you will sign a royalty agreement that is not market because it's not about the licensing and litigation is not about necessarily the nature of the patents that are being asserted and litigated. That's part of it, but you have to think about the context. Ownership by the most cash-rich companies in the world of patents that could also be held by a small, medium-sized enterprise places those patents in a very different position and a much more dangerous position for open source and for the Linux community. Okay, perhaps it seems to me there's a common theme here. We've been talking about the successes in the world of openness, but they are being overshadowed by larger changes, particularly of legal systems that just can't cope with the modern world in terms of the sharing that's going on and the way that those systems are abused. I wonder if anyone's got any questions at this point about some of those issues that have been raised? Yep, can we have a microphone, please? Thanks very much, gentlemen. So one comment and one question. To Simon's point at the beginning, the question, why so much bad law so recently or why so much bad regulation so recently? One, I mean you mentioned the fact that the internet is profoundly changing the relationship between creator and consumer. It's also profoundly changing and going to change much more the relationship between citizen and government. And I think that one of the things that's happened in the last two years is that government has woken up to that fact. And so we're no longer just dealing with corporate lobbying, we're also dealing with governments who are recognizing that their interests are profoundly challenged but for example by looking at what went on in the Arab Spring in early 2011 and looking at how networks of loosely organized people can achieve profound change regardless of whether the government is involved or not. And I don't think that that's a coincidence. And my question, which is more to Keith, is your analysis seems very insightful. Do you have any proposals for remedies to this situation? Thanks very much. Regarding the ITC, we've actually been actively lobbying over the last 12 months. There's I don't know how much detail people want to get into but I'll try and keep it at a high level. The 1934 Act for the ITC actually created a provision whereby products that were created that uniquely enable innovation and enable economic benefit for the national economy that those should be kept out of ITC's essentially hammer and so that you wouldn't adjudicate a case there or even if you did find infringement, you would kick it back out to the district court for ultimate application of a remedy because the economic detriment to the US and its competitive position would be such that you wouldn't because of the public interest being served you wouldn't allow for an injunction to issue. We are claiming that we've had papers prepared by economists at Oxford as well as by legal scholars in the US to talk about how the public interest should be invoked in situations where Linux and open source based products are the subject of a litigation in the ITC. In this way, we remove one of the arrows from the quiver of large strategics and of trolls that are attempting to sue based on Linux to be able to slow or stall Linux. I mean, understanding the context of this is very important. This is, we were going to have multiple platforms and I should mention that hearing Mitchell's comments earlier about a new OS coming out, which is a far more open OS coming out from Mozilla is incredibly encouraging because we wanted to see Web OS get traction in the market. We wanted to see Tizen get traction in the market, but it seems like it's somewhat stalled. We wanted to see the platform that the Mego platform, which essentially was bought out by Microsoft when they made an investment in having Nokia essentially exclusively use their platform. These were other platforms that for one reason or another have not caught hold in the marketplace. So it's a one front war. It's a lot easier when you're in the game of working potentially collaboratively with other large strategics to be able to layer on total cost of ownership to get to the point where it's uneconomic to utilize the only mobile Linux platform out there. And so we're looking at the effect. It's not that Android represents Linux per se. It represents a utilization of the Linux kernel, but there's lots in there. If you look at the stack, the Linux kernel is way down there and what people are suing on is way high in the stack. So it's really not Linux, but in so far as they're eliminating a Linux product from the market, it's concerning to us. Okay, thanks very much. I'd also like to turn your comment into a question for the panel. Do you agree that the governments of the world have woken up and are now the enemy? So listening to your comment there, I've been very pleased over the last year the degree to which for example the UK government has sought comment on new legislation or at least parts of the government. There's people from UKG in the audience who've done a fine job in that regard. Nonetheless, when I see new legislation starting out in the UK Parliament, it seems to me the only voices that have been incorporated into it have been the voices of corporate lobbyists. And it seems to me that the role of government in preparing that legislation has been to crystallize the consensus of corporate voices without considering the needs of citizens who are both creators and consumers. So while I agree with you that it's started, I still feel there's no one in government speaking for me. And the difficulty that produces is that when we're talking about European legislation, I can't afford to come here to join in a think tank that's happening in the Parliament building or that's happening in some other city in Europe. There are people in this audience who are paid to travel all over Europe, stay in hotels and sit in committee meetings. I know, because I used to be one of them. But the citizen-creator consumer is not in a position to come and participate semi-full-time to full-time in consultative activity. And mechanisms for citizen feedback that rely on being able to understand there was a questionnaire about a bill in the UK Parliament recently that was about 26 detailed fuzzy questions that required an essay answer that would have made a thesis for a doctorate look moderate. And now it was good, it was consulting the citizen, bad, no citizen was in a position to respond to the consultation. And so you're doing a good job to open up, but it's just not working because the only people who can really participate are the paid lobbyists who are already perfectly well-represented in the legislation, thank you. In your world, no. Well, I can see that you are suffering from consumer blouse, which is being always in the minority, in the corner, and never having your voice heard as consumer lobbyists, this is something that is always happening. It's interesting that now with the openness theme, the, as you call it, the enemy, maybe might be changing for us. In the past it was the big corporations, now maybe it's going to change, or maybe the people suffering from the consumer blouse are different than in the past. Maybe we are going to get it all at the end of the day, I don't know. But what is interesting for me is that you said that this issue about the consulting, the consultation, the fact that now the process is open, at least at the European level, there is more and more the use of these online tools to make the people participating. But it is true that it is a double edged or double kind of meaning because the tool might be open, but the questions themselves are very, very difficult to understand and ourselves as the organized consumers. Sometimes we have a difficulty because the question is asked to an individual, so you are asked to sometimes really answer yes or no as an individual person and it is difficult to represent the collective point of view. On the other hand, sometimes the question is really a PhD kind of question. So it is really sometimes more the form than the substance behind and therefore there is an open process, but is the result really incorporating the openness element? I'm really not sure. But again, I can say that you can live with consumer blows. Some people like it as well. And it is really great now that more and more people are trying to influence the process of regulation as well. Two very quick remarks. First, what we've seen recently is public outrage of people very, very unexpectedly came forward and protested against pieces of legislation that frankly I wouldn't have hoped people could care, but we cannot rely on outrage because at some point people will be resilient and not very saturated for this. You cannot always call danger, danger, danger for the seventh, eighth, tenth time people will not respond. So those people pushing for this kind of formation of infinite patience and infinite means to push it. Second thing is these outrage was somewhat solicited or enhanced by some intermediaries. Some people are hosting content, hosting services, providing the flow of information. Those companies or those service providers are constantly attacked by attempts to reform under two main headlines. First is while protecting children and second is piracy or protection of the content. So I see a parallel between those people, Google and others and Wikipedia soliciting outrage and being attacked and having a force to be those people had liable for what flows into the pipes. Any other questions arising? Gentlemen over there please. My name is Oliver Birken from Germany. I was wondering on a more local level with far more global effects, whether 2012 is actually the end of the year of openness. The smart phonification of desktops and notebooks also known as Windows Secure Boot where we keep losing control over the computers and what's going on on these machines on our desktops in our private living rooms and offices. Do you have any opinion?