 I'm Indhath Devari and I'm a public policy advisor and now moving on to intellectual property and non-personal data. I think anyone who works in the domain of startups and broadly is a player in the technology ecosystem knows the value of intellectual property. And intellectual property are broadly things like copyright, trademark, patents and other things that make the work takes place within an organization exclusive to the extent that's possible to that organization so that they are the only ones who can benefit from it. Many players actually say that intellectual property is the key to innovation. However, the way that the non-personal data report talks about many of the things that it wants to do with the sharing of information, it is clear that those things will go up against intellectual property in a manner that may not be very pleasant. And that's largely the case for two broad reasons. The first is it's actually quite difficult to distinguish between insights that are derived from data, the processes used to arrive at that insight and the data itself. And the non-personal data report broadly shifts between insights and data in a manner that is quite nebulous and makes it very hard to decide when does it want the data itself to be shared with other players of the government or when it's talking about insights. As you can imagine that any investor as well as companies and startups themselves will be quite reluctant to share things that give them a competitive advantage and with other players. And it's more often than not those very things that give them a competitive advantage that are protected with intellectual property. And that's broadly the first reason why it's going to be quite hard to imagine that intellectual property is something that will not clash with non-personal data. The sort of second issue with regard to intellectual property is that the report often flits between talking about sharing with competitors and sharing with the government itself. When it comes to sharing with competitors, it's quite clear to say that many startups and companies would be very reluctant to share information or data with competitors no matter what their size because it would make it very hard for them to compete equally with them in that same space. As we discussed in the last presentation slide, it is the competitors themselves in this case that the government is hoping to create a more level playing field between. So this is actually an outcome that the government wants. In order to overcome this concern, what in some parts the report talks about is sharing non-personal data with the government instead of competitors directly, where the government would then decide which data to share with which competitor and which ecosystem, and essentially would act as an intermediary between the ecosystem as well as the entity trying to share the data. Now, this is something that comes with its own set of concerns because similar issues in the past such as the sharing of source code with governments before entering into business in a country have been deep issues of concern between players in the Indian government, in the Chinese government and even the government of the United States which sometimes have these demands and have been very critical of such requests at different times in time, at different points in time. And that makes it all the more unimaginable to imagine that this competitive advantage that many of these smaller startups have is something that they would be okay with sharing with governments so that the governments could then distribute them to other players in the space however they deem fit. And trade secrets in particular are a completely different ball game because of the fact that in India the law around trade secrets in itself is quite vague and the definition of what can and cannot be a trade secret is quite broad which is why in India, there may be many players especially some of the larger foreign ones who may be reluctant to carry out research and development because it may at some point at the other end up being classified as non-person leader that has to be shared with the government or with other players completely negating the point in their eyes of indulging in that research in the first place which is why it's critical that the sort of interface between intellectual property and non-personal data is tracked very, very carefully. And no matter what the final outcome it's clear that the conflict that is almost inherent between these two things should be resolved in a manner that allows for the both of them to coexist and the policy objectives behind non-person leader to be achieved without unnecessarily violating intellectual property. And with that, I hope to have told you why you should care about non-personal data if you care about risk, compliance and successful businesses what some of the top kinds of non-person data in the non-person data report in India are including public, private and community non-personal data and then we went over in detail issues around competition and intellectual property rights the way they exist in the report and finally we spoke about how there may actually be some areas of non-person data that would actively become applicable much before a non-person data law comes out due to the data protection bill actually including some provisions about mandatory non-person data sharing with the government. And for all of these reasons it's very important that this issue be tracked very closely by investors and companies alike because it's clear that it is going to radically reshape the data ecosystem not just in India, but in many parts of the world.