 All right, I try to make it easy for folks to figure out if they're in the right session. So I'm going to talk about software patents and solutions for developers to avoid patent aggression. I'm not gonna, you know, there's other ways that we could approach this issue, but this is a developers conference. So we're going to go at it from that way. I know that as tinkers, we like to try to fix the problem ourselves. So I'm going to start with a little bit of background on how the software patent aggression problem got so out of control and kind of large. And then I'll talk a little bit about what the precise threats are and the differences between the two kinds of threats that we face. And then I'll talk a little bit about some of the solutions that are being discussed in the US where the problem is the kind of the worst. And one of those things that we export, sorry. And then I'll go through what we can do as developers. If you have any questions about legal terms, like an acronym is snucked in that you don't understand, go ahead and raise your hand. But if you have like a, we're like, I know we should just troll the trolls at some point in the middle because like that's kind of, it's the neatest, tidiest, but not workable solution. And so save your ideas for other ways we could attack the problem until the end. So, okay, thanks. So the big picture, I chose the bonsai because it kind of, when I think of code and like all the minute prunings and shapings and the care and feeding. I sort of thought of like a nice healthy code base. And of course, the last piece that anything delicate like that needs is protection. So we're going to talk about how software patents are killing our little tree here. So the first thing I want to talk about is the difference between patents, products and ideas, which I think we probably understand in this room. But at some point, like our legal system forgot to figure out how these things are different. So patents originally were granted for physical inventions, which they worked out pretty well for. And it was to give you like a limited amount of time to gather materials and hire people to build your, you know, cotton gin or your new tractor or whatever. And for physical products, when you have to get like wood sent from one place and iron ore like mine from another place and then bring in specialists from another place. Having a limited time monopoly might make some sense. It gives people a chance to like gather all of their materials together and then take their product out to the market. Obviously for software on a really good weekend with enough Red Bull, like you could have your product ready by Monday. So the 20 year limited monopoly that the US Patent Office grants doesn't really make so much sense as a grafting on. The other thing that's kind of different is that a physical device, like if I have a hinge and you have a hinge, we can look at each hinge. And we're like, yeah, that's a thing for making the door swing. It's very obvious that we are looking at like different iterations of the same thing. Not so for software, especially once you get to the way that it gets worded in a patent application. So you no longer have what we call a really good notice. Notice is you can kind of picture it as a fence. So when you've crossed over to infringing territory, you know. And so with software, I would guess that almost every piece of software we're using is infringing some patent somewhere. So and there were no fences. We just are using software. So so that's difficult. So so we're not we're not granting patents on physical devices. We're granting them on something closer to ideas. And in fact, they're not even necessarily finished ideas. This is a legal term functional claiming, which means that you can get a patent for I recognize a problem. I'm going to solve it on a physical device called a computer and then, you know, with software. So that you can see how the logic has gotten a little bit faulty. Like it's no longer like you didn't build a tractor yet or, you know, or whatever it is. But you say that you're going to solve a problem comma on a computer. And that is what's called functional claiming. And that started maybe in the 90s or so and then sort of steamrolled because it's much easier to come up with ideas than it is to come up with actual solutions to problems. Right. I have ideas all the time. But it would probably take me longer to write them all down. But if you're getting paid to write them all down, then, you know, that's a whole other jam. So what is currently patentable in the US? Because once I get to this part, people are like, well, why don't you guys just make it illegal to patent math? And unfortunately, math is, well, fortunately, math is already not patentable. That it's just that the statute isn't enforced in a very helpful way. So you're already not supposed to be able to patent something that somebody else is already using. And it has to be useful. Like you can't say I want to patent a unicorn trap. Even the US Patent and Trade Office will not give you a patent for that because it's not useful. And you aren't supposed to be able to get a patent on algorithms. Again, this is that thing where it is comma on a computer, which is a physical device. So it's tied to a device. And so that's, you know, so we're granting patents for algorithms comma on a computer. So that's like kind of where the law is. Novel, like I said, you can't patent something that other people are already using. At least you're not supposed to. Again, the problem here is noticed like if you, the USPTO will grant a patent on something if they don't know that it isn't new. So you end up with this problem of making sure they actually understand what's new and what's old. I'm pretty sure they're not reading slash dot or combing through GitHub with a fine tooth comb. So they have some problems there on figuring out what's actually new. Lastly, it has to be non-obvious, so it can't be obvious to someone in the field. Has anyone here ever made a basket? Okay, so you may have heard the phrase underwater basket weaving, which like conjures this image of someone in a scuba outfit like for some weird reason making a basket, which sounds ridiculous. But most baskets are actually made underwater. The basket is underwater, not the basket maker. So for instance, if you were to try and get a patent for underwater basket weaving, they should say no, because that's obvious to someone who already knows about basket making. Same thing with software, if you're trying to get a patent for something that should be obvious to any software developer, then you should not be granted a patent on it. Unfortunately have some problems as far as like the US Patent and Trade Office understanding what's obvious. Some of that's the language that is used in patent applications and some of that is the amount of time that they're able to have to look at each application. And then, as I said, it has to be useful. So no unicorn traps, no I fly with magnets, no mind control, no time travel. So no one was gonna patent those things, right? Okay, so good. So measuring innovation, a lot of times we hear the phrase, this spurs innovation or we're promoting innovation or we're in favor of innovation. We don't wanna block innovation. And I think it's important to unpack that a little bit so that we understand what we're spurring or promoting or not blocking. And so innovation, it comes from the Latin word for new. So it's supposed to refer to like a new idea or new product. What we see a lot of times is people wanting to protect something that is just a new revenue stream, which certainly, aggressing with your patent portfolio is a new revenue stream, if you haven't done it before. But I think when we talk about the desire to promote innovation and you have that warm fuzzy like adding to the grand total sum of human knowledge kind of idea, but the person actually means they just want a new revenue stream. When you hear the word innovation, I want you to maybe think about which kind of innovation we're talking about. So the US patent office seems to think that more patents equal more innovation, which is tricky. They're kind of in a weird position as far as that goes. Those are the beans that they get to count. And they do like counting them. So 40,000 new software patents each year. And that's just in the US. There are similar, not quite as egregious, but similar exponential increases in patents in other places. In Europe, it's a little different. You have to do a little bit more of a semantic dance to get a patent on software related invention. But it's not impossible that the real goodies in the patent are actually software, but there's some hardware around it. So two types of threats. So when we talk about patent aggression, that can come from sort of two different places. The unspoiler alert, I think probably everyone in this room knows these things, patent suits are costing us a lot of money. In US, we know it's like $80 billion, something like that per year. We know that the activity is increasing and not decreasing. And we know that those lawsuits are not spring innovation, and we know that it's a pain in the butt. So the first type of threat is trolls. I was in Norway last week, they love trolls. They love trolls like we love cats and puppies. They put them in their playground everywhere. They have lots of stories, it's fun. If it's a plaster cast, welcoming you to a playground. When it's a non-practicing entity suing you for money for your invention that you put your blood and sweat and tears into, not so much. So the annual wealth loss from the non-practicing entity lawsuits was about $80 billion, and this was as of 2011. As I said, this number keeps going up. Some arguments that people would make is that innovation happens somewhere else. When two companies sue each other, the losing company doesn't do the innovation, but the winning company is making the innovation. And that isn't true with patent trolls. And it isn't even actually true with the revenue. So they recoup about 9% of this $80 billion. The rest is just lost revenue. Products not gone to market, dropping stock prices, different diverted focus for developers and company officials. And so it's dropping on the floor. We're not getting those new innovations. Once you sue a company out of existence, the troll doesn't pick up their invention and bring it to the market. So everyone is clear with me on that so far. So here's that number with the patent suits per year. And this is from patent freedom going up every year. And then the kind of target that is being looked at for trolls is increasingly like users and adopters. In Germany and I think in some other UK countries, you have an innocent user defense, so you can't sue the user of a technology. You have to sue the creator, which is great, unless you have any users in a different country that will get sued. So if you're putting software out internationally, patent trolls can't go after your German users and adopters, but they could go after your US users and adopters. So, I guess you could just not send software to the US or anywhere else that has a similar policy regarding patents, which is I'm going to get to in a minute increasingly more countries are harmonizing with the US. And then a little bit more about, I was trying to find something that would make it fun because this can be sort of a depressing talk. I give you guys a lot of horrible statistics, but I thought the turtles were cute. So intellectual ventures, probably the world's largest patent troll, is comprised of 1,300 shell corporations that we know of. There could be more. And this pursues some really interesting, and I mean interesting in the Confucian sense kinds of situations. So there's one example of a fellow in Russia who is small software shop. He gets a letter from one company, letter head, all of that. And they say, hey, it looks like you're using similar technology to us. Maybe you'd like to cross license just in case, because we have some patents on that stuff. And it seems like it would be a good idea. We could do a little partnership or something. So it's like a really nice letter, considering, right? And then he got another letter after a little while, having not responded to the first letter that said like, hey, it looks like you're shipping software under some patents that we own. And we are gonna sue you if you don't cross license. And they had a much higher amount that they were asking for, for cross license. So then he didn't respond to that one either. He got another letter from the nice patent troll that was like, hey, I just wanted to check in and see if you were ready to cross license yet. So this particular developer was like, I'm familiar with this kind of like coercion. So he tried to contact the FBI and say I've been contacted by a racketeering organization. Which is basically, that's like mob, when the mob shakes you down for money. And the FBI like, sorry, actually all of those companies are legally incorporated in the US, so there's nothing that we can do. I don't know if you paid, but I hope not. And then, so that's intellectual ventures, we think. Another example of what kinds of things can happen here is Nathan Mervold, who's the CEO of Intellectual Ventures. He sits on the board of a lot of different companies. One of his shell corporations sued a ton of different companies, including one that Nathan Mervold sits on the board of. That was noticed by the press and they said, that's so weird. It seems now that Intellectual Ventures is suing a company that their CEO sits on the board of. So after that article came out, within a month, that company was quietly dropped from the list of companies that were being sued. It seems that he was actually suing himself, but wasn't aware of it. So, yeah, it's, so you end up with a lot of opportunity for both evil intentional collusion and then also a lot of unchecked sort of just random, like so much suing that people are actually, he's accidentally suing himself. So that is one type of threat, that's the troll. Those are the companies that are not making anything. The thing that makes them tricky to fight, we can't troll the trolls because they aren't actually producing anything. The way that a lawsuit on patents works is that first you send them a note saying, you're using our stuff. They're not using any stuff because they're not shipping any products. They're not sharing any code. They're not writing anything except letters. So that makes them a specific type of nut to crack. This next one is, these are companies that, I mean this term up. I haven't decided if I like it yet or not. But this is, this is for us, I am putting this in as a stand-in for proprietary software companies that are suing free software companies for anti-competitive reasons. So like Microsoft, when they sue a tiny company like TomTom, they certainly don't need the money, right? I was, I actually considered calling them haters. But I didn't know how that would come off on a slide. But these are companies that are suing because they want to put more roadblocks in the way of their competition. And that is a different type of threat. So this kind of threat leads to trying to work around tickets like the MPEG LA ticket, rewriting code, pulling features out. There was a volunteer who writes GIMP plugins and got a note from Borland, probably some young new person in their IP department was like, hey, it looks like you are infringing a patent. And they're like, awesome, I'm gonna make a little extra money. And so he just pulled it, he buried it. He scrubbed it off the web as best he could. He put a note up on his personal blog that said, don't ever ask me about those plugins again. I've destroyed them, they're gone. So we don't get this other functionality that we could have used on GIMP. When we had the anti-aliasing font was still in effect. You would have, your friend would come over, you'd told them, I'm gonna show you this great new thing. It's a totally different operating system, it's free, it's cool. You pull something up and they're like, the fonts look kind of fuzzy and crappy. And it's like, yeah, I mean, and you might have known why, maybe you did, maybe you didn't, but it makes Linux not look as good when we have to pull little things because of patent and conference issues. And it's obviously, it's not fun to go back in and look at the legal side, figure out how to code around it, and go back and forth when you may not have even gotten a letter. But you know a colleague has gotten the letter. So the strategic aggressor type of suits, the anti-competitive suits, create a different set of problems, a different kind of response. Like I said, a headache even if you don't get sued. So if you know that something is being litigated and your company is also using it, you're probably kind of sweating it, right? Like even if you haven't gotten the letter yet. So you might code around it. We did this with the file allocation table patents. After Tom Tom got sued by Microsoft, we were like, well, we better code up something different to use in Linux kernel in the main branch also. Even though we didn't get a letter, that I know of. Sometimes those are secret. And then lastly, when you see suits kind of deep down in the stack, it's not like one little cherry on the top of a mobile device. But like, you can't have rectangles. That deters innovation. So even if you do cross-license, it makes the devices more expensive. And then it takes away time and focus and things like that. And you end up with stuff where it's like, well, I guess we'll all just avoid that pinch thing for a little bit and then we'll put it back in but implement it different so it works kind of more jerky. It's like, okay. So who is that helping? It's not helping us as users. It's definitely not helping us as developers. We have to code around stuff that is so deep on the stack that it seems kind of obvious for a whole stream of technology. So the anti-competitive suits are aimed at wiping out their competition or scaring their customers into thinking, I'll get sued or I'll get letters or my fonts will look crummy, all these types of things. So that is the other type of problem. And these companies, this is from my buddy Simon. He was gonna present with me. I'll try and explain this. He said that when you worked at Sun, what would happen is as you developed, you had to continually patent. And he said, so you developed something, you patent. So once you start with this idea of these anti-competitive suits, they're great. Then your company starts to pressure the developers to write more and more patents so they have more and more things in the arsenal. And so you keep writing, you keep writing, oops. And so especially if you get an economic incentive to write patents at work, you'll see as you start to do your Christmas shopping, all of a sudden everyone has 40 new ideas that are worth patenting. So not that I'm opposed to Christmas gift buying or anything. But this, again, it takes time away from development. It could be spent somewhere else, right? So that's a lot about why the US is kind of a mess. So thinking a little bit more globally, it's not really not all good news. But I assume most folks, when you write code, you're not like, I hope this gets used by me and maybe my roommate. You want to see your code to go everywhere, right? I think most of us would like to see their stuff being used all over the world. So that means you have to worry about other jurisdictions besides your own. One of the things that can happen, it's a lot to keep up with the policies and the judicial practices in all different countries. And a lot of times, both an anti-competitive suit or a troll suit will rely on your need for certainty. You get the letter, and the only thing that you can be certain about is if you pay, they tell you what will happen. If you don't pay, you don't know what will happen. You could win, you could go to court and win, it would be expensive. You might be able to ignore them, maybe they sent out so many letters that day they won't remember to get back to you, unlikely. But they're sort of arresting on this need that you have for certainty. Maybe you can play a little game where you try and get it to be heard in a different jurisdiction that you think will be more friendly to your cause. But this can be tricky. Unfortunately, the courts tend to favor the frequent litigator, the person who knows their way around, knows all of the different legal precedences. And so, if your company is getting sued and it's going to be your first time going to court, you should expect to be as clueless as a beginner usually is. So, that makes it very hard to get certainty when you go to court. Lastly, I talked about the harmonization. This one's also from Simon, you can see the S instead of the Z. He's British. This is the Sydney Opera House. People recognize that, right? It's kind of like a worldwide, famous landmark. All right, so Australia recently signed a trade treaty saying that they would harmonize with US intellectual property statutes. Whenever you hear harmonize, you should be suspicious, right? We have all kinds of harmonizing that happens and it usually is kind of a lowest common denominator type of thing. But basically, they sort of bundled up a bunch of things that Australia would like as a trade negotiation and said, well, we could do those things if you would be willing to harmonize your IP law with ours. I don't know if they were trying to sell off kangaroo meat or what, but they now have software patents in Australia where they did not. Or a system that recognizes software patents. They haven't written them yet, but they have promised to recognize the regime of software patents. So that means that as far as software patent aggression, the doors are open. So this is the other question I always get asked as a US person when I leave the US and I tell everyone all of these things and they're like, can't you guys fix it? And I wish we could. This is the time when you kind of start thinking about the silver bullet solutions. And if you think of something we ought to do that we haven't yet done, that would be awesome. But I'll tell you what the current thinkings are. Courts are kind of a black box. We could hope to see more suits that would treat software patents a little bit differently and not recognize troll suits as valid law suits. That would be nice. So far our courts have been really, really super unwilling to do that. I think it's because the courts that actually hear patent cases are patent attorneys themselves who, well, they like patents. They think everything should be patentable. And that every patent deserves to be heard, even if it is a troll suit. So, as far as using the courts as a tool to stop patent aggression, it's expensive to go to court and we don't always get the result that we hope for. Even when we look at one, like we looked at Bilsky a number of years ago and we're like, oh, maybe the courts will narrow the scope of patentability a little bit and say a little bit more about pure math not being a great subject for patentability and they chose not to. Expensive, as I mentioned. Congress, you guys know this expression about how you like sausage is good but you don't want to see how it gets made, right? Okay, so it's Congress exactly the same way, right? It's law-making and it's also not cheap. And even when they are willing to work we can't even really get them to vote correctly on school lunches. But maybe they could do sausage for the kids. But as far as legislative solutions, it's been very hard to get coalition around anything in the current Congress. We have also looked at policy change at the USPTO. They look at certain categories of patents in a different way and some of those solutions could be ported over or kind of tweaked a little bit to make it so that some of the egregious stuff that we all would look at and be like, oh, there's no way that should be patentable that those things could be denied. So it's, and I think this has good history. We like to think that everything in the software world has never happened before but we saw patent speculation during the railroad boom. We saw patent speculation on farm implements before that. And what ended up working was not everyone going down to Congress with pitchforks and asking for the whole system to be demolished and abolished. They looked at industry-specific reform that made it better. So policy change at the USPTO, they could treat software patents a little bit differently because they, I mean, it's not a tractor, right? These are two specific legal definitions, written descriptions and definiteness. And they use these for bioinformatic patents. Written descriptions means that's a legal term meaning explain how you will actually solve the problem as opposed to say I identified a problem and I'll solve it with software. So that's how that could look if we decided to do that. And definiteness means that you actually say what is outside the scope of the patent. My understanding a little, I'm not so up on the bioinformatics but I think they want to make sure that you're not patenting parts of people or gross unethical cloning practices and things like that with human beings. So they want you to really say this is what's in the patent and then these other things are not. Just so you know, I'm not trying to get Frankenstein here, I'm just trying to lay nice new glass eyes or whatever. So we could port this over to software and I think it would get rid of a lot of the more egregious software patents that we all know should not be in there. Another pair of eyes, they actually use this I think as an acronym even APOE, that's like if anyone loves acronyms more than software developers, it might be government. But this is basically just means you have a second person take a look at the patent application to make sure that it's not like no, no, no, no, that's just ridiculous. Just a second person taking a look at it. Right now we usually have one examiner take a look. So, and then Obama, he actually spoke recently about software patents and patent trolls. So that's more attention than this issue has gotten outside of the technology community for a long time. I don't know if he'll be able to get anything done, but I'm going to talk a little bit about what he proposed. I also kind of like who's his dentist, I want to know. That is like the nicest teeth on earth. Anyway, increased transparency. So this is when the company actually discloses like who their real corporate headquarters is and doesn't just like, oh, company X and company B. And so you would like to have it so that when you get a letter from a patent lawyer that you know who that person is actually representing. Many of the losers pay the litigation fees. So when you have a patent suit, this is also aimed at trolls. It means that, so patent trolls, there's no disincentive for them to send out hundreds and hundreds of letters because the cases that they win far beyond pay for the cases they don't win because the cases they don't win, it's the cost of sending a letter. So making the losers pay the litigation fees means that trolls would be a little more strategic, I guess, about who they choose to sue. And they would stop bothering some of the companies where it's like a much looser claim. And then lastly, sort of letting the Federal Trade Commission go after trolls. So you can see like a sort of a theme here, like we had on the National Public Radio had like two different shows about trolls. And in the US we have this, we think we have this enemy of people who don't work and trolls fall into that category for us. So there's a lot of energy around the non-practicing entity problem. So all of the kinds of reforms that are on the board are bad for trolls, but they don't really cover the strategic aggressor problem. These are companies that have employees that do actually do things besides send letters. So out of all of the reforms that are being discussed for the patent system, we're not really going to get to the strategic aggressor problem. I mean we might, it's possible, we might vote all new people into Congress that are capable of getting things done, but I think it's more likely that we want. Maybe that's the pessimistic part, I guess. I used to be more of an optimist, I promise. Anyway, so what can we as developers do? So this is from Simon. So this is a kind of a four-part thing. These are all the patents that threaten your software. The first thing that you can do is use a modern software patent, software license that mentions patents specifically that says like, you can't just take my open source code and then patent it. So that's piece one. You can also do what we call a kind of a scorched earth. So you have your key invention and then you sort of like scorch the earth around it with defensive publications. And those are cheaper to do than patents. It also gives you more coverage. The open invention network or iWork will help you write them if you are working in the Linux and open source space. And this gives you another layer of defense. A non-aggression covenant, which is where you sign and say like, I won't sue you if you won't sue me. We also manage that at the open invention network. And then lastly, a patent pool where you have patents that you can use for defense. And this is specifically targeted at the strategic aggressor problem. So the patent pool where you have patents you can use for defensive purposes only doesn't work for trolls, but it does work against strategic aggressors. So strength through community, that's the great thing about all of those solutions on the little pyramid graph is that we don't have to wait for Congress or Obama or anyone in government anywhere to affect that change. We can use those solutions today. So just to recap, so I think we're closing on the end here. Patent validity, unfortunately not important. You can get a letter whether that patent is good mediocre or just a big pile of crap. It is a chilling effect on development. I'm sure everyone knows that. You chose to come to this talk instead of something technical. Your international customers can be sued, which sucks. And future intellectual property treaties could change the landscape so that a place where you thought you were safe becomes no longer safe. So what you can do about it, we said use a software license that mentions patents. Do defensive filings, we can help you do that. Join a defensive patent pool. My understanding is that there is some energy around an open hardware pool now too. So our idea has gone and germinated other ideas. And OIN is also a non-assertion agreement where we get companies to say, I won't sue other Linux companies. If you decided this was fun and you like reading about this stuff, here are a couple of papers that you can dive a bit deeper in on this topic. Those are all of the picture credits. And I would be happy to take questions. Thank you. Yes. Yeah, that's another good policy change. Which I do sometimes mention when I give, I usually go deeper on the US patent office in a US talk, but yes. He's asking about how the US patent office is funded and they get more money for granting patents than they do for denying them. So, and they also start from an assumption of validity. So the US patent office is, the deck is stacked pretty bad there. If your goal is to see less dumb patents. Other questions, yeah. Can patents be revoked easily? Yeah, so can patents be revoked easily? The, the shorter answer to that is that the earlier on in the process you can participate and telling them like, no, that's obvious. The cheaper it is. So like the recent America Invent Act allows for a community participation earlier in the process like before the patent is granted. Because that means looking at the 6,000 patents that come through every week. Or just the ones that are useful to you if you can figure out how to sift through them. If anyone wants to apply their awesome database scraping skills to that problem, let me know. But yeah, so pre-grant submission a little easier to get involved because there's a portal and an opportunity. Usually after the patent is granted, you have to challenge it in the courts, which is expensive. So yeah, so the, the, the, the best plan is to get to them before they are granted. So, right. Yeah, so peer to patent, which is my colleague Andrea is the mover and shaker behind that process. So yeah, and that's, so there is, there is opportunities, but it's in terms of work and costs, the earlier in the process, the cheaper it is. You should definitely go to her talk tomorrow at, what time? Andrea is talking tomorrow more specifically about defensive publications in the peer to patent process, so cool. Other questions? Yeah, so say you're saying is the compulsory licensing? Is it like, why is it assumed validity? Or oh, interesting. So the, the question is, could like they have in the UK and the Irish system do what's called compulsory licensing. So if you have a patent, but you're not working that patent, then you have to grant licenses for it. That is an, that is an interesting idea. There hasn't been a lot of conversation about that in the US, but that's another potential solution for the patent troll problem, which, yeah, I would love to see more on how that is working here, because obviously we have, we don't have anything like that in the US, or we wouldn't have the troll problem we do. So yeah, oh, oh, so no, we are, so we're pretty focused on community solutions for developers and generally don't get in on the lobbying game. But that's not to say that individual members don't do that. But that's, we, we kind of said like everyone who's in favor of non-aggression come in here. And, and if that's like kind of the lowest common denominator we could get everyone to agree with. So we have companies that, you know, feel differently about what would be the best type of reform to stop undue patent aggression. But what we, what we've focused on is getting people to stop suing each other and start, you know, talking about more things that might be in a common interest. So I hope I answered that. Is there any more over here, over there? Okay, so my email is devid open invention network. If you want more on peer to patent and defensive filing, go to Andreas talk tomorrow. If you want to email me, you can, I'm not a lawyer, so I won't give you free legal advice even over email. But I am happy to talk with you about more defensive publications or joining the open invention network. So thanks for listening.