 Good morning, so let me see if I can make a little bit of room here, put my computer up, thanks. Okay, so this little background of myself, I started at the Stanford O.T.L. in 1988, and probably could not have imagined at that point that I would be standing in front of a group as a guest as yourselves to talk about this issue of what universities should do with their patents. And I think my background too is kind of interesting and is a good sort of reference for this discussion. The founder of the O.T.L., a guy named Nils Reimers, hired me. He founded the office based on the idea of doing what's best for technology and to support the research and education mission of the university. The people that he hired to do the tech transfer job were all technical people who had some kind of relevant business experience. And interesting, I shouldn't be saying this particularly at Harvard Law School, but we had a policy that we weren't going to hire any lawyers into our job because we felt that, or at least Nils felt that, you really needed people who understand, first of all, you understood technology, but secondly, knew what the difficulties of commercializing a product would be and how difficult it is to run a business. And having such an office would lead to a more effective technology transfer. So that is as a backdrop a little bit about my history and where I came from and why I joined the university. I'll talk a little bit about some of the issues. And what I chose to do when I was asked to be on this particular panel, framing the issues, was just basically just to do a bit of a shotgun approach about things that came to my mind about what are important issues to be thinking about for the purpose of this question. And quite frankly, I really don't know what the answer is, but I hope that a lot of the comments or issues that I raise here will provide some kind of useful point for our discussion. All right, so clearly the purpose of a university is research and education. We've talked about that a little bit today, and I don't think there's any question in anybody's mind that the purpose of a university should be first and foremost research and education. But I question the idea that universities should be also responsible or expected to create successful companies. And having done this job for long enough and now having gone into the private world myself, I know how difficult it is to start a company and to get a product at the door and to make accelerates and all these sorts of things. But can we really expect universities to be good at both research and education and being good at creating successful companies? A couple of examples that I thought I would throw out where patents really didn't matter, and I don't think they're mattering today so much. Oxford University's been around for over 900 years and ostensibly hasn't had to rely on its patents to excel at what it's done, what it does or has done to stay excellent for all those years. You know, neither has Stanford. Stanford's only been around for 125 years. But quite frankly, the university has not had to rely on its patents to excel at research and education. Frederick Terman, former provost of Stanford, recognized father of Silicon Valley, came up with this idea of steeples of excellence and the idea was to build a community of technical scholars. And rather than focusing on patents, Terman chose to build a Stanford Research Park, and the idea being to bring industry closer to Stanford research and researchers and students. Down to my second point, the university knowledge is effectively transferred through academic publications and in the brains of graduates. I don't know if there's a way to really quantify this. This is something that we have talked about when we are all talking in the public. But there is a bit of an anecdote here that I can tell you about. Gordon Moore, who was one of the co-founders of Intel, felt that the benefit of being close to Stanford was the ability to hire masters and PhD students that were graduating every year. And it wasn't so that Stanford could rather Intel could license more patents from Stanford. Third point, patents have arguably less value today than when Stanford's office was created in 1970. The Coen Boyer patent issued in less than two years in 1980 had only 14 claims and was licensed to over 400 companies. Contrary to today's world, the AIA has narrowed patent to both subject matter, making it more difficult to get broad claims, the kind of claims that were in the Coen Boyer patent, and the type of inventions that universities excel at making. Furthermore, under the AIA, the inter-parties reviews have invalidated patents that are rated 82% for fully instituted petitions and 52% for partially instituted petitions. And lastly, the first inventor-to-file system forces universities to file patent applications sooner, frequently on inventions that are potentially not fully enabled. So we're living in a much more different world than when universities really fully started getting involved in this idea of patenting and transfer technologies. And then the fourth bullet point, most universities spend more money on patent management than they make. That's already been discussed today, so I'm not going to dwell on that further. Now I'll talk specifically about Stanford. Most Stanford patents have not made any money. Again, it correlates to some of the statistics that have been shown already. Another data point on this point about universities not making money is it took Stanford 14 years to break even. From 1970 to 1984, the university basically operated in the red. So it took 14 years to break even, and we were in the black until this year. And now for the first time, since I've been in the office, the university is going to be operating the technology transfer office in the red. And again, you saw the earlier Brookings study statistic about 87% of university licensing offices not breaking even over a 20-year period. So again, more data as to whether or not universities can stay effective or not in tech transfer. So my last bullet point here on the first page is Stanford MIT alumni produce staggering economic value for society without accounting for university patented products. So there's a paper by a professor at Stanford, Charles Easley, that was based on a 2011 survey that found that 39,900 existing companies traced the roots to the founding roots to Stanford alumni. Those companies today, in existence today, have annual revenues of $2.7 trillion. A related study at MIT found similar MIT-originated companies have annual revenues of about $2 trillion. So I look at that statistic and I think, hmm, maybe this is what universities actually do really well. And it's not to say I'm trying to answer this question, so what universities should do with patents, but what I'm trying to point out is that there's a lot of other data there, I think, that we can look at to bring into this question. Okay, so a Stanford faculty member and successful entrepreneur said that startups do not need an exclusive license. That Stanford faculty member happens to be our past president, John Hennessey, who is a founder of MIPS Computer and is on the board of Google. Now, I just want to qualify that John Hennessey clearly is a computer scientist and doesn't necessarily apply towards the life sciences world, which I don't think personally it does. But it is interesting that coming from a faculty member's position and the president of that, that he felt that startups do not need exclusive licenses. Also, I would like to throw out this idea again that's been around for, I think, so I've been around is that non-exclusive licensing is a tax. I think most economists lower the idea of licensing from the standpoint non-exclusive licensing being taxed. It increases the cost of products. But on the other hand, we saw in the case of Coen Boyer, which raised $250 million over its life, it does go a long way to paying the operating costs of the university TTOs and then helps to keep the wheels turning so that we could look for that next big technology. Not a lot has been said about startups, but again, these are numbers I'm sure you all know that high-tech startups usually take three to seven years from launch of a product, from launch two to get a license or to get any product, get cash out the door. And then biotechs typically take seven to 15 years. And the point here is that most are going to fail. Core patents are the kind of patents that universities tend to license generally are fundamental inventions. And usually when a company licenses these early-stage technologies, they quite often decide that they can't commercialize that invention effectively. It's too expensive or just doesn't work somehow and they end up pivoting. But what's really, I think, important is the fact that they actually have created this team of entrepreneurs that get together and can try to figure out a relevant business model that will be successful. So when it comes to publicly funded research, universities as publicly minded institutions strive to do what's passed for the technology. And that's one common mantra is we do what's best for the technology. But the question that comes to mind is doing what's best for the technology the best way to do technology transfer. So Stanford has received more money from alumni donations than it has made through licensing. In the 46 years of its existence OTL has received $1.7 billion in licensed royalties. Over a recent five-year period, Stanford has recently brought in $6.2 billion in philanthropic funding. So let's make sure I'm looking at the same slides here. I did change them a little bit. Again, the point is that universities have other ways of making money and philanthropic gifts generally has been successful at least for Stanford. And that's it for my comments. Thank you.