 We have this to talk about, which I hope, as you'll have a copy of it. So, look, I really would like to make, I think, probably only four points because I think it's rather self-explanatory. I think it's rather self-explanatory. And they are similar points to those which we have discussed in the past. But the first is that when we look at the state of the world economy and we see that, for example, the IMF has described its performance as disappointing, and we see that the growth rate projected for the world this year is 3.1% and for advanced economies it's down in the 1%. What stands out with these figures is the contrast, because you have a very low growth environment, as we have experienced for some time, but here in the field of intellectual property activity we have rather high growth. So that would be my first point, that it is a measure, if you like, of the activity in the knowledge economy which is performing at a rate which is uncharacteristic given the general circumstances in the world. The second point I would make is that once again we see an increasing dominance almost by Asia as the origin of filing activity for intellectual property. So if you look at the figures you see 62% of global filing activity for patents is located in Asia. 55% of global activity in trademarks is located in Asia and 68% of design applications are in Asia. So this we have discussed on previous occasions and it's a confirmation of a trend that we have been seeing for some time. Now the third point I think would be that when you look at those figures a little bit more closely, of course again, I'm sorry to be repeating a message that we've seen, but this is the trend, China, the figures for China are quite extraordinary. So it is the first patent office in the world to receive more than 1 million applications that occurred last year and this is quite extraordinary. It is growing, continues to grow at an extraordinary rate and the figure for last year was 18.7% in terms of the numbers of applications in the patent area received by China and we see also in their figures, they are the top in terms of numbers, patent office, trademark office and design office in the world now and we see also in their figures that there is an increase in their filing activity outside of China. Now that's slow and gradual compared to the meteoric rising numbers internally. Nevertheless it is the case that we do see more overseas filing activity in patents and in trademarks by Chinese enterprises and that is a trend that is discernible. Then I would point you in the direction also of India, which I think has had a very solid performance in the last year. It is at a completely different level in terms of numbers from China, so we're not talking about the same numbers. Nevertheless we do see much increased activity in India, so in the trademark field a rise of 22% in the numbers of applications, in the design field a rise of 10.5% and in terms of patents, if you could help me out more, I've just lost that one from India, 45,000 applications, so it's in the top 20 countries now. So I think that is something to watch. We wouldn't want to suggest any trends at this stage but certainly increased activity in India. So I will limit myself to those comments. Carsten, would you like to add anything? Maybe just one observation. I think what we see in the case of China is increasingly the mathematical laws of compound growth. China keeps growing at a high rate but since China is at a very high level that means China is more and more driving global filing growth. Just to give you an indication of this, China in 2015 received 1,101,864 patent filings which is almost the same as the second, third and fourth largest office together, which are the Japan Patent Office, the Korea Intellectual Property Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. So that's quite a remarkable phenomenon and at least as far as we can see there is no end to this growth. Another way to look at this, if you just look at last year's increase in 2015, the additional number of patent filings compared to 2014, that is similar to the annual number of patent filings received by the European Patent Office. So again, these are just the logical implications of compound growth and over the years this is what has played out in the numbers that we publish in our world IP indicators. I've just been picking through the report. The table is very clear. Do you have a text on the patents? But on the trademarks, I didn't see there a go over view. Designs I didn't look at, but I don't find it in the report. It should be at the beginning of the chapter. And also on page 7, you have the key numbers for patents. That's what I mean. It's page 7. So if you look at page 7, these are our key numbers and there you find the world totals for patents, trademarks, design rights, utility models, and plant varieties. And then if you want to have the more detailed discussion of the statistical trends in each of the main offices and across the main origins, that would be provided in the trademark chapter. And that's, as Mussaytza starts at page 75. The world totals has already been changed over the past decade. So if it's not improving, does that mean that you're not interested in patenting in the IP system? Or if they have a hard time increasing their functionality and ability? And also for plant variety protection, are you talking about patents or is this including the Huboc system? So on the second one, we are dealing here in the statistics with plant readers' rights. So the specific form protection for Huboc system for plant varieties and not patents that may cover some element of a plant. On the first one, look, it's a question of technological capacity. So we regret that the trend is not otherwise, but this is a reflection of I think the technological capacity. And of course that is something that should concern us all because we do not want technology to be a divider. And we would like to see the capacity of the lower income countries in particular raised in this area. But maybe if I may once like Kavya to that, you're right in terms of share, but since the world total is growing and in particular since you see very fast growth in high income countries and especially China, which is a middle income country, that also means you do see growth in low and middle income countries. If the share is stagnant, that doesn't mean that filing volumes are necessarily stagnant. You spoke about how you are far ahead of the general macroeconomic trends. Did you learn any research on how this general macroeconomic lag behind the awfulness in trends available? Is this because the filing of the stagnant massive countries, China and India, are so new? Yes, so what I am not sure I completely understand your question, but my point would be, we are dealing with numbers here in fairly generalised form, but what is striking is that you have a performance in respect of intellectual property activity that is not similar to the general outlook for the global economy or the general performance of the global economy. Now, of course, to say more, you have to break it down and look at specific regions, even specific technologies. And as Carsten has already mentioned, we do have one major driver in this. It's not alone, but one very major driver, which is China, which does raise the volumes very significantly because the numbers are quite exceptional. But going more into detail, I don't know whether you have any comments. It's a complex question, I think, that you ask, Carsten. Maybe the one observation I would make is that if you think of what is behind intellectual property filings, it's mostly companies' investments in intangible assets, whether it's technology, whether it's design, whether it's branding and reputation. And we certainly do know from studies that have been conducted that intangible asset investments are growing faster than the more traditional bricks and mortar tangible asset investments. Now, there is, of course, no one-to-one correlation between investment and overall rates of economic growth, but I think it is fair to say that, yes, since the financial crisis, we have seen much weaker overall economic growth, but at least as far as the intangible side of the economy goes, companies still continue to invest significant resources in it, and that is reflected in our intellectual property filings. Struggling to the cost. Do you think that this, and of course, before it was your responsibility, but do you think it might reflect the fact that technology transfer and help towards those countries to boost their technology possibility? Is a reflection of this that it's just not really working? Look, I would be a little wary of drawing too many conclusions from a general statistic, but one of the things that I think you can say is that what we are also seeing, in addition to what Carston has already pointed to in respect of intangible assets, but what we are also seeing is that increasingly competition is conducted on the base of intellectual property assets, and that means that, of course, the competition is extremely fierce in this area. Most countries, and certainly most leading economies, have innovation as a central plank of their economic strategy, and so that's where we see the competitive stakes played out. Now, in that context, of course, keeping up with that for anyone is a difficult matter. Can I just ask you if the things you can ask is that the applications, and the patents granted afterwards, is the rate stable, or is it not just a phenomenon that there's more applications but the ones that are accepting at the end are the same as 10 years ago? No. I think there is a correlation of grants growing. Exactly the correlation, I can't tell you, whether it's exactly the same number of two-thirds granted of the applications as it was 10 years ago, but yes, grants are growing at the same time. Simon? On China, we see that there is a lot of international demand, but relatively less international demand. How can you explain this? I think that it is part of the evolution of the nature of the Chinese economy. So, as I said, they are doing innovation, a central point of their economic strategy. They are trying to add value to the production of the journey made in China created in China. Naturally, I think that exports reflect traditional activities. Traditionally, I mean the last 30 years of the Chinese economic activity. We see that there is more externalisation than there was before. I think that I would like to predict that we will continue to have this increase in externalisation of the intellectual production of China. But it is certainly true that, for the moment, it can be compared to national figures. What domain is there more demand for China? Informatic, telecommunications, digital communication. Digital communication and telecommunications. Computer. Informatic. What is for China, I have to break it down, but those are the two problems. Those are the two problems, but what is the right thing I have to go back and check? Informatic. Informatic in general and telecommunications. Telecommunications, especially around the structure, to find out whether it is there. I don't have a lot of information on the top. We can check this. We can check and verify this. Did you think that the good performance of India is for the new IP variation of India? Certainly, I think certainly. The strategy of Made in India, which requires investment, of course, in manufacturing. And the emphasis also that India is placing on innovation, I think, is being reflected in the figures here, an increased IP activity. Can I just go back to the question of the percentage that is usually accepted? We can get it. I'm not sure we can do it worldwide, but we can certainly do it by certain countries. We have to go back on that. The global level for the grant rate, if you look at the figures, is last year 5.2% increase in the number of cases granted. So that's the global level. But in terms of data, by offices, we have to go back on the service. Sorry. So in general speaking, there's around 5% of the patents. Increase in number of applications granted in 2015, compared with number of applications granted in 2014. So it's not a success rate. You have an idea of the general success rate. We can give you that for specific countries. No, no, but I mean, 10%. No, my guess is around about 2 thirds, 70%. Roughly, but that's a... It's not, if I may, entirely straightforward to compute, because any given year patents are granted that relates to filings that could go back 10 years. So one has to be there careful to not compare apples with oranges. And it's also the case that if a patent is not granted, it doesn't necessarily mean that the office rejected it. In quite a few cases, applicants decide to withdraw from the patent application process, mainly because they obtain information on how the market develops and how technology develops, and they may not find a particular patent worthwhile pursuing anymore. So that's why one has to take sort of ground rates with a slight grain of salt. Another reason for withdrawal also is that some companies do what is called defensive publication. So they will put a patent application in, wait for it to be published, and then withdraw it, and the publication prevents anyone else from patenting in that area. So it's a... Could you repeat that, sir? So in some areas, some companies practice what is called defensive publication. So they're not really interested in taking out a patent right, but they are interested in ensuring that nobody else does. So the best way to do that is to make the invention public, and they can do that fairly easily by filing a patent application in, for example, Canada, waiting where it's reasonably low cost, waiting for it to be published, then withdrawing their application, but it has been published, it's in the public domain, nobody else will be able to patent that. So that goes on a bit in the, especially in the area of IT. Thank you. I also see a whole Swiss news agency, so we see that the gap between China and the US is growing. What kind of consequences do you see in the election of Donald Trump? I was wondering how it would come out. I take the responsibility with eventual protectionist measures in the consequences for the dynamic innovation in the US and on the application in France. Okay, so I think the short answer is we don't know. And the President-Elect has not, at this stage, said very much about innovation, but it did feature in one of his pronouncements recently that this would be an emphasis, but otherwise we don't have a policy, a general policy statement, so it's a little difficult to say. Now, in respect of the trade element, what we can say is that the United States remains clearly the biggest filer of applications externally. So they are clearly the leader in filing applications abroad. So this, obviously, is related to trade and investment. So they have important stakes, very important stakes, in intellectual property and trade. So they're at John Booth, Tatey's all-back room in the US. One second, I think Stephanie, and then John. So clearly, with his pronouncements on it, so recently on the Asia-Pacific TPP, certainly that would point to endangering and that's the advantage? Well, I wouldn't say that, but if you wish to, you can. But I wouldn't say that. I don't think you can just immediately draw that conclusion. I think it's early days. What would you say? Well, I think a particular trade agreement is not necessarily going to affect overall investment by United States enterprises overseas. John, on to the latest Stephanie's question. Some very senior advisers to President-elect Trump have mentioned that one of their priorities in the new administration come January 20 will be zero tolerance for infringements of IP. How do you see this playing out in your domain? Well, I think that counterfeiting and piracy are problems in the field of intellectual property. They're complex questions and they require some deeper analysis to, if you take piracy for example, it's very much connected with the increased availability of works on the internet. And we have seen various activity in that regard. For example, I think one could say that one of the things that has happened is that as a consequence of new accessible business models, we see digital sales rising, which is a suggestion or an implication, if you like, that piracy levels have also decreased partly because we have good accessible business models. So you can get, as you know, access to all the world's music essentially for about $10 a month, which is a rather good deal when you compare the amount that you pay for a football ticket, for example. So I think it's a complex phenomena, counterfeiting and piracy, and I think counterfeiting is also related to globalisation and the capacity to break up value chains so that it's more difficult to trace. So it's very, it's difficult to say anything in general. Now, what President-elect Trump has said, it just seems to me not to be in any way different from the policy of the United States in general of emphasising the need to respect intellectual property. I'd like to ask you about South Africa because it's the dominant fighter from Africa, but most of the flight is on non-resilient. Is it possible for me to connect with them? Well, I think that's fairly typical of actually all countries in the world with very, very few exceptions. There are probably two or three exceptions. China is the one where most of the non-resilient are fighting. Right. I think it's like India, Brazil, South Africa. You have big chunks coming from the non-resilient countries. Not only India, Brazil, South Africa, but also Australia, Canada, and I always would be a little bit careful with this comparison because what you are comparing is home production against the rest of the world's production. So very few countries will be able to have a home production which beats the total production, if you like, of all other countries. So it's fairly natural that you get a high level of non-resilient filing since it's the rest of the world. So I think the South African figures are fairly typical in this regard. I couldn't without, we would have to analyse it. So, I mean, do you protect the new product properly? You still have to find it in every country? Well, I think you then get into patenting strategies and generally they will follow the plans of a company as to the markets in which it wishes to operate, first of all, and secondly, the capacity of countries to be able to imitate. But theoretically if you cannot register or protect it in one country, can it be properly there? It can indeed, but the capacity to export from that country is limited by the protection that has been taken elsewhere. So it's not sort of free for all. But there are some fairly major examples. I could give you just an anecdotal example of the Rubik's Cube, which was the subject of some litigation, actually, in the trademark area recently in the European Court. But when Mr Rubik took out patent protection for the Rubik's Cube, his resources didn't permit him to, or his decision at any rate, was to take out protection only in Europe and North America. Now, it became a fantastic hit in Asia, and zillions of Rubik's Cubes were manufactured in Asia and sold in Asia without any patent protection whatsoever, so he was unable to earn anything from that. So it's a rather strategic decision to take. Coming back to what you mentioned about the supply chains, what are the figures showing in tracing technologies? Are you getting a lot of patents filed in this area where the technology is embedded in the product and it's traced right across the supply chain all the way to the retailer? Well, Carsten and colleagues are hard at work on this, so... In fact, our next world intellectual property report, which we aim to publish in 2015, will be on the topic of global value chains and intangible assets, so we hope to shed some light on it. I mean, what I can definitely tell you, I mean, and I don't think that there is much rocket science behind it. You look at the products that are traded in international supply chain, and you look at the companies who do the R&D behind it, who are the ones who retail these products around the world. I mean, clearly there's a lot of IP involved. I mean, just think of, you know, think of smartphones, think of tablet computers, you know, their large number of patent rights, design rights filed on these types of products, and clearly, you know, these are products where you have highly fragmented value added chains involving lots of countries. But it's precisely an interesting question, and you know, that's where we are trying to have a closer look. You know, where precisely do those companies file their patents, and what is the role of patents in managing technology within these value added chains? Clearly confidentiality, contractual type of arrangements will also play a role, but we don't yet have a good answer to that. No, my question was, are you seeing an increased trend in the filings of such tracing technologies? Some are very sophisticated, where the potential infringer wouldn't even be aware that the technology is in the product that he's trying to infringe in. We couldn't answer that without doing a patent landscape. I mean, it's possible to do it, but we don't have the answer to stop that. It's a time of playing in the internet as well. Can you explain a bit about Japan? I understood in terms of patent applications, the only country among the five that has been declined last year. Is it the first year that Japan is declining? No, it's a recent trend in the number of domestic applications that is filed in Japan that has been declining slightly. But at the same time, we've seen that as a general trend, the number of international applications filed by Japan has been increasing. So it reflects a change of patenting behaviour, you see. So Japanese enterprises, their share of international patent applications has been rising quite a healthy manner, and their numbers of international patent applications have been rising. But the number that they're filing internally is smaller overall, and it is a change that Japanese enterprises will talk about of behaviour of focusing on key technologies, perhaps not patenting around them as much as they once did. And that, in turn, as a guess or a supposition, you could also say that perhaps that also reflects over time the higher value or the more basic nature of the inventions that are coming out of Japanese industry. So they're less incremental and more basic. But that's a fairly big statement that I'm making, but I think that a lot of people would say that this is one of the things that's happening. Is there, does it also reflect the fact that the domestic market is shrinking somehow? Because I know that Panasonic and Toyota are filing a lot of applications, more and more abroad, as you said. I couldn't comment on that. I don't think that's the case, but I think it's more related to what I said than the way in which they're strategising for their filing. Any more questions? Thank you very much. I think for the last few years you said you were going to do an exercise to collect data on the potential cash flow of all these inventions, in other words, the Royal Trans-Lean to Patterns and Trademark. What happened to that research? Well, I don't think that's entirely correct. You always asked us to do that. I don't think we have ever committed to doing that. Listen, we would like to if we could. It's just very difficult, if not impossible. The problem is that any type of licensing arrangements are usually concluded between private parties. There is no official measurement of these. There is no reporting requirement. So there is no obvious data source that you can turn to address this. At the international level. Well, there is internationally you would find some data on royalties and license fees in the balance of payments. That is data that we've talked about in our past reports. You get some interesting information out of that. One should also be extremely cautious in using those data, mainly because they often relate to intra-company payments of royalties and license fees that have to do with profit shifting. Again, I might refer you to next year's World IP report where we try to document that and provide a little bit of background analysis on that. But no, listen, I think it's a topic where many of my colleagues also in intellectual property offices around the world struggle with. I think from the viewpoint of those who analyze the intellectual property system, it would be great to have much greater information on what happens to patents after they are granted. I think the director general has also pointed that out on occasions. In practice it's just very difficult to do. There have been a number of attempts to do this through surveys and they have largely failed because companies have not responded simply because they consider that confidential information. So that remains a highly challenging area of measurement. That's for private companies, not private listed. They would have to show the cash flow from that segment. That is correct. You would find some data in, for example, security and exchange commission filings. But again, that's highly aggregated data for IBM. You would find licensing receipts of I think more than a billion dollars. So it is true for selected companies, you would find that. But even with those kind of data points, it's very hard to establish a systemic picture. Thank you very much and I guess it's happy holidays.