 to build up the series of industry studies from Levin, later on, or otherwise, the Silicon Valley Route 120 argument is a lot more about open circulation through not-to-be. I'm just a little curious about a particular someone who's as sensitive as you to the limitations of software madness, not also carrying over the skepticism to the degree to which what is critical is appropriation to an exclusion element as opposed to a full process of intersection. Yeah, go ahead. Very fast. Yeah, yeah. I'm teaching these studies that you mentioned. So it's a, well, first, it's very much that we still are in the IT business and with a lot of software components. They never challenge the quality of these patents, but I agree with you that in some industries, the role of patents can be challenged, and I'm open to that. But I don't agree with the idea that consists in saying, oh, entrepreneurs do not consider that as a key driver of their success or the success of a new venture. You have first mover advantage. And of course, you have other mechanisms, and they are complementary with the patent system. But it's like if you would ask the question to Nike what will be the success factor of its next show on the market. Do you think they will ever mention trademark regulation? No, because they take it as granted. That's exactly my point. One, if you have a good patent system, it will not become the key factor of success and entrepreneurship. It's like you have a road, and you can drive on it. So it's not the key factor, but it's part of the framework condition. In some very specific technologies, we can talk about strategic behavior and how it may hinder innovation. I fully agree with you. But we must think about that carefully. We could continue this debate for a long time. Patent clearly excites people and provokes very different reactions. We're gonna take a break now. We're gonna have a cup of coffee and we'll come back for our next panelists in 15 minutes. Thank you.