 I wanted to talk a little bit about how things are evolving in the threat landscape. But we know that Microsoft four and a half years ago joined OIN, also purchased GitHub, and the model ethic threat that did exist is now different. Now they become the prodigal. They are friendly to a fault, supportive. In fact, I probably spent more time during COVID with Microsoft than anyone else, and including family, I would say. And so it's a strange turn of events, but I'm incredibly welcoming of the relationship and of the partnership that we forged, and there's more to do. And I know that Microsoft will be there supportive of doing more with us. And so it's a comforting thing. And I think there are many companies in this community that are, I tell Jim this all the time, Jim Zemlin, but there's lots of people here that have been around for a long time doing things and working in open source. But the level of energy that we see from certain companies that are newer, like Microsoft and Huawei, as a couple that people might be surprised by that don't follow this carefully in terms of the number of contributions back, the activity level, the number of projects participated, and are really quite encouraging to see their participation, their energy, their enthusiasm, the quality of people they connect with the open source projects in which they participate, whether it be projects here, Finlay LF, or Malinkovitch's projects, or others that are out there. So we are a service organization. We don't have any funding model other than equity. And we don't really get much equity investment. We've had six original investors, IBM, Red Hat, Novell at the time, which was Suse, Sony, NEC, and Philips. And we've had Toyota and Google join in the last six years, seven years. And they contribute $20 million each. We've never charged for anything else that we've ever done. We work behind the scenes a lot to deal with situations. I'll talk about some of the situations that we've dealt with most recently. And I'll call it the elephant in the room, as there are lots of companies that are really committed to open source and do so in a wonderful way. Understand the notion of obligation and opportunity and how they go hand in hand. I think there's a social component. It is a social movement. In fact, it just happens to reduce technology. But the idea of collaborative development is so important and fundamental that it's what I think about. It's my swing thought, if I can say it that way, every day. I'm looking to have a profound positive impact on people's ability to make good choices. To choose whatever solution they want, to work on whatever project they want, to allocate resources in whatever way they choose to be able to support new novelty that we can all benefit from. And I'm the closest thing to a guardian angel that the community has. And I love that role because that's what I did when I was in government. I worked for the State Department for 14 years until the wall came down, which was my swing thought then. It's seeing the people of Eastern Europe and Central Europe free to make their own choices about governance. And this is the capstone in my career. That was the first 14 years. This is the last 15, 16 years. And this is something that I love to do. And I love to support organizations like the LF because very much I live in the slipstream of what they do. They put up projects. In the beginning, it was Linux. And it was half a dozen other projects. And that was 17 years ago. I had a series of conversations with Jim. And he was telling me about what his vision was. And we had probably 31 licensees, the first two and a half or three years of our existence, six of those being the original funding members. And so this wasn't looking like a grand slam. It was looking like maybe this wasn't such a good idea. So I was brought in to determine over a three-year period whether this would be relevant and important to the community or whether this would just be an experiment that didn't really pan out. And so now we have 3,800 members. It's the largest patent cross-license in the history of technology. And in no small measure, it's because Jim had the ambition to enable professional management, both on the finance side as well as the operational side, to nurture open source growth and to do it under permissive licenses, which meant that the GPLv3 wouldn't be used on any of these new projects that came about on his watch. And so GPLv3 is the only license that actually has really strong patent provisions. But they were too strong for most of the large patent holding companies. And so it was almost universally rejected. And so by using permissive licenses, which have notoriously weak patent provisions and protections, it created an opportunity for OIN's relevance to occur. And so by living in the slipstream, a project is launched, technology is produced, code is released, what's core, what's the fundamental that people need to use and need freedom of action and freedom to operate around and want to be able to adopt without fear of litigation. That's what we include in the cross-license. And the idea was that it's universal reciprocity. I'll talk about this concept because it's very important to me and it's under a little bit of threat right now because of the actions of what I'll call the inauthentic. I won't name those companies, but they're not part of our community. And they're large companies that have very strong histories of monetization that, for those of you who don't know how the patent system works, most of the patents are written down to zero so that they don't go against your budget to some degree in terms of they have operating management costs, ongoing fees for renewal or for sustainability. But generally, they're written down so that if you monetize a patent, it's liquid EBITDA. It's like mercury. It just slides around and then drops to the bottom line. And there's nothing better because you're not putting a lot of people on it. You've got some people at work in the IP department doing monetization. And this is why pools are so important to some of these companies, particularly the companies in the telecom space that have MPEG LA in all manner of pooling SIST situations that have allowed them to generate revenue, which I don't have any particular problem with. What I have a problem with is when those companies, as part of their agenda, to slow or stall the progress of Linux or manage open source in a way that isn't always productive and constructive for innovation, that's a problem. And when I see these companies pretending to be good citizens of open source, I just wonder how many people actually are taken in by them and why people continue to work for them. One of the things that Microsoft talked about was OIN being a litmus test for authenticity to allow them to hire better people. I think a quote from someone who's famous in the community to me once was that there are 35 million coders in the world. There are 3,000 that matter. Get some of those 3,000 to support your projects. I already did the Microsoft comments, Dave, so it's over. And anyway, it's an interesting world, but our problems are shifting and morphing a bit, and I'll talk about how they're changing. And so I borrowed some slides from the LFs, and so I'm speaking at an LF event. This is one that Mike Dolan shows and some of the other team members. This is no surprise to anyone. It's happening, and it continues to happen, and there's so many industries that we have to chase because open source is expanding so dramatically in terms of adoption. I can remember conversations with the auto companies 10, 12 years ago, and it was like, yeah, we're not so interested, we don't use open source. I've heard this from literally thousands. I've met with over 4,400 IP directors and organizations around the world, and there are a lot more to go. These are the gatekeepers, the people who make the decisions around what can be done with the patent portfolio, and very important in determining whether to participate in OIN and make their patents subject to the cross license obligations. And so OIN brings me to CTOs, to deputy CTOs, to heads of software, increasingly heads of hardware as we think about the innovation and innovations in hardware that are emerging because of the advent of open source and its importance in the hardware space. And so we look at where projects are going, projects that are producing significant amounts of code, not all LF projects, by the way, there are thousands of projects that we ultimately support, and hundreds that have significant amounts of code that are part of our cross license obligations zone. And so everybody understands that open source is blowing up, it continues to blow up. Software is increasingly important. Hardware, again, is becoming increasingly important and influenced by an open source model. OIN, as I was describing earlier, was formed by these original six companies, and then Toyota and Google came along, and we don't have any funding model. The license is free, whether you're a company that owns 60 or 80,000 patents, like Microsoft or like Canon in the latter case of 80,000, one of the largest patent holding companies in the world. And there are just millions of patents that are encumbered as part of the OIN license. Now, there's a difference between the word encumber and actually licensed. There are six, whatever it was, 62,000 patents when Microsoft signed the OIN license. They're probably like 55,000 now, I would think the number's probably coming down. And those were all encumbered, but only based on the cross license actually is driven by the zone, what we call the Linux system definition, which is the functionality that comes from core technology, core code that's released by major projects and minor projects. And there's a list of Linux system packages on our website. Every patent we own, we used to own a lot of patents, patents that read on Microsoft that we could forward deploy to companies at risk or in litigation. We used to attack a lot of poor quality applications. Many of those were Microsoft applications. Under the American Vents Act, there are all kinds of things we did and our world was focused so much on one little part of the world in the Pacific Northwest. And I remember the first time that I suggested that I could go and visit Microsoft, my board members from IBM were like, are you kidding? Why would you go visit them? I said, because you kind of start with a détente and then you move in the direction of finding things that you actually agree on. And there are more things that we agreed on than most people would have perceived, but it's just an evolution for any company. And it's just one that was particularly important for me because it was one of the goals was to reduce the noise in the system, the fud that was out there and also reduce the real risks that are represented by the ownership of patents in the hands of companies that were antagonistic to the growth of open source at one point in their history. And everybody kind of at some point recognized the inevitability of open source, the value of it to them and their interdependencies, which is really where we are now. We're in a situation where the threat from operating companies is in decline. A lot of operating company patents have been sold off into the secondary market and patent assertion entities are more concerning now to me than operating companies. I mean, there are operating companies that are concerning, but for different reasons, and I'll go through some of those. Anyway, OIN has spent $100 million on patents. We will do whatever is necessary. And our capital is, we still have, I think, 27, $28 million in capital. And so we're a skirmisher. We don't take attacks lying down. If there's a situation that requires attention and action, we are more than likely I'll hop on a plane and I'll deal with it face to face with people because I'm, as I said, this is a, it's a mission for me. It's not a, it's a calling. It's not about a job where I punch a clock either in my mind or actually, it's a job that never ends. And I'm always available to people who have challenges that they're facing. And no matter when it is and what it is, we like to solve problems and we work very closely with the community, with the LF, the legal group, with Dolan. There's not a week that goes by that I don't talk to Dolan. There's probably not a week that goes by I don't talk to Jim as well. And all kinds of other projects that we're closely connected with, project management organizations, the technical leads for a variety of projects are the source of new content to expand the scope of our cross license. There's never been a license like this in the history of licensing, of patenting. You'll never find a situation where a patent licensor has the ability to unilaterally expand the scope of the license without approval of the licensee and not have people kind of running for the hills and trying to abandon their obligations. But we have sustained this licensing community and grown it because people trust that we will be a caretaker of their interests by expanding not into the appropriately proprietary technologies that they covet and which drive their, in some cases, their differentiation in the market, but rather we will expand it to include that which is absolutely essential that they rely on and they need to build on top of in order to be able to grow their differentiation and building up from their open source platforms and distributions. And so we have 3,300 packages will probably be close to 4,000 packages by the end of the year. We have, this is the 12th update of the Linux system definition that we've undertaken in my 15 and a half years at OIN. So we're very active in trying to keep up with the pace of technology. That initial curve is something that we think about all the time. Where is the new growth occurring? What technologies are being developed? What code is absolutely critical or core? The OpenStack was a project that we supported and we still support and they did a great thing for us by determining, designating what's core, what's developmental, what's incubated. We wish more projects would do that, but I think it's actually something that's easily discernible. If you actually have a good dialogue with the technical leads or the project heads because many project heads are very technical, like an AGL or other projects that I see here where we have very close relationships. And so we're 3,800 plus and growing. We are very proud of the fact that we have a good distribution around the world. This is not a US activity. This is a global activity. And when I first came in, I think we had 6% of OIN licensees were in Asia Pacific. And I have spent thousands and thousands of miles of travel going to China, going to kind of be there in the last seven years for their incredible rapid growth of adoption of open source and participation in projects here at the LF and elsewhere. They have very, very close relationships with many of the companies in Asia Pacific. And clearly we've been working not only in greater China, but also with Japan and Korea where we have many licensees. South and Central America, we've worked with all manner of companies there to ensure that we're not just North American focused and Europe and Middle East and Africa. I mean, I talked to the people in the European Commission about this all the time, that you have lots of sources of innovation there, even though they like to claim that the US is eating a lot of food the US is eating their lunch. The reality is that you just don't have the large companies but you have many, many, many developers, the air coders and very sophisticated business models that just don't happen to ring the bell in the way that some of the ambition-based companies. And I'm adding Microsoft to the list of ambition-based companies now because I see there are gonna be a power distributor, which is really interesting to me, but that's a good sign because in a Baidu, Ali and Tencent and Google and Metta and Amazon are companies that I look at and say they'll disintermediate anybody. They don't care what people would consider to be their core business, they're gonna regrow a business and utilize technology, largely open source technology to become something else and to participate in a way that the incumbents are not prepared to do, to be able to create interesting market share and profitability. This is just an example of the kinds of companies, again, with 3,800 companies, it would be an eye chart, but just to give you a sense of the diversity of companies, we have pretty much of the 26 car and truck companies in China, I think we have 19 of them, and we have pretty much every major auto company in the world. We're now spending a lot of time on trucking companies and more broadly transportation companies that are increasingly adopting open source. And so in a year or so, you'll see five or six or 10 or 12 companies from that space and then we'll grow that to the 44 of the major trucking companies that exist around the world and have those all part of our community as well. The hardware is an area that's very important to me and it's something that I'll talk a little bit about later, but we're focused on understanding hardware company needs and looking at the future because of open source programs and projects like Risk 5. We have embedded companies, fintech companies, all manner of banks, most of the money center banks in the world and many of the super regionals in North America and increasingly banks and regional banks and national banks in Europe as well. We have some in Japan. Industrials, when I first met with I think Kamatsu, I was really taken seven or so years ago when they described their plan for how software was gonna change their business. Caterpillar is much the same roadmap if you look at them and then energy is a big thing for us. If I look at the three or four industries that we'll be growing in the next five years, energy will be definitely one of them along with expanding the industrial sector, precision manufacturing and it's an LF slide but it's basically just shows you what we see when we see what the LF's doing, we're looking at these various spaces and thinking these are areas as they grow up and mature as they get to three, four, five years in from project launch, we start to look at what we can do and what technology is coming out, what code has been dropped in the various projects and we look at supporting the code and supporting the people that are utilizing the code, the companies that are utilizing the code to ensure that there's a patent no fly zone around each of these sectors. And this is, I think this is an important slide because it's truly about impact. It's managing projects is one thing but the LF takes it to the next level and wants to be accountable to the organizations that have, you know, like Toyota, without Toyota Automotive Grade Linux would never exist and there I feel a burden to Toyota because they're one of my members and they invested in OIN but I also feel it to them as a member, as the founding member of Automotive Grade Linux to make sure that every company that participates in Automotive Grade Linux is part of the OIN community so that their investment is supported by patent protection as well. And it really is like that with every significant project that we deal with and the original investors in those projects, making sure that their investment is preserved by the effort we put in to ensure there's again this patent no fly zone by including core technology that comes out of the project and continuing to layer on additional technology that is fundamental to the adopters of the project and those who utilize the technology. And at the bottom, you know, the risk five as I mentioned before, I think we see the potential for incredible growth. When I was at Motorola in the 90s, we invested in a company called TransMeta which we believed at that time was going to be the answer to the idea of hardware software co-design and simulation and breaking the kind of anti-innovation agenda that we see in the Silicon and the idea that we all have to build around generic Silicon rather than being able to have short run production that's high yield that allows us to customize to our needs. I tell auto companies now that if they're not, you know, active doing this already that they will be taping out their own chips in five years. And I think Toyota to their credit is already working and has a relationship with one of their traditional suppliers to actually work on their behalf as a research and development, externalized research and development arm to be able to support their utilization of renaissance to be able to tape out their chips through renaissance. And I think that's a trend that I expect that we'll be seeing over and over again. Yeah, I mean, the LF does what it does, manages projects professionally, brings up new projects all the time. I think the pace of growth is quite amazing. And then we're basically living in the slipstream. They're enabling ubiquity of open source and we're then ensuring freedom of action so that people don't feel uncomfortable in the way that they did when OIN was in 07 and 08. It was not a given that large companies were interested in adopting open source in a significant way. The, I wanna talk about how threat is changing. And so we're beyond the era of monolithic threat. There aren't a lot of operating companies that don't get how open source is beneficial to them and important to them. And as a result, it creates a disincentive to bad behavior. That's not true for all companies. Their patent assertion entities don't have a business model other than to monetize. And so they acquire patents and then they sue or they threaten to sue. And their whole goal is to extract revenue on behalf of the, from the assets that they've acquired. Rarely do they develop the patents. What they do is they monetize. And then what I'll call the rise of the inauthentic. This is what I described before for those of you who weren't here at the beginning is that their patent monetizers and monetization is not something I have a great problem with because we have some of the most significant monetizers in the history of technology that are part of the OIN community and have signed onto the obligation of the cross license. The problem I have, I mean, you look at AT&T the most significant cross slice, the most significant monetizer in the carrier space. By, I mean, other companies are just give up the ghost. AT&T is the only company that does it well in that space and has significant revenue. The others are mainly wasting the time of their senior leadership, thinking that there's some one day gonna hit it rich and generate billions of dollars in revenue. And then IBM, Sony, Phillips, these are, that's four of the most significant monetizers in history for the top 10. And Microsoft played with monetization for a while and then realized it was not interesting, not relevant and not worth the damage that they caused in the marketplace. Even Google had a monetization unit that they'd brought over from Motorola that was doing monetization for three or four years. And ultimately they decided that was clearly not something it was consistent with how they wanted to utilize patents and they moved out of that. But there are companies that are monetizers that recognize the importance of open source to some degree, but not sufficiently to be able to overcome the crack cocaine effect that monetization really generates. Because it is all pure EBITDA, it is so powerful, so important at the end of a quarter when you haven't had a great quarter, even if you've had a decent quarter and you wanna make it better, you wanna feel something richer, it's like flowing through your veins, something that's just so pure that you're like, wow, this is special. And it's hard to wean yourself from that. It is highly addictive. And as a result, we have a number of companies that are in the community that are always involved and they have lots of capital that they put out to stay involved in the community, community, they're on boards, they may even be on the LF board. And the thing is that there's civil wars are raging inside these companies where the tech people get it and want to be good citizens of the community. And for the most part, the tech side is, but then they've got other countervailing interests around monetization because for the most part, they live on the wrong side of history. They're in a challenged position because their core business has changed and open source is probably changing it not for the good, unless they recognize what they need to do. I mean, you look at the efforts of Intel to who would have thought they would have a TSMC like Foundry business that they would spin up and that takes a lot of awareness to recognize how important the growth of risk five is and how open source hardware can really have a significant effect on their core business going forward. So I applaud them for that and it'll be interesting to see what happens. But in TSMC, after all these years is actually really well positioned to get a lot of not only Chinese industrial business, but get a lot of opportunities from Western companies as well that want to have their chips produced by them. And so it's a really challenging environment when you're facing potential disintermediation by technology that's very different than what you grew up with. I think telecommunications equipment suppliers, they were originally, we used to talk about it as the seven central office switch makers. Well, that number is different now too maybe. And companies that used to be in that business that are surviving like NEC are surviving because they recognized that they had to move on because it's not gonna be there, it's not something they could harvest even with no matter what the country does, your country does to preserve opportunities for you, you just can't survive in that business when it's increasingly software centric and you have a hardware mindset. And so you have these companies that are involved in trying to be authentic in some part but then ultimately being inauthentic because they are involved in manipulating circumstances. They will work on IP policies and projects and gather votes so that they cripple the people who are trying to create an IP policy that's actually productive and constructive. So they create this neutralization effect and also in the process, retard innovation. And so that's something that's the elephant in the room to me and not talked about a lot, but they're, again, why people to continue to work at these companies when there's incredible demand. I can see it in Sweden or in Finland where you don't have as much mobility of people and you want to continue to live in an environment that is where your grandparents lived and your great grandparents and where your family is. Americans live with this rootlessness and so it's like the rest of our prehistory didn't exist. One of the things that we're doing is and we've done with Microsoft is organize a community based solution where we brought together Microsoft and IBM and a bit of poetic justice as well as Linux Foundation which is actually putting real money into this and us to found and fund the open source zone which is a way of attacking poor quality, already granted patents to ensure that they are neutralized by being invalidated. And this process is managed for us by Unified Patents which is the largest entity in the world that does inter-parte reviews and ex-parte reviews to attack poor quality patents and neutralize their potentially negative effects. There are other organizations, RPX, LotNet and AST that periodically will work with to support open source goals and freedom but Unified is a major partner now and literally hundreds of patent families have been invalidated of patents that are relevant to open source and we'll continue to do this, work with them. This is a little background on the patent troll issue. So 88% of all high tech litigation is actually promulgated by trolls utilizing patents that were largely developed by operating companies. The system, the feedstock comes from operating companies. The longer, the more operating companies we bring into OIN though, the more of those patents will be powerless against the people in our community because they will be conveyed but they'll be conveyed with an encumbrance of the OIN license as we get more and more operating companies to sign. And there are many thousands of patents that are owned by trolls now that can't be used against people in our community. This is getting it to something relevant. It's not just what is the big picture but what's happening with litigation and the 2022 numbers are about right. 2023 was very much on target with that. So we didn't see incredible growth but between, if you look at 2018 till now there's a very decided trend toward an uptick in litigation against utilizing open source related patents. And this is just an example of some of the companies. These are not entities you will likely have heard of but some of these are well-funded. Some of them are just nuisance players that want to collect $20,000 or $30,000 every time they sue someone and they are serial litigants like Rothschild is on this list. And I just want to say Eclipse has nothing to do with Mike Malinkovich. That's, they just happened to use that name but it is not at all related to the Eclipse Foundation. But there are another 100 like that that have patents that relate to open source. They may not have thousands of patents or hundreds of patents but there are patents out there that relate to open source that large companies, operating companies realize they could never use but nonetheless they sold off. And as I said, many of those patents if you're attacked by, you're litigated against for patent infringement, you should come to us to understand whether those patents actually might be ones that are covered under a cross license. And this is an example of some of the projects that this partnership that we have with Unified, some of the projects that have been benefited and where patents that read on code that's been released by these projects was involved. What I also want to talk about is the second part of the rise of the inauthentic and I use a specific example that I'll notionalize a little bit. But OAN's model relies on something called universal reciprocity and it's sacrosanct to me. And so even though it's probably an unintended consequence of some of these of the inauthentic in their attempts to prevent universal reciprocity from applying as part of an IP policy of individual projects, essentially you are conveying what you have and you're receiving what other people have and you're agreeing that you won't sue each other on functionality that's included in what's called the Linux system definition which is the cross license zone. So any patents you have that read on that code and the functionality that's captured in the code you can't use, we're neutralizing those patents so everybody benefits as part of the community. And so the Alliance for Open Media has and many, many other companies because of OAN utilizing universal reciprocity and it being declared in 2011 at the time of the CPTN transaction which was a sale of patents by SUSE. We were declared to be pro-competitive platform and to have the right to license all the patents from CPTN out into the future which is very interesting reading of how broad-based OAN's capacity for licensing even after patents have been sold by a licensee which SUSE was at the time and still is. And so this notion of universal reciprocity used by the Alliance for Open Media to support this basic notion that we have opportunities that are unrivaled to be able to capture co-developed technology where lots of smart people are coming together to create, to break down the traditional model of silo development to now have smart people from all over the world being able to participate in open source development through collaborative activities. And so we have all of that happening and we have this obligation. We tend to forget about this but for me it's very important. Accountability is incredibly important. We have opportunity and we have obligation and the obligation is we need to be in compliance. We need to have governance programs in place. We need to respect inventorship and understand what the copyright obligations are and OIN has developed really a set of norms or a code of conduct as to what's acceptable in how we use patents in an increasingly open source centric world. And we have 3,800 plus companies will have 5,000 I would expect by the end of 2025 because of the rate of growth of open source and us living in that slipstream of growth. And so the notion that if you wanna be able to use this is in AOM for AV1 which is the free codec. If you wanna use the free codec you have to license the patents you have to whomever else is utilizing that codec and they have to do the same to you. So it takes a page out of the OIN model and I think it's a very good thing to emulate and it's a good obligation because what it does is then require that it tamps down the possibility of litigation. It prevents us from having to deal with someone that's attempting to come to us with a pool and say oh well you're gonna have to pay and there's a pool that an entity called CISVEL has that it hasn't done any licensing but they've collected patents and obligations for patents from probably eight to 10 companies that have codec patents that are looking to be able to monetize when this project, it's not that AV1 has massive market share but it is having a significant effect nonetheless. Charles River did a study which shows that it's had a 45% downward effect on pricing for all the other proprietary codecs which is quite significant even though they have as I said a relatively small percentage of market share. And these companies that are working behind the scenes to try and get the competition authorities in Europe to misunderstand how OIN model works and what universal reciprocity is and thereby misunderstand and misconstrue the goals and effect of the policy that is as administrated by the Alliance for Open Media. They're claiming that it's inherently anti competitive to require someone to convey their patent license if they're to everyone else in the community if company is utilizing that product and that technology and they're claiming that the requiring of the conveyance of patents as a quid pro quo for adoption is antagonistic to innovation because patents equal innovation which is an absolutely ridiculous and preposterous view that is held by many, many people. In fact, I was just with DG Grow which does all of the normalization of policy across the European Union. They face this every day with their constituents who just don't understand that patents are not the equivalent of innovation. There are some patents that can be highly innovative, some patent families that can be highly innovative but the reality is that they're giving short shrift to what's going on in this world by not understanding not doing the hard work of understanding that innovation is happening and has broken out in the software world in a way that just doing an analysis of how many patents a country has or how many patents a company has is relevant to correlate to their innovativeness. You see studies like this all the time. To their credit, the Linux Foundation has retained an analyst group to be able to do a study to help refute this view because it's really hurting us in so many different ways and it's something that if you look at IBM. IBM, this is the first year where they gave up the ghost and said, look, it's not about numerosity, it's about quality. We have to put better quality, have better quality patents and that's what our investors should be looking at. Not the fact that we're the leading inventor in North America or in the US every year for the past 20 years. And so it's an addiction of a different sort than the one I mentioned earlier to kind of feed the market, to delude the market into thinking, oh yeah, this indicates you're innovative. They know it's something else. They've known it for a long time. There's lots of really smart people at IBM and they've been trying to carry the burden of kind of educating people around the world of how important quality is while at the same time trying to meet these numerical targets. Well, they've given up the numerical targets and they're focused on where they should be focused on which is utilizing the capital they allocate toward innovation based on inventions that are captured in patents in the most effective and efficient way possible to be able to grow their business and build technology on those innovations that they're producing. I'd say that universal reciprocity is an attack on OIN, this attack from these companies, but it's also an attack on the core values of the community, the open source community and it really can't be tolerated. And so I have had multiple visits to DG Comp, DG Grow, to Terry Breton's staff in Brussels as well who's the most well-recognized CEO in France probably in the post-war period at tech companies anyway and who's now number two at the European Union and then the Commission. And he's not necessarily one who sees these things because he's managed several companies in France that were massive producers of revenue associated with monetization, specifically Thompson which became Technicolor, but nonetheless he recognizes that this whole notion of patents equaling innovation is there's something wrong with it because there are many, many, many bad patents and many, many poor quality patents that should have never been granted that should not connote innovation. So the bottom line is that unlike traditional patent pools that are built around standards like MPEG LA, used as an example before, what we've shown is that broad-based legal collaboration, universal reciprocity as a model is key to patent risk mitigation and freedom of action and open source and we've really done this to really show that there are acute parallels between what happens in the tech environment with an open source where people are collaborating to compete more effectively and they're collaborating cross-organizatially, cross-functionally. We are collaborating and bringing legal and technical people together to have them recognize that their interests are best served by getting involved in these kinds of partnerships to be able to advance everybody's interests. Also this is a social movement and it's how we create value in the new economy and the opportunity, the democratization of innovation that we're really part of goes hand in hand with the obligation. It's the responsibilities that I described earlier in the particular example that I gave to be a citizen of this community. There are things that are expected of you and it's something that allows, I'd say, underpins what this community is really about and ultimately, if you give companies enough time and they recognize the importance of open source, the only companies that don't sign the OAN license and participate in this social compact that we're all part of are companies that want to reserve the right to sue on core Linux and open source functionality and these are companies that are among the inauthentic and they are antagonistic to all that we're trying to do. These 2,000 people that are out there today roaming around and visiting with each other and the hallway track as well as participating presentations, these people we're all dependent upon on collaboration and we're all dependent upon the set of norms that we've all cut bot into, whether they be legal or social in the case of how we interact with each other and how we share and grow innovation together. So, thanks very much. I'm glad to talk to anybody afterwards but I think we're out of time. Thank you.