 They can potentially be invalidated or have their claim scope scaled back. We've also introduced something called post-issue peer-to-patent for patents that should have never been issued, where we're utilizing the community through crowd sourcing to identify prior art to potentially limit the effect of litigation on those patents or to submit and request and secure reexaminations which invalidate existing patents that should have never been granted in the first place. And again, the defensive publication program. We license a new company every three days over the last two and a half years of our existence which gives you an indication that companies are really motivated toward recognizing that community is important. And it's typically an equation internally and HP is probably a good example. Cisco is another example. Five years ago, four years ago, when I went to them and talked to them about taking a license, I think their view was, you know, we'll listen, but we're probably not ready yet. And then they came to me last year and they said, it's time. Because what happened inside those companies is the calculus that IBM had performed eight or nine years ago actually was something that these companies went through in the last year, 18 months, which is that Linux is more important than protecting their activities in Linux. And Linux as a community is more important in their activities than in protecting artificially their patent portfolio. And if IBM with their extremely significant and large revenue base from their patent portfolio can get involved in this, I think the thinking is that lots of other companies can do it as well with our smaller portfolios. And as you see, there's a large mix of companies. We have some very large patent holding companies. And then we have what we really focus on, which is small to medium sized enterprises. We've expanded the Linux system definition twice in the last 12 months. We'll do it again next January. The idea is to keep pace with as Linux expands from the server space and back office transaction processing into the environment of mobile, the home, the auto. These are all environments that we will need to expand the definition to encompass and ensure that there's a patent no fly zone across license in those areas so that fewer and fewer patents can serve to create an opportunity for mischief and litigation. In this context, there's a lot of litigation going on. And you probably know that there's a lot by just by reading the newspapers and blogs of all manner. You have suits that have occurred. You have all kinds of companies that are involved on one end or another in suing. I think there's some interesting, if you look at the new Apple product and you take the fervor out of the equation, there are people asking real questions why is Apple so afraid of Google, Android and Samsung? Well, they're afraid largely because they recognize the power of open source and the power of Linux. It's not so much the individual entities. They represent their manifestation of an open source model and what it means in terms of being able to compete and iterate. The ZDNet article is actually interesting because it was written before the new device came out but it's actually the new iOS platform came out. But if you look at most of the reviews, they'll tell you that a lot of the phase shift, kind of discontinuous innovation that we saw in the first couple of generations of modern smartphones actually is not present in the current releases. And it's settled down more into incremental innovation. I think iOS has done an incredible job but it's also important to understand that both Google and Apple purchased open source platforms in order to start their iOS programs and their Android programs. While Google has kept their platform open, iOS has actually closed their platform so it's a proprietary platform now but the creativity and the innovativeness that led to next generation smartphones really came about from open source projects and open source activities that were involved in Linux. So it's important to understand that it's very difficult to do what iOS has done to date and I think they should be given a lot of credit for even keeping up with the numbers that Google has been able to amass around the Android platform and the underlying Linux kernel that it's leveraging. And so the key though for us in trying to provide this guardianship and stewardship of the community and make sure that fear uncertainty and doubt does not manifest itself is that just as Google's maintaining here, the suites are not, these litigations are up way high in the stack. What would exist low in the stack around the kernel, there is no litigation or patents that we see, whether they're in the Apple portfolio, the Microsoft portfolio that truly will have a long term detrimental effect on Linux and the ability to grow the open source platform in this area. I think one thing that we have to be careful of is that we don't allow government to be held hostage by those with the most capital because Microsoft and Apple are two very large companies that have very significant influence in Washington and here and we need to understand and unravel the mess around standards essential patents essentially there's standards based patents and if you rob open, if you rob mobile companies of the ability to utilize their patents to be able to defend themselves against far less significant and serious patent claims related to touch and gesture as the example of the Samsung litigation, we're then putting ourselves in a position where we're providing an imbalance by allowing companies to secure injunctions on relatively minor applications when the ability to communicate is really central to the effectiveness of a device. We also have a world where we have lots of companies that have models that support kind of indirect threats to Linux. Those indirect threats can come from and open source, can come from trolls. There's billions of dollars have been allocated by a variety of companies to support the notion of acquiring patents for the sole exclusive purposes of generating return. They're agnostic to Linux but some of those entities actually can be utilized by Linux, some small medium-sized enterprises. Dating back to SCO, these entities have been utilized and now we have Cisvell and a number of other trolls that are active in the marketplace that are actually litigating on utilizing third company patents to be able to carry forward a strategic agenda. So we have to, I think, take care that we don't damage the ability of Linux to have a significant effect and of open source as a modality for invention to have the significant effect it can. And I think in this community there's this wonderful capacity for self-organization and self-regulation. We're getting better at self-regulation but companies are also starting to understand that when they participate in an open source community they have an obligation to conform themselves to the behaviors of the community. That there are certain hygiene factors that need to be maintained and certain companies I think are starting to understand that, starting to understand what it means to participate in a community because it's very different than when we had purely siloed organizations. And I think my final point is that I'd like us to have companies across the board start to think less about total cost of ownership and taxing other companies and making choice a default to a less provocative and a less influential and beneficial platform but rather have companies talk about out-innovating each other and participating in the global rugby scrum that is open source. So thank you very much. So thank you very much, Keith. And that big picture of how IPR management around open source is a key example of open innovation I think is illustrative of the fact that money is chasing this paradigm at high speed. Now let's bring it down a little bit to something that's very hot as a topic. Mark is going to speak about cloud and innovation. I think we can all agree that cloud is one of the number one things on our agendas these days. Mark, I believe you have a couple of slides for us. Excellent. Okay, well, you have the stage, cloud and innovation. Or you will have the stage in a moment. Good morning, everyone. I'm Mark Bohannon. I'm Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Global Public Policy at Red Hat. When I asked Graham, what do you want me to talk about at the OFE summit? He said, why don't you talk about cloud and innovation? And after a moment of chuckling to myself, yes, I have 15 minutes to talk about this topic and tomorrow I will give you a history of modern US history in 15 minutes also. I thought to myself, there's no better way to think about a subject unless you have a limited amount of time. So Shane, I will do my best to stay in 15 minutes, but please let me know if we are going over too much. There's one central message I want to leave with you today. I said we live in an open source world. You know, if I'd heard Carlo Piano or Simon Fipps say that, that would have been a normal part of any conversation in any day. But this was actually a quote by someone introducing in East Chopra the former CTO of the US government as he was leaving and giving a scorecard report on their efforts to use open source and cloud to change the way in which the US government was moving from a top-down model of innovation for its own use to a bottom-up model. I think it's a lesson for all of us because if you have an organization like the US government which has spent decades spending billions of dollars engaging in traditional IT procurement approaches to hear someone at that level say that we have changed the way in which we are doing business, we're going to move from being a regulator to a convener in this area. That our goal is not to merely get data out there but to provide it in a usable manner that individuals and enterprises can use. That we're not going to just look at things to the eye of being a procurer, that we're going to be a collaborator. We're going to use rewards to try to achieve our goals. It's quite a remarkable statement. And I think it's a reality that for all the challenges that I know we have and will discuss today, whether it be in the area of competition law, making sure we have an open standards approach, whether we have IT procurement reform, it's important to remember that the wind is behind our back and that we do live in an open source world and that those changes are here to stay. Cloud and open source I think are revolutionizing the way that we engage in innovation. And I really appreciated the themes from Graham's first panel, where we began to touch, I think, on some of those. And certainly I don't have time today to go into all details, but the work of Professor Cheeseborough, the work of the Kauffman Foundation has taught us that we're moving from a very traditional top-down model of innovation to a collaborative bottom-up model where open source and cloud are key components of doing all of those. In the traditional model, research and development was done in a physical lab. My mentor, Mary Lowgood, a former chairman of the National Science Board, professor at Tulane, senior vice president at Allied Chemical, used to talk about innovation being a body contact sport. In the old days, that sport occurred in a lab behind closed doors. Today, that body contact sport occurs in an internet-powered world, often using the best of cloud platforms and infrastructure to get the best from anywhere around the world. Because we recognize that no longer, if you're gonna succeed, you're not gonna win if you think you own all the ideas. You've gotta recognize that the ideas can come from anywhere around the world. I think Tim O'Reilly put it best a couple of years ago, and there's a quote he uses that our CEO, Jim Whitehurst, likes to use, which is the challenge is not today to hire always the most gifted or have the best equipped labs. It's about developing the most compelling architecture of participation. That's, I think, at the heart of cloud open source and innovation, and the point that I wanna reinforce with you today. In the old days,