 My name is John Benson and you are at bridging the gap between technology and the law. I apologize, used to wandering around and speaking. What we're going to talk about today, we're going to look at some of the fundamental differences between the world of technology and the law and the legal community. We're going to take a look at some of the perceptions and the level of adoption of technology, specifically some security technology within the legal community and within the attorneys. Then we're going to turn to the real meat of the issue and we're going to see how the slow adoption rate and low level of understanding of technology plays out in trials and how it played out in Connecticut with the case of Julia Merrow. First of all, like I said, my name is John Benson. I am an attorney. I am not your attorney. Nothing that I am saying here should be considered as legal advice. Don't rely on anything that I say. I'm also a professor at the Colorado Technical University in North Kansas City there. But enough about me. Let's talk about technology and the law. Now, we have two contrasting worlds here. We have the technological world which becomes more advanced every single day. Everyone is out writing new code, new products are coming out, new exploits are coming out. Changes every day. The community thrives on this growth and its development. Now, let's see how that contrasts with the law. The law on the other hand, things don't change very much. Contrary to popular belief, sweeping changes in the law are extremely rare. The best example of sweeping changes as a result of a judicial decision would be Brown versus Board of Education. Does anybody know what that case involved? Yes, school desegregation. That changed America fundamentally forever. However, that kind of decision that changes things that dramatically very rarely occurs. That was a very special circumstance. The law in general is very slow to react to new facts, new situations. And I have another that hates things that are new and different. The law, it won't like stasis. It likes staying the way it is and moves very slowly and incrementally. So we have two contrasting worlds. So why can't the law be different? It's very frustrating for us all to come to talks involving the law to find out what you all are doing. If it's legal, what the best practices are, and to have just about every attorney that gets up here say two things. First of all, you get the standard attorney answer to everything. It depends. And then you also get the standard answer, at least with law and technology, of we just don't know yet. And it's extremely frustrating. You look at some issues like active defense, which have been topics of conversation for a number of years. And we still really have no idea what is proper, what is improper. So what we have in the United States and Canada and the UK and the Republic of Ireland is the common law system. And within the common law system, there is a concept called stare decisis. And what that gives us is precedent, meaning that the decision of one court will be binding on similar facts in the future. What that means is you can take a look at previous cases, much like all the cases that Robert Clark put up on the screen today. And you can make analogies and see whether your actions are conforming with what the law said there. And that is very reliable. You can rely on that case law. In fact, that's what attorneys do every single day. What this does is it creates stable law. It's very predictable. And it moves forward very slowly. Your facts may be slightly different than the case before it. And if your case goes all the way up through appeal and it is slightly different, then the law will take that into account and make a incremental change. Now, there is a different system out there called the civil law system. And it exists in continental Europe. And it's certainly different. There is no precedent over there. There is no stare decisis. Therefore, theoretically at least, you could have two cases coming before a court with the exact same facts and have the court come down in two different ways. That makes things very unpredictable. It also allows the laws to change and evolve much faster. Decide on your own what you prefer, but personally I prefer a law that I can predict as opposed to something that relies on constant litigation to figure out what you did if that was proper or not. Another thing that is not understood very well in the United States is how laws are actually created. First, you have trials. And trials are not there to produce laws that are going to affect other cases. Trials are there to find facts. And then the judge applies the facts that are found by the jury to the law and you get a result. After that case, in many cases, things are... Well, that's nice. In many cases, the case can be appealed. And it's a very common misconception that if you appeal a case, the appellate court will take a look at the case from scratch and essentially retry the case instead of in front of three judges instead of 12 jurors. That's simply not the case. Once the facts are established, they are established permanently. And the appellate level takes a look at how the trial judge applied the law within that trial and then will rule on whether that was proper or not. And it is the appellate level where the real meat of the law is made. And the ironic thing is that with as many settlements that exist in law today, we still have a number of trials, but probably not enough, especially within this area, because without trials, you don't have appeals. And without appeals, you don't have case law. So it's going to take a long time for us to be able to establish what the guidelines are. But this will improve. Over time, the cases will be developed. And even though you won't find cases on point, you'll be able to figure out kind of a pattern of where the court will rule in any given situation. And although a lot of people think that the law is very confusing, it operates on real common sense. And it doesn't, it judges and the law doesn't look very kindly on getting cute with the law. There's been a lot of discussion recently about using, take the example of getting a cease and desist order or having a lawsuit filed against you for pirating a piece of software. When it comes to mine is this pinball game. And a number of individuals say, well, I didn't do that. Someone else did. They got onto my wireless router. And my wireless router was open to the world, so it could have been anyone. That's not really going to work. Certainly not for this crowd. As Mr. Clark explained earlier today, the people in this room are special and will be viewed differently under the law. And the idea that someone here would leave an open access point is much like the head in the sand defense of saying I took in my car and I let somebody work on it. And then I drove it across the border from Mexico into the United States. And I don't know what's in it, but turns out I've got 50 kilos of cocaine. You're still going to jail too bad. So let's now turn to the way attorneys view technology and how well they've adopted it. Well, who are we talking about when we talk about lawyers and judges? Most attorneys don't have a real deep understanding of technology. Just because of the number of changes and how quickly technology has developed over the past 30 years, the lawyers are spending their time being lawyers and not learning about technology. And so they don't have that kind of understanding that many of us do. And judges, for the most part, are even worse than the attorneys. They're kind of insulated from the rest of the world and certainly from the technological world. They have clerks that do most of their work for them and things like this. Also, attorneys come from all kinds of different backgrounds. Well, certainly you have political science majors going into it. People who graduated with me came from finance, sciences, a couple of technology. But you can do anything. You can start with any kind of background and then go to law school as long as you've got a degree. And while there are a lot of attorneys out there that do understand technology, a lot of them get sucked up into the intellectual property arena. And nothing against those attorneys, that's good work and it pays well. But everybody seems to be going into that instead of going into the trial area and the appellate area where they can use their skills to further the law and possibly help society a little bit more than writing software patents, for example. So let's take a look at some recent graduates, people who graduated with me. Most students do have computers at this point. In fact, I would estimate that the level of usage of laptops in class is higher within law schools than it is in any other discipline, simply because there's such a large volume of notes to take during class and it's very conducive for it. I would think that whenever I started law school about 60 to 70% of the people in my individual section had laptops, which was pretty surprising to me. And very surprising to the school because every classroom had two plug-ins for the entire 60-person section. At the time, most still use Windows, though that is changing. The adoption of OS X, just like with the rest of the world, is going faster. But one thing that is going to hold that up is that the software that is used to take exams and increasingly take the bar exam is Windows only. Most of them still use Internet Explorer. They haven't heard of Firefox or any other kind of alternative browser. Most are not very security aware. I would sit in the back of the classroom and I would see people having pop-up ads come up on their computer all the time and it's like, wake up and realize that you need to do something about that. And it sets up bad habits that they're going to carry forward. And we'll talk here in a little bit about some of the requirements that the law puts on attorneys as far as keeping information confidential. And attorneys need to be some of the most security aware of any group of individuals out there. And I also noticed that most don't pay much attention to what they're sending over the wireless network, including their passwords. Now, within the legal community at large, attorneys love new gadgets, new things, blackberries, Bluetooth phones. They love them. Anything that they think is going to make them more productive, they'll jump on that bandwagon. But I'm sure that we all here understand that, you know, especially with things like Bluetooth, there's actually a good amount of risk that they're taking on by doing that. Bigger firms out there are more security aware because they have a dedicated IT staff, but smaller, medium-sized firms will ignore a lot of that. So that's a significant risk. Federal courts have adopted electronic filing. Whenever you make any kind of filing in federal court, you do it using PDF, which is fantastic. And it's certainly pushed the rest of the legal community in that direction of the dream of going paperless. Now, attorneys have a very strong obligation to keep your information secret. Whenever you talk to an attorney, it remains confidential and remains privileged, as long as he keeps it privileged. And if it is, if it does get out, if you have a privileged document that becomes public knowledge, then it is no longer privileged at that point. It can then be used in court against you, possibly. And it's rather scary knowing that there may be attorneys out there, which I'm sure there are, operating their entire practice on outdated hardware using open wireless access points and just leaving their fly open completely for people to come in and take that and disseminate it. And then that information, first of all, is no longer privileged, and that is some very personal information of yours that is now in public domain. So that's kind of scary. The attorneys are the ones that brought us this notice, which is somewhat of a holdover. Of course, my favorite here comes at the bottom and the bold and the italic saying, destroy all copies of the original message of this, which it's not a fact, so you can't just throw it in the trash or shred it. And I believe that there's only one place in the world where email can miraculously disappear and be completely destroyed, and that's somewhere on the eastern seaboard. It is prohibited. It is prohibited by the disclaimer. Well, how can we fix this? We could use encryption. Encryption is very easy to use. We have a whole disk encryption for laptops, wireless encryption, all communications, of course, can be encrypted using PGP, especially email. Attorneys love email. It's easy to use and it's easy to implement, especially for small practice. On a large scale, it can be difficult to get a high level of adoption, but for the small practice, it's probably a good idea. I think everyone in this room would agree on that. Which brings me to a little amusing anecdote. I'm a member of a listserv of solo and small practice individuals from the state of Missouri, and in joining I started to contribute a little bit and I would sign my messages using my PGP signature. And this is the response that I got from one of the members. Nice to know that you have encrypted your message to our little family, even though he could read the message. And then he said, I like we need to worry that Homeland Security will now be watching because you posted to this little house. The house being the listserv, of course. Now I'm sure that there may be some individuals that can shed some light on whether PGP signing and PGP encryption gives us more attention, but if anyone wants to stand and give us that answer, feel free at this time. But this is the kind of stuff that we're dealing with. As far as understanding of security technology, people see encryption or anything involving it and they assume that there's some nefarious activity going on. And that just needs to change and it will take time, but it is a serious concern going forward. And these solo attorneys and smaller firms are the ones that are the trial attorneys. They're going to be the ones that are on the front lines helping find the facts of the cases so that they can then be appealed and then make the laws. Trial attorneys require excellent advocacy skills. And part of the advocacy skill is having a firm understanding of the facts. And for the most part, attorneys have always done a very good job of whether it's something obscure like pharmaceuticals or tobacco or dealing with a broken crane. Attorneys will learn what's going on, underline the case and be fine. We see it with people in the outside world all the time that there's just something about these little boxes that makes people throw up their hands and say, well, I don't understand. And that's it. And just be fine with not understanding. And that's very frightening, especially when attorneys who don't have enough of the knowledge get involved and start trying to find facts and cases. At which point we turn to the state of Connecticut versus Julia Merrow. How many people have heard about this case? Okay, fair amount. Very well. We'll give a little background. Julia Merrow was a substitute teacher in Connecticut. And she was substituting in a seventh grade class. Now, I am still young enough to remember what it was like to be in junior high. And I knew that when a substitute teacher came in to a junior high classroom, the goal of the day was then to completely torment this teacher and see if you could actually drive them over the edge. And, you know, I don't know exactly what happened in that classroom that day, but kind of think about these facts within that perspective of the students doing everything they can to kind of take advantage of the substitute being there and such. Now, when she got there, she went ahead and accessed a couple sites on the school's computer, including AOL, email, and orbits. Then she let some students use the computer, and they went to some hairstyle websites. And they didn't choose wisely, and these websites installed some adware on the computer. And as we remember from the frightening days of using Windows 98 and using the internet before anti-malware and adware and spyware software become very prevalent, you get infected with pop-ups, and those pop-ups can come from everywhere. And, of course, what happens? Those pop-ups may start as something innocent, and they keep coming, and they keep coming, and all of a sudden you have pornography coming in and ads for porn sites coming into the computer. And what this folk, the case is about is what she, what one side wanted to make it into is what she didn't do. Most of us in that situation would have known to turn off the monitor, turn off the computer, unplug the computer, something along those lines, anything to stop the children from seeing this pornography. She didn't do any of that. And I think that part of it lies in the, it goes back to the old message that you have whenever you try and shut down your computer that says it is now safe to turn off your computer. A lot of people, especially a substitute teacher, using a computer that is not familiar to her, if she is not very computer literate, may believe that unless I do this properly, the machine will explode, I don't know. But unless it's safe, then I'm not going to shut off the computer. But that's beside the point. She didn't do it, and a number of students came up around the desk and she tried to shoot them away, but some of them saw some of the pop-up ads on there. And then words started to spread around the school because remember this is junior high, and rumors are rampant, and it works its way up into the administration. And then eventually she was charged with a crime. She was originally charged with 10 counts of risk of injury to a child. Risk of injury to a child under Connecticut law brings with it a 10-year sentence in state prison. So originally she was looking at 100 years in state prison as a result of this. Before the trial, it was reduced to four. So right before the trial started, the other charges were dismissed, but the trial continued. And something that I notice in a lot of media coverage of the law is that they skip over some of the extremely relevant information like what exactly is the statute that this person was charged under? What are the parts of it? Do we understand? They just kind of cover other things at any rate. Here is the statute. Anyone who willfully or unlawfully causes a child under the age of 16 to be placed in a situation where the morals of that child are likely to be impaired shall be punished. I'm sure many of you think that that may be, I don't know, vague, broad, but my God, won't you think of the children? Well, now we have to break down some of these elements and find out exactly what that means. So willful under the statute, and this comes and this is actually explained to the jury in the jury instructions, is that willful means deliberately or intentionally. This becomes very important as we analyze the actual decision of the case. It's not a standard of negligence. If there was a standard of negligence, we would be asking the question, what a reasonable person under the same circumstances have acted differently, done something different to protect these children from seeing this pornography, which I think we can all agree that, yeah, under that standard, most of us, certainly in this room, would have done something differently. But under the statute, because the standard is willfulness and not negligence or recklessness, if she was negligent, then she would not have been convicted of the crime. So let's take a look at some of the lawyering that went on during this case. The local newspaper, the Norwich Bulletin, was good enough to publish the entire trial transcript online, and I highly recommend it, because it is full of laws. So here we go. Were there any other images that had been placed in your hard drive on the day before that you saw at least in the file format? It's a direct quote. I will buy a beer for anybody that can tell me what that means. Then my favorite, which we all heard before, did she log on to any programs? And then I just, I picture the prosecutor going through this case and reading the forensics report and saying, wow, here's an opportunity to say something in court that's never been said before. Specifically to what I am pointing at here, my understanding is this, www.VaginalComeShots.com. Specifically, this website, again, was accessed to that PC in Mr. Knapp's classroom. It gets better. Here's one of the questions posed by the Defense Council. Were any of the adware, spyware, parasite, and viruses updated on or before October 19th? Now, some of you may have come to the talk last year about actually attacking malware online using its vulnerabilities, but something tells me that's not what this defense attorney was talking about. Then in the closing argument, the defense attorney, in an effort to really personalize himself with the jury and get a nice big, warm, fuzzy feeling about how confusing this whole case was, he came out and fully admitted, I'm computer illiterate. So, hold your questions until the end. Yes, I'm sure that he is a very nice man and he has a long career and a pillar of his community. But as far as advocacy goes, it's certainly not strong. We're going to continue talking about this. Now, I want to turn back to the prosecutor and I want to talk about a line of questioning that I found probably the second time I was reading through the transcript that I found very suspicious, especially in light of some of the comments that he made outside the presence of the jury. And this is, he's questioning the school's information services director. To your knowledge, was the PC in question at the time infected with any viruses, not to my knowledge. As a person involved in the computer field, there are some services that would allow a computer to infect and cause those computers to access random websites against the user's wishes. IC director says, I haven't seen anything like that, nor have I heard of anything like that. Well, and we all laugh, because, and we've got his, he's got his own page, all to his own. But what we have here is the prosecutor anticipating the defense on the part of the defense team. And he's going directly at it, and he's talking to a certified expert about this. So we have either the prosecutor who doesn't understand that a virus is different than AdWare, or we have a prosecutor who is taking advantage of the fact that the jury probably doesn't understand that either. And there hadn't been any definition of terms at this point within the trial. And most individuals, when they see pop-ups, they say the generic term, oh my God, I've got a virus. Not necessarily, as we all know. Viruses are different than worms, or different than AdWare, different than spyware, everything like this. So this was just very troubling to me, because while the prosecutor was fighting, fighting to keep the defense expert's testimony out, he actually mentions AdWare. He uses that term. So he appears to know the difference between a virus and AdWare, but is rather certainly disingenuous when he is asking this question. You guys agree? Yeah? Okay. All right, who knows what a leading question is here? I know you do, you do, and you do. What is it? Okay, so you know what an open-ended question is, correct? He has no choice but to answer yes or no. Leading questions are allowed only on cross-examination, and a good advocate uses only, only leading questions. In fact, a good advocate, if you notice a good attorney at work in trial, when a direct examination is going on, you'll see the attorney conducting the examination off to the side, often behind the jury, next to the jury, and the jury has their eyes focused directly on the witness. Whenever an attorney is getting up and doing a cross-examination, on the other hand, he is in front of the jury. He's pacing, he's making a spectacle of himself, and he is asking all leading questions. He controls everything. He controls everything that the jury hears, and the witness just kind of sits there and takes it and says yes or no, because he has no question otherwise. And if you're dealing with a hostile witness, then if that witness says yes or no and then adds something, you can strike the additional portion from the record, because he already answered the question and then went on. So the defense attorney in this case, when he was cross-examining the IT director, he asked 21 open-ended questions. I think he asked under 10 leading questions. And what that allowed was this individual to kind of ramble on and continue with his side of the story, as opposed to the defense team pushing for their side of the case. Well, what about the evidence? What happened after the school district learned about what was going on in this classroom with the pop-up ads and such? Well, the IT director in his testimony begins by talking about the firewall and the network system that they have and the fact that they have a filtering system and all this. But when asked what he did first when he heard about this, instead of checking the server and checking the logs, he went directly to the classroom and hopped on to the computer. I'm sure any forensics experts can help me out whether that's forensically sound or not. But he had to do that because he didn't know the IP address of the individual computer. And he describes typing in IP config. Love that. Additionally, when he sat down, he went ahead and started going through the temporary internet files, went through all the cookies to see where the computer had been on the internet, and wrote some things down and then walked back to the server and started checking things on there. Did he take the computer out of the classroom? No. So what does that mean? That means for the time between whenever he was on there and the time that they actually removed the computer, there was still pornography and those files saved on that computer. So any student, I'm sure that there are plenty of 7th graders, I know I probably could in 7th grade, could have tracked down the temporary internet files and seen everything that was on there. Right? So what else? I'm not going to say a lot about the police investigator because this pretty much sums it all up. Did you examine the hard drive for spyware, viruses or parasites? No. He did absolutely nothing to find out if there was any kind of exculpatory evidence on the computer, which he's required to do and failed to do so. In fact, no one involved looked for any kind of malware until the defense expert got ahold of the machine. Oh, 10 minutes. So what about the computers? The school district was running machines with Windows 95 and 98 in 2004. These machines had antivirus protection on them only. That's it. Now the filtering software. The filtering software resided on the server, of course, and in mid-September by the IT director's own admission, the license on the filtering software expired and he didn't remember to update this. So until October 19th when we have all of the porn getting through, there was no filtering going on at all. So really what you had in the school district was a taking time bomb. It could have happened to any teacher in any classroom that it could have happened to the administrators for that matter. So you can kind of think about, you know, who's more negligent even though that's outside the statute, but think about who's really at fault here. And the IT director, I don't know, lacks some common sense knowledge. Does spyware and adware generate pornography? I'm not aware that they do. Pretty shocking. So now the defense expert. And this gets really to the meat of the controversy. Because as soon as the decision came out and as soon as we all learned that she had been convicted, the defense expert primarily among others started talking about the fact that he wasn't allowed to testify. That there was all this exculpatory evidence that he had found that wasn't allowed to be presented in the trial. A lot of people got really mad. A lot of people started yelling a lot on the internet, surprise, surprise. And this really isn't, it's misguided. That isn't really what happened. And that's why it's nice to actually go through, and instead of believing what you're told in news coverage, to do a little digging and find out what happened. A lot of people, in addition to just yelling on the internet and on message boards, also called this judge, sent emails to this judge saying terrible things. I mean, what is that doing to the reputation of the technology community at large? But clearly those people can't be talked to and probably won't be swayed by my talk. So why was it excluded? What was excluded for that matter? Well, in court, as anybody that's testified as an expert will know, you have to give your testimony to the attorney that you're working for who then gives it to the other side. When you get to trial, there are none of these Perry Mason moments where there's the surprise witness or the surprise evidence. No, everybody except for the jury knows exactly what's going to happen minute by minute in the trial. There are no surprises at all. Well, the expert in this case didn't turn over his materials to the defense attorney at all until the day that he was scheduled to testify. Now, the reason that the judge excluded it is not just because it's a technicality as many people have said. That whole procedure thing. The important thing with giving the evidence to the other side and with discovery between opponents is that effective cross-examination can be done even though it is the state on one side of this, an individual on the other. If the prosecution tried to pull the same thing and you were the defendant, you would certainly be outraged and you would feel like you had been deprived due process and deprived an opportunity to get a fair defense. It's the same concept in reverse for the state. That was the reason that they excluded that evidence. How much was it? Two hours of material. He was getting ready to give and didn't tell the judge, didn't tell anybody how long this was, at least from what I've read. I don't think you guys want to sit here and listen to me drone on for another hour. You can imagine what a jury would feel like who's sitting there in jury duty and then has a computer forensics expert giving a very dry PowerPoint presentation for two hours after they've already posted this trial. So the judge probably would have made him cut it down anyway. So did it make a difference? They wasn't allowed to give his PowerPoint presentation. Probably not. He actually gave his conclusions and made them very strongly and probably made them more strongly than he would have in his presentation. He mentions adware and he mentions spyware numerous times. Now, this is the best part. It really is. It just will floor you. When he's through with this, he's almost done with his testimony and the prosecutor gets up to do his final recross. And like we were talking about with leading questions, well, let me read the line of questioning here. Is it there? Well, at any rate, the prosecutor actually got up there and said, what is your conclusion? And the expert says flat out I believe that adware and spyware infected this computer and caused it to make these requests independently. The defendant did absolutely nothing wrong. It was none of her fault. The school was the organization and it was their fault. He did what is technically within the trial advocacy field known as pissing on the other side which you do when you're asked an open-ended question while being cross-examined. So, he did very well, but he had destroyed any kind of credibility, I believe, with the jury and with any of the other attorneys in the room by some of his actions and his fighting with the judge. I know that somebody in here will probably be called upon some day to be an expert witness. So, let's go over a couple things not to do. Whenever you get up to give your testimony start in the witness box. Don't simply walk up and choose a spot to go and wait for the judge to say go. Start in the witness box. There's a procedure for all of this because in a courtroom, the judge is in charge. Don't add your own commentary. This is a direct quote. I'll ask you a question. This is and I'm not being disrespectful. Right, I believe that. Understand where I come from. This is analogous to a plane crash and this is when the judge is telling the expert that he's not going to be able to give his whole presentation. Don't tell the judge that he's wrong ever. The judge is always right. The judge is always on time. And then he goes on. He says, one more comment and then I will go exactly like me. I feel like my hands are tied at this point. What purpose did that serve other than letting this guy kind of vent to a judge who clearly doesn't like him at all? And rightly so. So what about the jury? So the jury heard all of this evidence. They heard from this expert that there was adware and it wasn't at the fault of the teacher. I think that they get so confused by all this testimony and nonsensical questions that they misapplied the law. There were some interviews conducted of the jurors who said we don't think that she did enough. She should have turned the computer off. She should have covered it up with something. And as we discussed much earlier, that's not what the statute says at all. And this is what can happen when juries don't understand and when poor advocacy happens to help them understand how to find the facts and how to render a verdict in this case. So who do we blame in this? Obviously everybody initially wanted to blame the judge. But I think the judge is the least to blame. The school district who was running old machines without adequate protection on them that didn't update their filtering system was clearly negligent in this. The state shouldn't be pressing these charges anyway. There's nobody in this room that I'm sure will think that she should be prosecuted at all, let alone thrown in prison for 40 years. The defense attorney by his own admission, by saying that he is completely computer illiterate, is somewhat to blame because he just had no business being involved in the case. And finally the expert for the defense. The expert for the defense was the person that could have kept her out of jail. And by not following the procedures that are required by not playing along by being a complete jerk to the judge and to the prosecutor destroyed all of his credibility and in reading his testimony I am absolutely not surprised that the jury decided that guy is such a jerk. We're not going to listen to anything that he says. We're just going to do what we believe is right. And that ended up being wrong. So was the response warranted on the part of the public? It was misdirected. Blind rage against the judicial system as a whole by saying it's slow, by saying it's antiquated, by saying that these judges are wrong that's completely ineffective. That's not going to change anything, that's not going to make anything better. The two communities need to start coming together and working together to hash out these issues and make the laws more stable and work better to protect all of us in the long run. So where is the case now? Well the judge has ordered a new trial and in her decision she said the jury may have relied, at least in part on false information and she doesn't specify what that false information was. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be related to that line of question that I identified either, but I can't speak for the judge. I'm sure that more expert testimony will be admitted. I'm sure that there will be a PowerPoint presentation given but it would certainly be smart to at least find somebody else to give that presentation other than that expert witness because it's going to be the same judge and things will not go well considering how well the judge likes this expert witness. So what will the new outcome be? Well, we still don't know. You know, the issue of attorneys who don't understand technology and can't articulate the facts effectively still exists and Ms. Amaro has a new attorney but we will have to see and hopefully she wins. I know the state has yet to drop the charges. So in conclusion, the issues that separate law and technology in the movement of the two worlds is not going to go away anytime soon. We're going to be living with this for the rest of our careers. Attorneys need to have a better relationship with technology and we need more people with a technical background in computers to go to law school and when they go to law school they need to take some interest in something other than simply intellectual property. There are other ways that you can leverage your skills to make a difference and to build a career. So with those advocates in place we will have better decisions. We'll avoid trial outcomes like this and the laws that we have will make sense and be easy for all of us to apply. If you guys have any questions I'm out of time right now but I will be in the other room. I want to thank you all for coming. It's been a pleasure.