 Let's say entrepreneurship today or even capitalism in quotes, like when I view capitalism in North America, I don't view it as free market capitalism, you know, for example, let's talk about the Amazon deal, they get this ridiculous tax break. And then me as a little guy, I'm like, well, how do I get in line for this tax break? Right? It's crony capitalism. Right. Right. You get to such a level where you create this monopoly and you get all these tax incentives incentives, where for me as like a fundamental capitalist, where I believe in competition, and I like a part in your book, you talk about patents and we'll get to that in a second. For me, I still got to wrap my cognitive dissonance because I see both sides. Yeah. I see like, well, I need a moat, like, you know, but then it's like, I know what happens in patent wars. Right. I've seen it firsthand. Like, I understand it. So it's like, I'm sitting at two ends and I'm like, how do we solve this conundrum? Right. Because it is a conundrum. Yeah. And so what I like about in your book, you actually outline certain, I want to say, philosophies, but you outline steps that we can take. Right. But let's go to the patents. What's your take on that? So, you know, obviously the patent section is a great example of sort of the thing I just talked about, that in order to innovate, you need a reward. Yes. That's the underlying premise. And of course, some of that has to be true to some degree because you are taking risks, you know, either if you're becoming an entrepreneur, you could have earned money elsewhere, you could have had a quieter life. If you're supplying capital for innovation, you have to think about the risk. It's one of the biggest risks starting a business regardless of what you're doing. Absolutely. So there has to be an upside at the end of it, right? And so one of the, you know, obviously, if you want to put it in the sort of right way, the government coming and expropriating all your wealth is one problem. I don't know if we're talking, as I said, might not be talking about that. The other problem is competitors are coming and expropriating your ideas, right? So, you know, you like competition. When I invent something, the problem is competition takes away what I can appropriate. And so we naturally have the role for intellectual property protection was to guard against that. That's it. And you can see it and you can see it. Well, if I can't earn anything, why would you do it? Exactly. Used to be in the early days of CDL. And it's interesting how this has changed. The early days of CDL, people used to come in and say, well, where's your moat? Where is my you're going to have this idea? How is it going to protect it? And I used to ask that question to I come from that same tradition. So I was like, you know, why do you think you are going to make money out of this? What is your what have you got going? And in some cases, it was like, oh, I'm going to get a patent. And we actually know what that means. That still has to be defended and other stuff like that. It's not as secure as it's not that easy. Yeah, I mean, it's not bad, but it's not it's not secure. And suddenly, you know, there are companies, the pharmaceutical companies, who have an entire apparatus so that they know how to use the patent system to their to their favor. But not everybody, entrepreneurs don't have. And then others would say, look, I'm just going to be good at what I do. I'm going to my idea. I've got this idea. Others might copy it or whatever, but mine will be the best, you know, grow another one, you know, whatever, you know, what we know about that. Right. Yeah. And I used to be very disparaging of that. But that's actually used to be what people came up with quite a lot. And I think the way we've come to is that, you know, there is there is something to that argument. There is something to if you are the person who's had that unique insight and has some capabilities to be able to bring that market. And you compare that with some experience from other people who stop you from going down the wrong path for two years or something like that, just keep focused. You can get ahead of everybody else. Now, that doesn't mean in the future, you won't be facing competition. You will be, but you'll be one of the players there. And I think this is one of the blind sides we get from, you know, excessive adherence to it. The importance of the excludability that comes with intellectual property, being able to shut everybody out. I mean, being able to shut everybody out is a great thing. A mode is really good because if you build a mode, which is costly now, then in the future, you can sit in your castle and have a nice, easy life. The alternative is you, you know, trudge up that hill and, you know, you're going to just have to kick people back for the whole lot. That can still earn you money. They can still earn you money. You know, if you look at for many years, Intel and AMD. AMD were, you know, neck and neck with Intel and technical capabilities, but Intel were there for first, they had a brand name, et cetera. And so they'll five times as profitable, you know, it can, you know, you can actually, you can have that situation. And so I think one answer on the intellectual property and patents thing is it's maybe not as necessary as we thought. It's not a bad thing. And it's not, it can, it can get you against some of the worst excesses, but it's not necessarily as critical. The flip side of it, though, is it can actually dampen innovation in the sense that, you know, you get, invent something, you get a patent on it. And even if it's not the best patent in the world, I'm sitting there thinking, I can improve your product. I go to my investors, they say, well, this dude has a patent. How do we know he's not going to sue you? Yeah. How is he's not going to gum it all up, et cetera. And lo and behold, that's the easy case where it's just one person. What if there's like six things that I'm combining together to do that? Well, then we've got a problem because I now can't come and compete with you, which remember was the point of the patent system. But at the same time, that's not stimulating innovation overall because you've innovated and I could be innovated and everybody ahead of me could be innovating. And so we've sort of dampened that as well. Now, what this basically means is that when you have patents, you don't want them to be too broad. You don't want them to be too vague. You want them to cover what they need to cover to stop sort of naked imitation. Yeah. I don't want people and like trademarks. I don't like it when people come in and rip off a trademark or whatever like that. But but I don't want people to come in and literally exactly the same thing or if it's pharmaceuticals, the same compound would have you. But I don't want them to stop being able to build on this stuff anyway. And so we have to sort of limit the scope of the patent system for that reason. And we have to limit the scope of the copyright system for that same view. I mean, half of the stuff here on YouTube, etc. I mean, if MIT Press were more annoying, they might say, oh, look, this is here. This is our intellectual property. They've been doing that on YouTube. It's happened. It's happened. That doesn't surprise me. I have a textbook. I was talking about naked, obscene monopolies. I have a textbook in Australia. It's not my monopoly by choice. So I don't like that fact. But it has its principles of economics and it was writing about product differentiation. I want to put a can of Coke as the picture in the textbook. Gotcha. We have to get permission from them. Yeah. Yeah. I said it's going to cost you something. And I was like, what are you talking about? I'm putting your frigging free advertising in the thing and saying you have a brand. Yeah. That's what I'm doing. And that's going to cost you. So we swapped it out to Pepsi. Pepsi did it, eh? Did you tell them Coke didn't want it? Anyway, so fortunately, we could do that there. But I mean, it was ridiculous that that was even an issue. Yeah. I mean, sort of taking some of these things and putting it in. But the system allowed them to stop that. And I've seen this happen with copyright things before people, just stuff, they do stuff to it. It's one of the things that's made YouTube great. But, you know, someone flags something and all of a sudden the whole thing can be pulled down. And what that means is the legal system is now using a sort of big slam on you, snap down. Whereas what we want is something more nuanced, something more balanced, something, you know, that allows a transactionally easy way of navigating any of these tickets that occur. And so that's that's basically what we think about with patents is that innovators are going to be able to innovate more easily. The fewer people they have to ask permission from. I agree. And you know, there's difference between asking permission and paying a fee. If I hold a patent or a copyright thing and I say, well, you can use my my Coke picture, it's going to cost you 50 bucks. And I never think about who's doing it. You send in the 50 bucks and you pay for it, just as I would any other service. But if you're going to get there and you send it in and they're going to say, well, this is a textbook, I might need it. They're going to earn a lot of money. Maybe we should even have a share of the royalty. We're in a disaster world. Exactly. I've all of a sudden have an extra person I have to ask permission from. We don't like when, you know, regulations that require us to go to government and ask permission for a special case and stuff like we know that that comes up. This is the same with things that give private companies that power to. Yeah. It's a general philosophy. You just want as much as possible. You want innovations to be able to work with the area of government and with the wheat industry. I'm like, well, you know, that's a comp. Yeah, the wheat industry is a whole complicated thing. They fumbled the ball on that. Yeah. Yeah. Completely. Yeah. It's ridiculous. Well, I think I think. I mean, I think there were a few competing factors. I don't know a huge amount of about it. But it's turned into the LCBO. Right. And the LCBO is another thing. I just want to say it's unusual for, you know, I come from Australia to Canada. My my view on Canada regulation is they they regulate liquids. Yeah. And usual thing about cannabis is it's not a liquid liquid. No, so. Yeah, no. Well, I will, you know, well, that gives a platform for another political party to do something different there. I'm sure that they could raise more money in tax revenue if they didn't do it.