 I also am enormously honored to be invited to this having, sitting over in the copyright camp over there with my colleagues, loved to be invited to this. My law school experience was my patent law professor terrified me in a way because the opening class, he said, okay, raise your hands. Do you have an electronic engineering or a science degree in some of the class, raise your hand. And then he said, for those of you that didn't raise your hands, what are you doing here? So that set the tone for a good class. So thus I became a copyright scholar. So I'm talking about from a view from cultural institutions. By cultural institutions, I mean the libraries, the archives, the museums. I just thought I'd give an alternate perspective here and offer some fun stuff. First of all, here's my premise and I think everyone here can agree with this in some way but it's critical to have legal open use exemptions for any field of IP. So it doesn't matter if we're talking trademark, copyright or other, maybe not treat secrets but we'll get into that in a little bit. But the idea is that this is the driving motivator of a lot of innovation and research here, not only at our universities but outside of universities as well. So if we start with that premise, then we can move forward I think and think about, well, how can this affect the topic that we're talking about today? Let's talk about some of these. So research uses, the land that I live in as copyright advisor for Harvard Libraries is that these nonprofit, non-consumptive preservation based actions that we do here at the libraries, here at museums, here at our archives are critical to this idea that, look, we need to push the mission of the universities and I like that the former speaker had put up the missions of the particular offices but the missions of the university are usually shared with the public in some capacity but the university library, the university libraries sometimes are the holders of forever. So we also wanna gain access to these materials in ways that future scholars, future researchers, future innovators can have this. And so we live in a land of nonprofit educational resources so we're already on the line of being able to do some of this stuff without necessarily the large scale exemptions and when I talk about non-consumptive research I'm talking about well, maybe we would be utilizing this patent data in a way that is not foreseeable yet because we're not using it for the purpose of which the patent was created. Remember we're examining it, you know, 50 years of patents in a particular life science area and we need to access all that data and put it together to come up with a new or different theory. So research uses are very critical to a lot of the stuff that we do here inside our cultural institutions. And I would add specific just to line up in the copyright field areas that I live in and breathe in frequently is that we have some of these limited liability exceptions that exist. Now for those of you who are gonna, I'm gonna make you de facto librarians that aren't already librarians. Section 108 is a critical aspect of copyright law that basically says libraries can do what they can with regards to preservation, with regards to making copies for users, with regards to interlibrary loans. Some of the most simple and basic things that exist for libraries exist because of section 108. Now I always like to say there is no preservation without access. So for saving this data and one of the most fascinating details of a lecture before is that well about 50% of these patents go forward, what about that other 50% that don't go forward? And we'll talk a little bit about that. I wanna get at them and study them and see why and put them in a repository and do research on them and not necessarily implicate any rights in doing that. Section one on there and is also how libraries exerts is the first sale doctrine. The exhaustion doctrine is what they usually call it internationally. The concept that well, the rights holder cannot downstream pressure us to do anything else. Once you buy a book, put it on a shelf, you can loan it a thousand times. Once you digitize that book though, make it an e-book sometimes, we fall under licensing provisions that prevent us from doing that. And I see this correlation with patents a lot with that. Next is fair use and we've kind of danced about it a little today. Now, the Dean of BU Law wrote an article, I think about 10 or 15 years ago on should patent have fair use? And I was in school at the time, I said yes, obviously. But that concept is that fair use is another fundamental notion that researchers can get access to stuff, notwithstanding the rights that already exist by the holder. And I think this exists in the patent realm in a way that could also exist successfully, I would say, in the realm of copyright. And then for those of you that don't, if you guys know 504 C2, I'd be very impressed. But that is a very special provision inside the law that says non-profit educational institutions like libraries and archives staff that are doing their work, such as preserving and providing access to scholars and making fair use decisions that there's no statutory damages if they get caught on the other side of the line. If they happen to go over and borrow too much or use too much at the court finds that, okay, yes, you was not a fair use even though you thought it was, but you had a good faith effort at a non-profit educational institution to do that. And therefore we will remit your damages down to zero. These protections that exist all together in some way, I think bespoke the idea that Congress and people at the time period cared enough about the research that was going on in these non-profit libraries and institutions to provide us with these tools. When I go around and lecture about this, I call this the superpowers of libraries in that we have a limited liability package, if you will. That exists in copyright law. So how can we apply that package, I think, to the patent field? And I think that's a tough sell because as we've pointed out and as my colleagues just pointed out, the concept here is that, yeah, they live in very different worlds with regard to marketability, with regards to outreach, with regards to control. There is no fair use. There is no concept of this. But let's just think, though. Could we have the discovery of transformative uses for patents that are above and beyond the routine licensing and markets that currently exist? You know, when I think about patents, I think about, oh, licensing and markets. One of the patent strengths that was told to me in school was that you can control, and some people say, hinder innovation. And does that create market failure? Well, is the solve of that market failure fair use? Maybe. And this is what Dino Rourke said in her article many years ago. And she actually proposed, instead of a four-step fair use factor test, she proposed a five-step one, which took into account the marketing and licensing provisions that exist in patent law. That's the purpose of patent law. So that could be a possibility. I also like to think about these patent orphans. I have a terrible, terrible problem in my libraries. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of works that are under copyright that were limited print. Maybe there's only 500 books in the world. I can't track down the rights holder. I can't track down the entity. Maybe the same thing is happening in the patent arena. And could we consider getting access to those patent orphans, the ones that don't make it all the way through the marketing and licensing? Could we consider putting them somewhere, allowing research to happen? This is a problem in the copyright arena because we're not sure what to do with these works, not to digitize them or scan them or accidentally cause some sort of mass infringement. Maybe the same thing exists with the data that's recurring from the patent research, the patent invention, the patent office, that are rejecting some of these. Well, what about those rejections? Why are they rejected? I would love to see a scholar study all of that, but we don't have that same package. We do have some similarities. For those of you that remember the MGM versus Groxter case, they borrowed the nation of inducement from patent law to crack down in one way or another on the Groxter that's where sharing MP3 is online. So if you're inducing, if you're using technology to induce someone to commit copyright infringement, and they clearly borrowed that from patent inducement. However, we don't have the same limiting doctrines equivalent to research, preservation, and fair use exceptions. So if you wanted to, say, innovate and improve on a patent, there's such a doctrine called blocking patterns that says, okay, yes, you can make substantial innovations to this patent, but there's a licensing motivation. And I just assume you'll work it all out through a licensing deal. This looks so much like transformative fair use to me, and that you're using something for a different purpose than the original, and that you're using the amount necessary to serve that purpose. So instead of relying on the market or relying on the ability to have some licensing motivation, copyright law presumes that you could just do that. You can do that under transformative fair use. So maybe there is room here for us to exist in that world where the doctrine of blocking patterns, just as example, and there's a lot of other examples in here, could be adaptable to that fair use standard. Now, Peter's in the room, and I can't not mention open access, of course, but what if we exposed, and we talked about open licensing, we talked about open access a little bit, but non-exclusive license transfers, which is not always the domain of patents, there are some non-exclusive, but actually patent likes exclusivity, but what if we exposed that earlier? And we talked about increasing the usefulness of patent research because we could create greater audiences, we could create greater visibility, we can create greater readership amongst other people in other fields that necessarily wouldn't see these patents because they're not necessarily in the pharma field or other fields. Open access gives us that ability to say, all right, we're going to reproduce these results with new and different scientific queries. Please, one minute, all right. So the idea is that if we allow that to exist as a whole, then maybe, that's my alarm reminding me of one minute, that's funny, maybe we could do that. Maybe we could actually apply open access standards to this in a way that we hadn't yet foreseen yet. I found that the pledge, the anti-patent assertion entity pledge, seemed very nameless to the open access pledge that many universities have done. That idea that, yes, I will give you a non-exclusive license to my article before it hits print and maybe even I pledge I won't publish in the journal that doesn't have CCBY or green open access. Maybe that's very similar to what's going on with anti-patent assertion entities. So that was your crash course in librarian and law, and that's what I bring to you today, so thanks very much. Thank you.