 thanks for coming. Because of the structure and the fact that this is streaming, I'll stand up here even though my natural pension would be just to circle up and we have a brief conversation about the topic. For those of you who don't know, I run something called Open Invention Network, which is the largest patent on aggression community in the history of technology inside open source, outside open source. And the reason why it's so successful is because organizations that manage projects like Linux Foundation have become very dynamic and professional managers of content producing entities in the open source world. And so we live in the slipstream of Linux Foundation, Apache Eclipse and a number of other project management organizations and the sub projects that they represent. And part of what we are focused on is bringing together the most important technologies that are the core of Linux and open source, things that everybody needs to standardize on, wants to standardize on, wants to build on. That's fundamental, that is going to form the backbone of a number of different technologies and products that are actually sold that are open source enabled. So basically, other companies around the world to contribute dominations that then can be used to increase the scope of the cross license. OIN is a very, very unusual entity. There's no analog in the history of technology or the law that is quite like it. It fits the environment so 16 years ago, IBM, Red Hat, Nobel, Sony, NBC and Phillips got together and they decided that what they wanted to do was create a deterrent to bad behavior from operating companies like Microsoft, which at the time was positioning itself as a monolithic threat. Monolithic threats in this game are very useful because they get people to coalesce and fear to be able to work to thwart the efforts of that threat. And so what I've done during that time is to manage relationships and recognize that the collaborative nature of open source is so powerful. It's a social movement. It happens to produce technology, but it's much bigger than just the idea of people coming together and creating technology. And so that social movement, the modality that supports it is what I'm really here to protect and what we've done for the last 16 years. We have 3,600 companies that have gotten together from some of the largest companies in the world. Google is a funding member when they developed the platforms that support mobile devices and their computing platform, Chrome and Android, those activities kind of put them in a position where they said they wanted to have a leading role in supporting this idea of patent non-aggression in the core of open source and Linux. And so we have about 3,400 packages right now that come from hundreds of projects literally that allow us to kind of form this and increase the scope of the cross license. It started out with 1,100 packages that were mainly drawn from the Linux kernel. And over time, we've expanded out from Linux to adjacent open source technologies. We even, most recent addition to the cross license zone, we added Hadoop and Hadoop is somewhat agnostic to what it runs on. It doesn't have to run an open source. It does in most cases, but it doesn't have to. And so we're looking at just open source technologies that are incredibly important. And obviously, technologies like Kubernetes have been included for a while. We have code that comes from Automotive Grade Linux. Code that comes from all of the five networking projects, Linux Foundation Manages. Code that comes from non-Linux Foundation projects like the Jonathan's Project who runs OpenStack or was OpenStack, the project formerly known as OpenStack. And so we have well over 100 packages that just come from that project itself. And so the whole idea is to have a regular dialogue with the community, one, to bring people in so that they commit that if they have patents that read on this fundamental core functionality within the open source community that we put into what we call this Linux system definition, which is the scope of the cross-license that they will participate in the cross-license and put everything that they have that relates to that, that reads on that functionality into the cross-license and they will agree that they give as good as they get. Everybody else is in there and if they have patents that read on this functionality, they cross-license each other and they'll forebear litigation on the claims and those patents, on those particular patents. And so the idea is born of co-opetition, which is what Jim during the keynote is really talking about without putting that name on it. But co-opetition is the whole idea that companies come together as the competitors and where we collaborate, we don't sue each other everywhere else. The normal rules around intellectual property. If you want to have patents, you can have patents. We don't care. We just want to neutralize the risks that's represented by the patents that are most important to code that people want to freely use and enhance. And so we're supporting that modality that I talked about of collaborative development, building on each other's ideas, growing technology through collaborative activities and getting this sense of a distilled collective intelligence that comes from the open source community. And one of the things that I'm really particularly proud of as we started out having mostly American companies, then we had some Japanese companies. But now we have 24% of our participation is from Asia and 35% is from Europe, Middle East Africa and the balance is from North America and Latin America. So we have a very good diversity. This is all about creating an inclusive community. That's what makes this work is the more large companies, the companies that have lots of patents that are in there, the better. And then all of the, we have 500, 480 companies that are very large with significant patent portfolios above 200 patents. Some of them as many as 86,000 patents like Canon, which is one of the largest patent holding companies in the world. That's part of our community. And get everybody to believe in the same, that same basic norm. Collaboration is important, whether it's on the technology side, or on the legal side, to make sure that this thing can grow. And there weren't going to be any bottlenecks that were created to continue development and the innovation occurring through projects, which is really what when I look at this, I look at its project based innovation, Jim does necessarily use that language, you know, Mike Dolan or anyone else using that language, but it works for me because that's what it is. We've developed an alternative way of creating technology, breaking down the barriers of and the inefficiencies of silo development company by company development and being concerned about every, every conversation that we had. I often think back to your, you know, probably been a Greek diner at the time, but in the 1970s in New York City, if someone from IBM came in and they looked back at the, in the restaurant, they saw someone from, from HP, they would probably turn around believe not risking any contamination or concern because the concerns around competition, law and, and the possibility, the appearance of impropriety through, through discussion, even with a competitor would be incredibly concerning. The, the level of concern about antitrust in companies to this day, like IBM is, is acute. And so that's, that was then now CEOs, CEOs, people who think they run companies have no idea who's talking to whom. And that's why, you know, also Jim's comment, which I don't necessarily completely agree with this techno kind of a techno nationalism. I think we've jumped the shark so that we, my first career as a diplomat, so my perspective is a bit different. I was in Tokyo, I've been at the UN in New York and France. And when I look at open source, I see it as this elegantly seditionist and uncontrollable social movement that allows people, encourages people to talk to each other and co-develop irrespective of what government wants. I mean, you pretty much have to shut networks down and prevent people from traveling to try to squelch the, the virulent social effect of open source. And so that's a great thing because we transcend the control elements of the different forms of government that try to, but don't really understand how social movements like this that produce technology evolve. And so I see that the point of techno nationalism that Jim's trying to make, but that's not really what's going on, I think. And, and so we're in the business of ensuring that there are no subluxations. And so China has been, I think I've traveled 64 times to China over the last 15 years. So I'm there for a month at a time sometimes. The importance to me was bringing China into this community 12 years ago, 10 years ago, eight years ago even. The level of participation of Chinese companies in communities like ours, but more importantly in major projects was quite limited. You had Huawei and you didn't have many other companies by do all the intense and kind of all came into the community in a big way five to six years ago. And I think that was, you know, 360 and all the other companies, BYD. And then there are hundreds of companies literally from China that have joined the way and it's most significant growth area for us by designing less, less five to seven years, even though I've been visiting China, you know, since the early part of that period. That's been a significant kind of win as to how we kind of create an environment. We look at emerging technology areas. The nominal subject of the of this talk is another topic that Jim brought up, which I think for him, you know, is top of mind very important during COVID, we've seen multiple examples of hacking of major networks corporate as well as government and the whole notion of cybersecurity, cybersecurity. If you you look at areas that are increasingly becoming open source specific or open source centric. And then you look at the patent history in those areas. It's usually a bad combination because people want to come in and they want to do more with open source and in a particular technology arena, you know, and it's hundreds of billions of dollars of damages caused a year. Trillions of dollars literally have been spent to be able to over the last five years. I think it's a trillion dollars to be able to counteract the effects of of cyber security breaches. And so it's this constant, you know, the the sophistication of nationally backed or individual commercially motivated hacks on systems is increasing, which means that the countermeasures need to increase. And so that means more spend. And fortunately, there are more open source solutions that are being developed. I think there are 60 platforms, if we can call them platforms, I guess, listed on GitHub. And they're more and more all the time. But what from a patent standpoint, what it is is is a opportunity for non practicing entities and practicing entities, practicing entities that are not winning that see themselves as not being able to compete effectively in the market, either through price performance, quality service, whatever the critical elements are of differentiation. And those companies end up getting involved in the use of their patents because that's all they have left. There are many companies that kind of live with a sense of out of a sense of depravity or act out of a sense of depravity and utilize their patents to try and slow the stall the progress of any particular technology kind of this continuity like the open source represents. And so we see this is the environment. And so every time there's a, you know, the auto sector, it's the networking sector, we see what happens, you know, without when open source enters this space. It's how do we protect the ability of companies to make good choices about what technologies they want to implement to be able to deal with the new reality of cyber attacks. And they, you know, if you could work together, you can bring people together to be able to collaborate, you're going to be able to produce a better solution or elegant solution to deal with these situations and combat the rising sophistication of cyber of people who are involved in penetrating networks. And so we look at it. We look at this. What's the maturity level? Well, there's no history within cybersecurity of cross licensing. Electronics and you look at telecom, IT, networking, very sophisticated. These people deal with litigation every week, every month. A company like that's one of our members, Sony, I think they've had some years where they've had over 200 patent litigations that they've had to deal with. So it's, they're among the top 10 companies that have ever been involved in litigation in the last 15 years. And so they live this, they know it. They're very sophisticated. They have outside counsel on retainer, some of the best litigation counsel in the world. It's a, it's just a, it doesn't get in the way of them running their business. They deal with it in a discreet way. They settle, they do a variety of things. They participate, Sony actually participates in more patent litigation, patent non-aggression communities that are maybe sister organizations to OIN as well as funding OIN than any other company in history because they deal with these things. Companies that are in cybersecurity don't have that sophistication. They're on the other end of the spectrum. And so we go to these companies and try and work with them to understand, make sense of the situation that they find them is because one of the, the, the weapons and levers of capitulation is to, is to trigger the collapse of sense making kind of to, to get you to a point inside a company where everything stops because you've been sued or you've been asserted against, which is a pre litigation mechanism to try and scare you into settling and licensing. And so, I mean, it's not that all licensing is bad. There's lots of licensing that is very collaborative and encourages the sharing of technology that someone maybe has some legal right to. I think there are lots of excesses in, in, in licensing, but be that as it may, if there's a, you know, it's become a tool and there's billions of dollars of capital that go into just the non-praxying entity business. You know, you've got companies like Finjan Holdings is one of the larger holders of, they've aggregated through many different iterations over time. They were once a public company and now they take private a couple of years or last year. They were bought by one of the largest patent hold, patent aggression companies in the world. And so Fortress is the owner interestingly, they're owned by, by the Japanese flash Korean soft bank group. And they are in a business that seems highly inconsistent with, with ARM, which is another one of their holdings. But they're pretty much purely a financially motivated operating company that holds many different businesses. They're hold a large holding company. And they just happen to own two entities that are, that are, that make money, one through the sale of designs, product services. The other is, is essentially one of the largest trolls in the world. And so now you have all of these cybersecurity patents and lots of other technologies that are patented inside Fortress. Fortress has something like $6 billion that is invested in intellectual property. That's formidable. And they have been buying up entities like this. Finjan was a, a practicing entity for many years. It was developing technology, providing solutions, selling products. But then it got to a point where it was no longer viable. And this is not an unusual pattern. And they, they value in the company really was in the business model was shifted to licensing. And so they became the kind of a one of the modern antagonists to cyber security. You had a number of different companies, Symantec checkpoint, dozen plus others that have been, they've been sued by them, sued by Finjan. And then you have corporates. And so cup, cup cybersecurity is a subsidiary of European company called Cup, which the UPP, which is an operating company, but is looking to supplement what it develops on the product side and services with, with revenue and from licensing and litigation. And so these this is just early days, but you can expect that more and more there's more and more money is put in. There'll be more litigation. And so we look at, at the risk profile, we try to include from open source projects code that people are going to be utilizing to create their cybersecurity systems and to be able to thwart attacks and anticipate. And we include that in this scope of the cross license. So anybody who's in the community is agreeing to cross license each other. So it's neutralizing the risk that from that comes from operating companies. What we do against nonpraxing entities and what we'll do in this space as we've done it in every other can other every other technology space is that we look to work with companies that are at risk or in litigation by mobilizing our network within the open source community to identify prior art and analyzing patents understanding their weaknesses, whether they're not novel, whether they should have never been been granted. And then we take the the prior art and we share it with council internal council external council for the company that is again at risk or in litigation. And so this is a standardized routineized process for us is to to put together packages that help companies defend themselves more effectively. In some companies we'll even we have over 1100 patents and applications. We will forward deploy those patents to companies that are at risk or in litigation if they're being sued by an operating company. So we would have patents that read on the up on a number of operating companies that are potential antagonists. We then convey the patents to them to allow them to counterclaim because important to the difference between operating companies and nonpraxing entities nonpraxing entities don't have products you can't counterclaim. So you've lost an arrow in the quiver of defensive management of risk associated with patent litigation. So you have to have other tools for the nonpraxing entity. So we got together when Microsoft came into OIN, which was an important milestone two and a half almost three years ago. We I think is a very very explicit way. Microsoft viewed us as a vehicle of sanctification maybe too strong word but of their transformation into an entity that was worthy of being part of the open source community. And those are not my words. They're their words to me. And so OIN looks for opportunities to work together Microsoft and other companies in the community to be able to do good things to reduce patent risk. And so one of the good things that Microsoft did as a result of them coming in and us forming this kind of partnership, if you will, and as part of their process of showing that they are open source friendly and comfortable as a member of the community was to invest in this is significant money. But we invested with IBM Linux Foundation, which is significant that kind of statement of leadership from Jim and Microsoft in founding and funding the open source zone, which is a something that Unified Patents maintains. It's a patent company that is a good guy company. They focus on attacking poor quality patents and getting them to be invalidated. And so and there are thousands of poor quality patents out there, some percentage of which read on open source functionality and products. And so this entity we fund every year to be able to support this troll interdiction. The idea that you remove the gunpowder from the weapons that that patents represent for non practicing entities. And so what we did is fund that and then we get a report out every three months on their activities. And they've they've been successful with over I think 60 patents that they've attacked and had invalidated that read on open source functionality that either been used or we're latent assets that were being prepared for use to be able to attack open source project code products, products that result from the adoption of open source project code. So it's a there are many ways of dealing with risk. We just do these things and not because I mean Jim's other theme this morning, which is one that's resonate resonates well with me. It's the notion of humility. We're not the stars of the show. We're just behind the scenes in the trenches one foot in front of the others. We're grinder. You know, it's the terms used in golf when you don't have a great day and you're just having to get around the course you grind you do whatever you can to score and what we're trying to do is have a profound positive impact on the community. But one that's not about our ego or our identity or any of the IBM doesn't care whether I am ever mentioned in the press, even though they're kind of the cheap architect of alliance formation. They just want the effect that people have choice that people can make good decisions and not be forced into making decisions about what technology they're going to use because someone is holding a patent life to their throat. Patents can be very powerful, can be very beneficial to to innovation, but they can also have a detrimental effect on the ability of companies to make good choices about technologies and about whether they're going to be contributing in major projects, minor projects. Jim highlighted 750 projects that they manage. You know, many of those are are ones that we embrace to include that technology, the core technology that they produce to ensure this freedom of action. And our goal is to like when Toyota became a member of OIN, they invested $20 million. This is real money that people invest to support this this whole model of patent non-aggression that we promulgate. When they came in, it's there was a very explicit understanding that my responsibility was to bring in as many auto companies as possible into the community or companies that own patents that read on on the auto automobile sector. And so getting most of the 26 companies in China to join was not trivial and then getting almost every other auto company in the world to join in the two or three years subsequent to them, then participating funding OIN. And so it's it's like that in every community. Right now we're focused heavily on banking financial services and and cart the cart issuing companies and and crypto companies. I'm an advisor on Kopa, which is something that was Jack Dorsey's view. He wanted something that that would benefit the crypto community and reduce patent risk. And so he had something launched, which was a little premature, but it was a statement. He had something launched earlier this year that focuses on patent non-aggression packed between crypto companies. May we protect some crypto technology? We have a number of crypto related companies in our community, but you can do things that are that are that are kind of a parallel universe or complementary to what OIN is. Patent risk mitigation is not kind of one stop shopping. It's it's really a mosaic of multiple strategies and components that allow you to get to the risk yourself and your company and the products that you produce, the services you offer. And so we we did this for the auto space because it was you have to you have to push and you have to drive and and we're bringing in banks now. We sign a new bank about every eight weeks bank or fintech company. And so that community is coming because the more they rely in the banks have utilized open source technology for well over a decade. It's just that the consciousness of that decision is actually something that's only occurred in the last three or four years. If you look at Rex of what banks are looking for when you look at technology, it's transformed dramatically. They were like auto companies. They've fallen into the pattern of eating their food pre-chewed, which is not a flattering reference and it's purposely designed not to be flattering because they were at least auto companies had a history. You look at Daimler Toyota's founding. These are technology sophisticated technology companies that had fallen into a trap of having tier one suppliers tell them what they were going to put into each each model. You know, they literally Bosch and and then so and other companies come in with a book and they say, All right, this is your program for the LX whatever and and then you're going to okay, well, we'd like to do this. We'd like to do that. And so they've been a been a real decline in kind of active participation and the road map development was largely done by a third party. That's changed a lot in the auto space and automotive grade Linux has been a I think a lubricant for that transformation to occur and the same thing is happening to some extent with the banks now. I mean, I talked to banks and I tell them you know, in five to seven years, you'll be taping at your own chips and the you know, a lot of people just can't get their mind around that that you know, this open source hardware thing that that's going to affect us. You know, we get chips from so and so well that world's done. You know, it's it's it's a fake company that this is going to change and we're you know, I'll talk a little bit about it, but we're also very concerned about taking the success that we've had on the software side and having it also apply on the hard on the hardware side. So we're our ambition is a big one, but it's within a confined space of freedom of choice, freedom to operate and open source across the board. So banking financial service is very important and you know, if you look at the Swift, Swift Network is is where a back office transaction processing a lot of activity occurs. It's like Swiss cheese. I mean, there's so many. I think it's double digit. Intrusions that have occurred over the last five years in the switch system. And so that's why you know, blockchain and hyper ledger is an important component to be able to develop solutions that where we actually have much more integrity in in the transaction environment. If you look at five years ago, I had a conversation with with Daimler CTO and he said, you know, we're going to use blockchain for all of our all that smart cars that they own with Geely 5050. Geely owns Volvo. It's 15 percent of the shares of Daimler, the corporate entity as well. So don't sleep on Geely. It's a very significant company and they together are going to be using a smart platform to be able to do their autonomous driving program. That's smart car platform that we saw launched here probably 12 years ago. And so all of that work, all the every trip that they those be those autonomous vehicles take will be tracked in a in a in a blockchain so that they'll be every every time a vehicle leaves a spot and then comes back to a spot. It will be one one record that is inalterable that the regulator, which strives a lot of these decisions, the regulator in Germany is going to be requiring and then in other parts of the world similarly so that there's a good handle on exactly what's happened to the all these autonomous vehicles. And so whether they use a whether it is a blockchain solution or it's an alternative solution that's more scalable than blockchain is for the number of iterations that daily daily tracking activities would be required. The important thing is that technology is becoming much more central to the auto sector and much more central to the banking financial services sector so that the the hiring is very much there are five times as many technologists and an average money center bank as there were just five years ago. And the massive hiring and much more sophisticated and talented people than the people who typically were were involved in influencing technology decisions historically. And so this is an arena that's that's exploding with with the notion of managing risk of preventing cyber attacks that will then cost potentially billions of dollars. And so these are the kind of arenas that we focus on and where we look to to look at the technology that these banks are adopting. It's also insurance companies. You know, Jim mentioned the power sector. We're talking to many of the power companies in Europe as well as in North America about recognizing the re-architecting of their networks and moving power back and forth means a lot more facilitated because of the architecture the inherent architecture of European systems versus American power grid. But nonetheless both are looking at re-architecting their networks. It's a global trend and all the companies that do city planning urban planning are clued into this and so we work with them as well about understanding what the important technologies are going to be and what what we need to essentially neutralize risk around because everybody wants choice in the core. So that's what we do and everything we do is free, which is another interesting unusual component. And so we provide prior art free. We we have counsel that litigation counsel that companies that don't have the ability to to actually defend themselves in some cases will step in and bear the costs of their defense. We do all this quietly. It's not about patting ourselves on the back or getting accolades or props from anyone. It's just doing what's necessary and having a very sophisticated group of people and a very big budget. Just to give you an example during the Microsoft we're a skirmisher. We're not a big entity with billions of dollars. We have we use our money in a careful thoughtful way. But example of how we utilize what we do to attack poor quality applications. I talked about how we're dealing with poor quality patents by working with unified patents and partnership with IBM and Microsoft and Linux Foundation. What we're doing before patent gets granted is there's something called a pre issuance program under the American Vents Act. And what we do is we monitor every week patent applications. We particularly have a set of companies that we're concerned about that are mean many people do. This isn't a secret. And it shouldn't be something that people are not familiar with as an idea but like like homelessness and criminality. There are many companies that are present in the building today and in events that are not open source centric that are that it's like it's like a criminal wearing the cloak of homeless to perpetrate crime. There are lots of people who are it's not hundreds of companies but I think and think of many different arenas in technology where companies live on the outskirts of open source. They're not all in although they have plenty of very authentic people that they employ. The corporate leadership the identity of the business model are antagonistic to open source more than supportive. And these are companies that when you when they're going to be forced to change their business models. And I think I mentioned open source hardware. I think embedded companies are going to be are in for a significant transformation because just not sustainable to be able to work as backwards by saying we designed this here you can build your product around it. You're going to increasingly be building your product around something that you've designed and taped out and somebody produces chips for you. And so again auto companies are there they understand this banks financial services companies will get there. And so that dynamic I think is really interesting because again that's why my interest is so acute in open source hardware right now. We're not we're not done on the software side thirty five hundred thirty six hundred companies is not that many. There should be 10,000 that are part of our community. We've got 500 mega companies and then the rest are companies that that are small to medium sized companies that we hope will be gigantic at some point and they don't have to have a lot of patents. In their growth. But what we are doing this is something so we attack poor quality patents as I was saying or applications. And so somebody files an overly broad claim from a company that we're concerned about. We'll identify prior art to feed it to the patent examiner before the patent gets granted so that they can reduce the claim scope dramatically to thereby neutralize the risk that patent represents or they'll reject the patent application out of hand at the same time. We we use something called a fast track system to file ahead of where that idea came from. We look at that idea mean that you may have the priority date by filing a patent. But what we do is ensure that you can't grow a patent family. And so we file every possible extension from that base patent application. And we utilize a fast track system which is expensive. But again it's necessary. And so we might file eight applications that are around that I general idea. So while they're trying to get all the original filer is trying to deal with the patent examiner and get get preserved their patent claims we're ensuring that they can't grow a patent family which is where real dangers comes from patent families are what people leverage individual patents are very rarely the critical of the direction of the technology. So you have to make sure that you scorch the earth so that around that that invention so that the idea cannot grow a supportive patent family over a course of usually two or three years you see family development occur. And then when you've got 6 10 12 patents that are around the core invention that's where you have strength in terms of monetization and through litigation and litigation. And so what we do is ensure that that can't occur. And that's a you know we're one of the probably the largest user of this feature in North America. And so we're working in China we're working in Europe to be able to utilize the tools that they they allow us to use to be able to similar things for granted patents and for pre issuance. Another thing that we've just implemented which we're about to announce is that intellectual ventures is based here. It's one of the largest patent holding companies in the world. They have multiple funds that are filled with patents that read on different different activities. Lots of old patents which is good because that for them that's not for the community. And they they increasingly they have lots of patents that have priority dates that are way back and they have patents on you know they claim to have patents that are highly relevant to Kubernetes Docker Kafka. So lots of things that are impossible to probably avoid at this point for most companies and because of the widespread usage that gets their attention. And so they've started to assert patents sound view innovations is another entity that has patents in those same technologies or claims that they're in those same technologies and they're utilizing those patents to actually litigate they filed Pat they filed patent loss of infringement lawsuits against a number of different financial institutions in use of those technologies. And then also Hadoop is is on that list in terms of what sound view has and so in order to deal with a very large patent assertion entity you can't just go after you know utilize unified to attack individual patents. They just have too many patents they have hundreds of patents that read on these technologies or claim to read on these technologies. So what you need to do is something that we're pioneering is the idea of syndication where we go in with partner usually that has a strong relationship with the patent assertion entity. Thank you. And then what we end up doing is negotiating what we call a slipper license like they might want to license all of their patents and then might be 10 million or 15 million or 20 million dollars to some company. Lots of companies can't afford that and don't want to be held up in that way in terms of patent hold up. And so what we have done is negotiate a slipper license which gives you all of the open source related patents that come to you know if you were if we have the 400 plus companies that are really large companies we go to them and we're going to be offering them the opportunity to license the more companies that come in the lower the the ratable prices for the for the participation and this is a pass through. We don't we don't get any money for doing this. It's just something that we've developed since we can't be spending 50 a hundred million dollars 200 million dollars on buying one you know one portfolio. We want everybody else to be benefiting but to create an opportunity for them to pay a much lower price because they're only getting access to what that which they need to protect them from their open source use usage. And so we do that. We'll be announcing that in a few weeks. We're partnering with an entity called RPX that has very strong relationship with IV and and then the bulk of our companies will get a free license because they'd never be targets of a patent troll troll through patent assertion entity kind of activity. So they'd get a free license and the other companies would have to pay some amount based on how many participate. And so we're trying to be innovative and creative to be able to protect the open source community on the technologies are important to it. And that's you know well it's cybersecurity is the topic without the contextualization it's hard to understand what we're doing with cybersecurity but the more code we can put in that's from important projects that's nominated by people in the community. The better the protection is and that it's our job to do as I described the commitment that I made to to Google around around Chrome and Android in terms of bringing lots of companies in that are users of that those technologies and the same thing on the on the auto side to Toyota when they came in to make sure that we had as many as many companies as possible so that we're neutralizing the risk of all the auto for the entire auto sector because there are no companies that can hold out and sue on core Linux functionality from HGL or other projects that might might be derivative of sources of technology for the open source adoption activities inside these industries. So I'm you know again what we do is free people participate as licensees for free whether you're a gigantic company that has ton of patents or a company that has no patents and maybe was just minted yesterday. The whole idea is that we have to provide protection and defensive support and be a guardian of open source and the modality that I talked about at the outset. So if you have any questions now or questions later feel free to reach out to me. This is a very personal kind of thing for me. I travel a lot even during COVID maybe not as much obviously but I'm constantly on the road two hundred ninety to three hundred days a year during normal times and it's about trust and it's about confidence. We talked some of the largest companies in the world and they have to be comfortable that we're going to be rational actor because highly unusual to have a license where the licensor can expand or change the scope for the license obligation at will. We give people the opportunity to to opt out in the event that we were to act irrationally but at the same time very few people ever do that because we are a rational actor and we've proven that over fifteen sixteen years of operation stuff. So as I said it's a dialogue and it's you know there are many companies I talked to for over ten years while we signed the OAN license last year I've been talking to them for fourteen years it's so it takes sometimes it takes a while but it's also the relevance as open source becomes more relevant so too does OAN because Jim made a decision eleven years ago twelve years ago that he wanted to be he wanted to become a professional management organization of projects not just to have Linux under the under the tenth and what that meant in order to do this rapidly was to utilize permissive licenses like Apache which have precious little deterrent effect in terms of patents I mean there are some patent elements to it so it's not to disregard those completely but OAN is really a purpose built to be a companion to patent management organization to project management organizations and projects themselves to enable freedom of action to give people comfort that they can utilize these technologies and make choices that are that are the best from there for their technology roadmap and they're what they want to deliver their customers not ones driven by patent positions and control of third parties so anyway thanks for being here and welcome to getting back to to actually being able to have human contact again without leave a screen in the middle