Yeah

... royalty-free, you know, licensing structure.

I, I mean, that's a path they can certainly take, but I-- but I think the current administration, right, has, has just reiterated that just because something is royalty-free doesn't mean there's no anti-competitive effect, right? Um, and in some cases, when you think about it, if you have large, you know, implementers coming together and mandating anyone who participates into this, this arguably standardization process contribute their patents on royalty-free terms, that actually does actually even heighten the level of scrutiny that I think the government is now looking at, and, and particularly the current administration and the current DOJ, into whether these are actually competitive or not.

So, so I, I think they're gonna have their own struggles to, to deal with.

I think I understand the rationale.

I mean, everyone, at the end of the day, wants to avoid paying out money.

But, but I think as you've seen with a lot of these technologies, there are other patent holders that are not gonna be actively contributing, and that even if you do try to mandate and dictate a royalty-free kind of obligation on all the active participants, you're still not doing what their goal is, which I think was to create a complete royalty-free solution.

I mean, does it surprise you that so many companies are doing the right thing by taking a license, or is there something that maybe I don't appreciate about technology companies out there or implementers out there?