PATENT ON THE FRITZ: Patenting the Internet Economy

Thursday, July 13, 2000

Is our patent system failing the new information economy? Critics say that the way that patents are being granted on computer software and on Internet business methods threatens to impede technology and commerce rather than encourage it. Can industry resolve intellectual property problems on its own? Should we overhaul the patent system or just the U.S. Patent Office?

Recorded on Thursday, July 13, 2000

Peter Robinson: Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson. Our show today, Patenting the New Information Economy. Pretty much, everybody would agree with the basic idea behind the patent system. If an inventor produces a new and useful invention, say Thomas Edison and the light bulb, he ought to be rewarded. A patent grants the inventor exclusive rights to his invention which he can then license or sell making money. That incentive, the promise of making money, fosters innovation and everybody in society benefits.

Today, however, in the new information economy, many would argue that the patent system is failing. The problem, patents are being granted on computer software and internet technology in such a way as to impede rather than foster innovation. It would be as if, in the old days, patents had been granted not on individual light bulbs but on the very idea of creating light from electricity in the first place. If that had happened, all of us would have been left in the dark.

With us today, three guests. David Weitz is a partner at the Law Firm Wilson Sonsini. Margaret Jane Radin is a Professor of Law at Stanford University and Seth Shulman is author of the book, Owning the Future.

Title: One Click Over the Line

Peter Robinson: Last year, Barnes & Noble was forced to remove from its website a feature that enabled shoppers to purchase books with a single click. The reason: a court injunction upheld amazon.com's exclusive patent on the one-click shopping method. So, it has come to this, we are now patenting clicks. Is this a patent system that is operating as it should? Seth?

Seth Shulman: Short answer, no. What we're seeing, I think, is tremendous expansion of the kinds things that-that people are gaining exclusive rights to.

Peter Robinson: They're patenting things that ought not to be patented?

Seth Shulman: Yeah.

Peter Robinson: Peggy?

Margaret Jane Radin (Peggy): Patents are being issued that are too broadly worded but, in principle, there's nothing wrong with patenting a process with a computer in it. Computer implemented inventions are just processes like any other patentable processes.

Peter Robinson: So it doesn't strike you as silly or at least questionable on the fact of it, that we're patenting one-click shopping?

Margaret Jane Radin: If it's silly or questionable as a process that's patented, it's because the Patent Office is issuing patents that are too broad or are for things which are obvious or not novel. But not-not in principle.

Peter Robinson: No objection in principle?

Margaret Jane Radin: No.

Peter Robinson: You have questions about how it might be done.

Margaret Jane Radin: Absolutely.

Peter Robinson: David?

David Weitz: I-I think good for-good for Amazon. They-they played the game. They-they did-they gave…

Peter Robinson: Spoken like-spoken like a lawyer who's in this game.

David Weitz: Well they, you know, they gave, you know, they gave America a wake-up call that this is the new way you compete with business.

Peter Robinson: You like the way the patent system works right now or you just happen to-given that the way-given that it works that way, you think Amazon played it well?

David Weitz: I think that given that the patent system works that way, Amazon played with the rules.

Peter Robinson: Okay. Do you like the rules as they stand?

David Weitz: I like the rules as they stand. I'd like to fortify what the Patent Office can do so that people aren't given unfair advantages with-with poorly-terribly poorly examined patents but if-if you have reasonable examination, then it's fine.

Peter Robinson: Okay.

Seth Shulman: You know what's interesting before we move on though that-that Jeff Bezos from Amazon has already backed off of-of patent litigation.

Peter Robinson: The latest that I found on the Amazon website from Jeff Bezos which we'll get to in a moment because I'd like to discuss it, was a sort of embarrassed, gee I'm sorry we have to do this sort of thing. And I myself, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, would like the patent system reformed. And, as I say, we'll discuss his reforms and…

Seth Shulman: That's what I'm-that's what I'm referring to.

Peter Robinson: …but he did not say, we will drop our suit. On the contrary, he made it clear that he intended as long as they had a patent, they would pursue it.

Seth Shulman: Very imp-I think that statement is very important.

Peter Robinson: But he's embarrassed about it.

Seth Shulman: It's more than embarrassment. I think he realizes that the kinds of verdicts we're going to see are very capricious and that-that Amazon has as much to lose or maybe more than anybody else. And I think that's one of the problems…

Peter Robinson: Here's a radical idea. Could it be that for software, patents aren't needed at all?

Title: Let My Ideas Go

Peter Robinson: Listen now to the software programmer, Richard Stalman. I quote him: "In fact there is no reason to believe patents promote progress in software. The patent system encourages people to have ideas and lock them up, sequester them from use by others. It obstructs the main job of software development. We don't need artificial measures to encourage people to have more ideas in software." He's a bright guy in the middle of the programming field. Is Stalman right?

Margaret Jane Radin: It's debatable whether we need intellectual property as motivation for everything that people develop that's innovative. But-but I think there's no question that the patent system has functioned to help innovation. The problem is that if you own a lot of intellectual property assets, if-if too many things are owned than new people can't take those and innovate without getting licenses…

Peter Robinson: Stalman's wrong?

Peter Robinson: Stalman's wrong. There's no difference, in principle, between software and light bulbs.

David Weitz: It's too simplistic. There are different types of software inventions. He's focusing on software inventions that he thinks are just so easy. There are a lot of inventions, which aren't that easy.

Seth Shulman: But I-if I can jump in on this Stalman thing too, I mean, Richard Stalman's views are extreme but I think he gets something right. Patents are designed to spur innovation but they're also a compact between-between the public and-and the rights of the inventor. And essentially what you trade is you allow the inventor for his new-his or her new innovation or invention the-the protection. But in exchange, you-you bring a good to the marketplace. And I think one of the problems we're seeing as we get into this highly conceptual terrain is that the patents are being given way far upstream essentially…

Peter Robinson: Upstream means what?

Seth Shulman: Well you can…

Margaret Jane Radin: Well research tools are for things which may be useful in the future after further development and innovation but which aren't useful for the market right now.

Seth Shulman: …don't yield anything in-in, you know, the lawyers like to talk about utility, usefulness. That's part-that's written in-that's one of the requirements written…

Peter Robinson: Give us the requirements of the Patent Office.

Margaret Jane Radin: Okay. Well it has to be useful. It has to be novel. It has to be not obvious. It has to satisfy some requirements of definiteness and-and enablement. You have to enable people to make it.

Seth Shulman: But those-those three are the usual (?). It has to be novel.

Peter Robinson: Novel.

Seth Shulman: Not-not obvious to someone else.

Peter Robinson: Okay. Now tell me if things are done badly, what is the worst that could happen? Why are-why should we even care about this if you're not…

Seth Shulman: Well there are many different kind of things to care about but I-but the thing that I-that I care about particularly is this idea that if you do see it as sort of a trade-off or a balance, that what we have to understand is that ideas grow through their exchange. What's happening now is that we're seeing an increase in the privatization, the private exclusive ownership of ideas that were formerly held more in the public domain.

Peter Robinson: And do you buy that, that general description?

David Weitz: Well I think people are becoming more aware of the value of intellectual property so they're trying to privatize it. But, you know…

Peter Robinson: Let's ask David how he advises his Silicon Valley clients on patents.

Title: Valley of the Deals

Peter Robinson: You practice patent law in Silicon Valley. I am a start-up. I've got engineers coming up with software to do this, that and the other and they're coming up with it twenty hours a day because they only sleep four hours a day. You come in to me and you say what? Peter, patent everything you can. Would that be your opening position?

David Weitz: No.

Peter Robinson: No?

David Weitz: What I would say is, one, you need to patent the things that are-have lasting power, the things that are at the kernel of what is going to be important to your company and your business plan for years to come so you can have exclusivity in that…

Peter Robinson: What's it cost to patent something? What are my incentives here as I try to decide what I want to patent and what I don't?

David Weitz: Well costs you money and it costs you ate-time to take those people who are working to go and…

Peter Robinson: Is there such a thing as a typical figure for getting a patent on software?

David Weitz: You know, in the valley it's probably ten to fifteen thousand dollars for applying for a patent.

Peter Robinson: Okay.

David Weitz: That sort of ballpark. But, you know, we've left out a very important part of…

Peter Robinson: Go ahead.

David Weitz: …of-of the equation and that is, my other job is to help you evaluate the risks and that means that my job is to go and help you assess what the other people are doing and how you can differentiate yourself and how you could evade their intellectual property. And so what I see with my clients is, by them understanding what other people are doing, they get…

Peter Robinson: When you say other people, you mean their competitors in the valley, here in the…

David Weitz: Third-third parties who have patents.

Peter Robinson: Right.

David Weitz: And their competitors in the valley or outside. But they read other people's patents as well as other materials and they get crafty. They say I can do this better. I can do this differently. So putting the information in the dom-in the public domain furthers innovation and trying to differentiate yourself from other people to evade intellectual property, stimulates innovation.

Peter Robinson: Peggy, we have two nicely, clearly defined views here. Seth says the way things are operating now, the way patent law operates with regard to software now tends to stifle innovation and progress. And David says bologna; on the contrary, it stimulates it. You may now cast the deciding vote.

Margaret Jane Radin: There's one thing that Stalman is kind of right about which is, he might not put it this way, but there are industries in which if we didn't have patenting, there wouldn't be much innovation going on because it's so incredibly expensive and you do have to reap those monopoly rends afterwards. And drugs is one. And-and a lot of software patents are not like that and it probably would be ideal to have them be much shorter. But, of course, you can run a legal system with patents for software being two years and patents for drugs being thirty years and so on. I mean, it would be hard to-it would be hard to do that.

Seth Shulman: You might be able to.

Margaret Jane Radin: So it's possible that there-that the protection for-for software should be a shorter time but it would be hard to know what software is.

Peter Robinson: Now you…

Margaret Jane Radin: Wait let me just-let me say one thing. It's hard to know what software is right now because we ought to say computer implemented inventions instead because you can write-in software, you can write in hardware. You don't patent the code. You patent the way of doing it and so you say I can program an arithmetic logic circuit in connection with a processor. That's how the claims read. So it could be software or hardware. It's…

Peter Robinson: Hold on.

Margaret Jane Radin: Okay.

Peter Robinson: You just tossed out something that-to which my weary little layman's mind might want to try to latch on. One criterion for awarding patents might be the difficulty and expense to which the innovator went to develop the product.

Margaret Jane Radin: Yes.

Peter Robinson: So we have a giant pharmaceutical company such as Lilly or Merck's spending tens of millions of dollars to produce a drug and it's quite clear that people wouldn't go to that kind of enormous effort and expense unless they could get a clear proper-property right in the drug that they're-on the other hand, you have engineers up and down this valley drilling out algorithms and coming up with idea-and it costs very little and they-these things are-how many thousands of ideas come up…

Margaret Jane Radin: I'm not sure it costs…

Peter Robinson: So what do you think about that criteria?

Margaret Jane Radin: I-I…

Peter Robinson: You don't buy it? Why not?

David Weitz: There-there are loads-there are loads of inventions that have-that have come along that you can look at and you can say…

Peter Robinson: Cheap and easy?

David Weitz: …cheap and easy, you know, flash of genius. The intermittent windshield wiper with which Jerome Level-Lemelson generated loads of money off of the auto industry. I mean, tens of millions of dollars. That was not rocket science. So measuring it by saying, you know, I-I think it's interesting that the software people denigrate themselves by saying that you shouldn't patent it because we're not being that creative.

Peter Robinson: Next topic. Do business method patents make any sense?

Title: The Priceline is Right

Peter Robinson: Simple concept. Let online buyers name the price they're willing to pay for a good or service, a hotel room, an airline flight and then go see if a supplier is willing to meet that price. I just described it one sentence. It's that basic, that simple. Yet priceline.com has a patent right in that idea or believes it does and believes so strongly that it does have a patent, right, in that idea. That it has now brought suit against Microsoft and Microsoft's travel subsidiary Expedia, because Microsoft was also engaging in what is called buyer-driven commerce. Now that's a little silly, isn't it David? Something as basic and simple as buyer-driven commerce. That should not be patentable, should it?

David Weitz: Well the…

David Weitz: Your description of that claim is-that's not what the claim says. That's what the lay language interpretation of what it is.

Peter Robinson: All right. So straighten me out on it.

Margaret Jane Radin: The claim of that patent has to do with computers processing these-these offers and acceptances in conjunction with a credit card. Anyone who did it without a credit card would not be infringing. It still may turn out to be…

Margaret Jane Radin: It's important to say I don't want to be in a legal quibble. It's important to say though that it's traditionally been the function of the courts to overrule patent claims that were too broad which-which would stifle future invention. And the most famous one in the past, in the nineteenth century, was Morse's patent on the telegraph because his first claim was a patent-he had a patent claim for all use of electromagnetic force to communicate at a distance. And they-the court disallowed that as-as cutting out too much for the future and so they allowed some narrower claims that were on his telegraph more per se. And it's possible that a lot of these patents that have these initial claims that are very broad…

Peter Robinson: That the Patent Office granted…

Margaret Jane Radin: …that the Patent Office granted.

Peter Robinson: …they did nothing wrong. They file the application. The Patent Office granted it.

Margaret Jane Radin: …assumption of validity of the Patent Act and ne-and nevertheless there's a tradition in the court to overrule them if they get litigated. The problem is if they're too broad, the problem is that they may not get litigated because people are using them strategically. I disagree with you about people are only patenting things that are good patents.

Peter Robinson: Hold on now…

Margaret Jane Radin: People are…

Peter Robinson: You're throwing out a new problem though.

Margaret Jane Radin: Yeah.

Peter Robinson: You're saying the Patent Office ought to go ahead and grant patents. And I, Peggy, don't see any particular immediate problem, in principle; with the way they're operating. But I, Peggy, do want to make sure that the courts then get a second whack at all these things.

Margaret Jane Radin: Yeah.

Peter Robinson: And they're not getting the second whack that they ought to get.

Margaret Jane Radin: I do not think that the Patent Office is operating very well. I think they are granting too many patents that are-that are obvious or not even novel, that they haven't examined properly but-but I still-I do believe that the court should get a second whack because it has been…

Peter Robinson: They're not getting enough of a second whack. That is…

Margaret Jane Radin: They're not…

Peter Robinson: All right. Why aren't they? Why aren't people getting…

Margaret Jane Radin: They're not getting a second whack because if you-if it costs two million dollars to litigate a patent to its conclusion and, by the way, if you litigate to conclusion, fifty percent of them are going to be declared invalid. But there's no-there's not much incentive to spend two million to litigate to conclusion if the-if the guy is only asking fifty thousand for the life.

Peter Robinson: David, this system of which you are so far the champion on this program, doesn't-sounds pretty screwy to me. We have a Patent Office in Washington, which is granting a lot of patents. Seth thinks they're granting patents that, in principle, they ought not to be granting, some of them anyway. Peggy says they're badly wor-over-broadly worded in some cases. You're sticking up for them. The patents get granted.

David Weitz: Not entirely.

Peter Robinson: Nobody gets to litigate again this matter because it's too darned expensive and too risky. So we have the feeling that the Patent Office is granting a lot of patents. We're not sure quite whether they're valid or not because they're not going to court often enough. And you love this system? You want to champion it?

David Weitz: I don't love this system.

Margaret Jane Radin: Your characterization is just right.

Peter Robinson: Why, thank you.

David Weitz: See I-I'm not saying that I love the system but I think that this is the system.

Peter Robinson: I thought you'd-I thought you'd-okay. So how would you change-what would you do? Do you agree with her that things-things don't get litigated often enough?

David Weitz: I-I think that there's a-a…

Peter Robinson: Giving you a chance to…

David Weitz: …there's another-she-she's absolutely right that there's a-that the cost, in many cases, doesn't justify taking the action. Now it-it also depends on what the asking price is. If the asking price is high enough then people are going to-people are going to put up a fight.

Peter Robinson: As a practical matter, isn't it just impossible for the Patent Office to keep up with the pace of the new hi-tech economy?

Title: What They Don't Know Can Hurt You

Peter Robinson: I have here a statement by Greg Aharonian who publishes the internet patent news service. He says half to seventy percent of internet patents are invalid because they-because they represent techniques that programmers already know about but the Patent Office doesn't know about. So do we have here a system that, whatever you think of it in principle, whatever you think about the wording, it just can't work because government bureaucrats, however well meaning, however skilled individually, can't keep up with this new industry.

David Weitz: Well they're stuck in the middle. On the one hand, clients want the Patent Office to get patents out fast. On the other hand, those same clients when they look at other people's patents, want the Patent Office to take more time and-and get it right. What I think is going to be the great benefit of this is the emergence of databases that is going to help the Patent Office evaluate patents and will also help-it'll put all sorts of information in the public domain.

Peter Robinson: Who's going to put these databases together? Who's…

David Weitz: The industries. I mean, that's one of the things that…

Margaret Jane Radin: Right now, they have-right now; the Patent Office has no tools to look at anything but old patents. They have no funding for research. They don't know what's popular on the street. They don't know what programmers do. They don't-they don't know what literature is out there or what's been published in scientific journals. They don't-they don't know…

Peter Robinson: And so your urge is not to just close up shop and let the market take care of this? Your urge is what, to give them all these-to fund them by means of government funding-you want to set up these databases or just-or go ahead and have the industry put together the databases.

Margaret Jane Radin: Well I think the industry should put together databases. I think they should consult with industry as they did with bankers recently who tried to explain to them why some of the banking patents were over-broad and obvious. I-I think…

Peter Robinson: There are still going to be government bureaucrats in Crystal City trying to keep up with these world shaking, you know, developments in the economy.

Seth Shulman: There's no question the pat-the Patent Office has a difficult job but I think it's too simple just to sort of scapegoat the Patent Office. I mean, there are bad patents being issued. There always have. I-I think the problem's more systemic. I mean, I'm interested in a bigger problem than just a bunch of pat-bad patents that have been issued. And that is where you draw the line on what should be considered allowable. It's a difficult question. I think it's a public policy question. And that's why I think we'd have a lot more common sense inserted if-if the public started to learn more about what's happening. I mean, I-I tend to share your view. I read the Priceline patent. To my eye, you know, it is a very long document. It's complicated and many, multiple claims. I think there are at least forty-seven claims to it. But basically, anybody else trying to get in with a reverse auction website is going to potentially infringe their-their-their patent. Well maybe if they don't use a credit card but I can't imagine one like that. So the point is, there have been teams of lawyers who have crafted this thing to try and be pretty air tight and govern essentially a-a concept. You know, the patent lawyers that I've talked to always like to say that you can't patent ideas. That's-it's not a-but, in fact, you know, the-the sixty-four million, zillion dollar question here is, the Patent Office was-was intended to-to protect that-that incremental-the-the improvement on the mousetrap. And the very hard thing to distinguish, increasingly hard in software and these kinds of high-tech fields is the distinction between that new mousetrap and the idea of pa-of trapping mice. That's what we're issuing now. We're issuing a lot of mouse trapping idea kind of patents. When you do that, you stymie the development…

Margaret Jane Radin: I do agree with you that propertization has gone too far. I think it's gone too far in both patent and copyright and-and I think that it's not only bad for people making innovations if they're not going to be a company that sits on their assets forever but they want new assets. It's also bad for free speech and creativity and those other things that…

Peter Robinson: All right. We've done a pretty good job of establishing that the patent system has problems but how should we solve those problems?

Title: Bezos Me Mucho

Peter Robinson: Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, has called for shortening internet patents from-the current time is…

Margaret Jane Radin: Twenty years from date of filing.

Peter Robinson: …from application. All right. From twenty years to a range from three to five years. Bezos writes, "In the age of the internet, a good software innovation can catch a lot of wind in three or five years." Solve the problem? Seth?

Seth Shulman: I'm open to exploring all those kinds of things and I-I welcome that kind of a…

Peter Robinson: But that's not the fix you have in mind?

Seth Shulman: That's not my fix, no.

Peter Robinson: What is your fix?

Seth Shulman: The two-two main ideas I have along these lines and I'm not a lawyer but explore are the idea of sanctuaries, our National Park System which says, I mean, we-we're a country that champions private ownership. I have nothing against private ownership but we do take certain…

Peter Robinson: Give us an example. What should be in a sanctuary free to all?

Seth Shulman: Well-well I think, you know, right now the most timely one is the human genome. The raw sequence data of the human genome. Already, defacto, it's somewhat in the public domain but I'd like to see that…

Peter Robinson: What do you think about the sanctuary idea?

David Weitz: Well I-I think that's a great idea. So, you know, we happen to be at Stanford University. They made millions of dollars on the Cohen-Boyer patent, which were fundamental to recombinant DNA. We should have put that in the sanctuary but we didn't.

Seth Shulman: I think so, yeah.

David Weitz: And the argument, back when those got issued, was that that was going to screw up the biotechnology industry and…

Peter Robinson: What was, the issuing of the patent would screw it up?

David Weitz: That-that the issuance of broad patents…

Peter Robinson: On recombinant DNA…

David Weitz: …that basically cover all recombinant DNA…

Peter Robinson: …which is basic to all research in that field.

David Weitz: …all researchers go and get a license to, was going to screw up…

Seth Shulman: That's not the…

David Weitz: …the ability of the industry and, in fact, that worked out. I mean, you know…

Peter Robinson: What do you think of the Bezos idea? Just shorten it up from twenty…

David Weitz: It doesn't-it doesn't work.

Peter Robinson: What-what's your-what would you want…

David Weitz: One-one, you know, you ought to be motivating the disclosure of ideas that have lasting power. Not motivating the ideas that have just a couple years lasting power.

Peter Robinson: Okay. That's what's wrong with…

Peter Robinson: David, what would you do then to ref-if I could give you one or two reforms, what would you make them? He's tried the sanctuary idea. You say no to that. What do you do?

David Weitz: Well it-the Patent Office runs at a significant profit. The government takes the money form the Patent Office and-and uses it for other purposes.

David Weitz: The Patent Office's budget was left alone and they could invest in themselves. Then we could build the databases and-and have a lasting source of information.

Peter Robinson: The system is fundamentally sound. It just needs to be made a littler better. Peggy. What do you-let me just ask you about Bezos because you haven't had a chance to comment on that, on this notion of shortening up patents?

Margaret Jane Radin: I think shortening it might be great. You know, a lot of firms rely on getting the jump on the market, they rely on trade secret, they rely on everything but patent. The problem is that people have been sandbagged by the business method because people got patents on things that other firms didn't know were patentable. Once everybody realizes everything is patentable, they then have to hire more lawyers and get more patents, which is, really I think, a waste of their engineers' time. So…

Peter Robinson: So how would you reform it? What would you…

Peter Robinson: Give me-give me the Peggy reforms.

Margaret Jane Radin: The Peggy reforms are make it shorter, maybe think of-of collaboration with industry to get more research data and to even ask industry groups what things are well known. And-and more than that, I think it would be very nice if-if the-if the industry themselves through tried associations or whatever, being careful not to be anti-competitive, could de-escalate among themselves because they're spending time…

Peter Robinson: Do they have incentives to do that right now?

Margaret Jane Radin: They absolutely do, yeah. And-and you…

Peter Robinson: So how come they're not doing it?

Margaret Jane Radin: Well semi-conductors are trying as far as I know. They're-they're trying to de-escalate because it's

Peter Robinson: So one chunk of the industry…

Margaret Jane Radin: Because it's killing them because-because to do a system on a chip they have to license a bazillion patents from other people which are pieces of it. So they-they realize that they can't proceed very well unless they get a handle on the patent problem.

Peter Robinson: Last question. Five years down the road. That's the question. Here's the background. 1990, the Patent Office issued about thirteen hundred software patents. Last year, 1999, it issued more than twenty-two thousand. In 2005, will that number be up, down, the same? David?

David Weitz: I think that number will be up because we are moving more and more to a technology driven economy and a worldwide technology driven economy.

Peter Robinson: Will they be better patents five years from now?

David Weitz: I think they will be a lot better because people will build on the tools they have to…

Peter Robinson: More valid, more thoughtful. Peggy, will that number go up?

Margaret Jane Radin: Yes, it will. Computer implemented inventions are going to cover more and more of the things that we need tools to do. So I don't see how it-it can go anywhere but up.

Peter Robinson: Seth?

Seth Shulman: There's no question that the way the field's moving, we're going to see more software patents but I-but I think-and I think also there's no question that as the field matures, some of the problems will work themselves out. My point is you can save yourself an awful lot of headaches, litigation, wasted time, energy and resources all the way around if we're-if we bring into the policy realm this idea of thinking a little more before we hand out monopolies which is essentially what a patent is, a time-limited monopoly.

Peter Robinson: Seth, Peggy, and David, thank you very much.

Margaret Jane Radin: Thank you.

Peter Robinson: So we'll be seeing more new economy patents, lots and lots more. As to whether the patent system will ever be reformed, to of our guests aren't absolutely convinced that it needs to be while our third guest only hopes that it might be someday. And that's where matters stand unless somebody has a better idea. I'm Peter Robinson. Thanks for joining us.

More from Uncommon Knowledge