Of you dont own me. She attended law school here at harvard and was a fellow at harvards center for ethics, Kennedy School for government. She has taught and lectured worldwide including law school that gail, tel aviv and beijing and is the dawn wakes teen professor of law at university of san diego and the author of Award Winning business book talent wants to be free. Her most recent book, you dont own me was recently described in the new yorker as a hairraising account of an epic tale in the Financial Times described it as a real page turner of a decadelong court battle between Toy Company Mattel and mga the ownership of the immensely popular bratz dolls. Please toy me in welcoming our guests for the evening, orly lobel. [applause]. Thank you. This is really special for me to be at the Harvard Bookstore because i spent many years as a graduate students here at Harvard Square and Harvard University just roaming the shelves and loving it and being inspired by all of the different disciplines in a way that still continues to impact my research, my writing, my thinking about ethics and Market Competition and justice and all of the interesting stuff that we see around us, how do we create culture, how our social icons made, equality and fairness and this is really also how i got to this book. So, i will tell you a little bit about how i started thinking about writing this book and how it opened so many windows into a lot of different issues and we capture that so anyways, so you dont own me starts in our current time. It starts when barbie, blueeyed, blonde, tiny waist, very large breasts, very cold, never changing has dominated our market, our images of womanhood, our childhood, parenting for basically 60 years, since her introduction in the American Market by mattel in 1959 and the story starts when finally after really dominating 90 of the market around the world for the First Time Ever without mattel ever expecting it suddenly through almost right now in current times in the beginning of the 21st century only the Holiday Season brings a new doll , a different kind of doll, bratty doll, fuller, more multi ethnic, more sassy, trendy, something that sort of more reflects what the taste of children, girls have right now and suddenly they sort of comes out on the market without mattel expecting, titian and as the judge in one of the many moments of the trial says, knox and barbie offer pedestal and so the story begins with a very unlikely hero. Think about a shy elton john, very creative young designer, Carter Bryant who always dreams about being a fashion designer, has been sketching from childhood all sorts of angels and fairies and he describes himself as being a sort of that are cord away when he was growing up in los angeles who while other boys were maybe playing with trucks and cars and with the balls outside and soccer he was actually playing with barbie and reading fashion magazines and his mother was very supportive. She actually testified in court about all of this and he wants to be in high fashion, but the second best when you are working in los angeles is this conglomerate mattel the control such a big market share and has such huge purchasing power of talent and he takes a job designing barbie clothes. He becomes really frustrated with the culture of mattel. He feels like its been very stagnant. Theres not acceptance of new ideas. Barbie is never changing and actually what i did a lot of the research and interviews and kind of intense discovery of the Corporate Culture of mattel i actually uncovered this term that mattel executives use about not introducing competition to barbie and they say we dont want to cannibalize barbie. They dont want to eat up what is so dominant in girls, you know, playrooms and in what we call the pink shelves of toy stores. So, he goes away for some time on the takes time off of mattel. He goes back to missouri. He sketches some sketches and theres a lot, i mean, part of the roller coaster decade long litigation is how do you actually show a moment of eureka and where does innovation innovation innovation and creatures of an come from but weekends and nights becomes a big defense that is part of the trial that he was not working at mattel when he thinks about this idea of a bratty doll and he sells it to a competitor and they develop without mattel knowing. He leaves mattel and they develop a huge empire that knocks barbie offer pedestal, so i went to read to you to actually set the stage the very first paragraph from not even the first chapter, the introduction of you dont own me to give you some sense of how the story begins. She was blonde and beautiful, statuesque with a long slender legs, a tiny waist and a chest so large that researchers claimed any similarly endowed woman would surely tip over. Four years Carter Bryant to beautifully served her. He styled her hair am addressed her skirts, dresses and luxurious grout cows, adored her injury and even applied her bake makeup and shows looked fabulous. Today, we week she was unblemished, shiny and new and in a 3 billiondollar industry she dominated over 90 market share for five decades and perhaps i was what carter decides for perfection at absence of a single flock and never change while people gain weight, their skin wrinkled and sag their hair grade, barbie stood perfect and closing of the changing world and while she remained ageless and pristine the world she had been born into ceased to exist. Everything was raunchier and more perverse. Barbie remains clean. A real artist, carter saw beauty in the broken, the queer, the broken and perhaps even a grotesque and like many creative people trapped in dead end jobs he experienced the inks of a servant whose goal had become the master. He imagined a new icon a better reflected the modern world using the beauty of real people took carter had not intended to assault barbies persona, public in the those invested in maintaining it your key had not even plan to confront his master he could not have consciously dared to dream of the millions he would make from his rebellion , the millions in the ensuing losses and the decadelong legal battle that would not only change barbie in the mattel corporation, but forever alter both the entire toy industry in the very law governing creativity petition. He certainly could not have foreseen the incredibly ferocious feud between his over prioritizing xm lawyer ex employer and those who gamble to risk a chance on him, nor could he predictable years would drag his life partner, richard erman, and his mother, jane, to testify on his behalf asking them to reveal deep seated intimate details of his life and passions of most certainly his dreams would not have been it including suffering depression and a stroke at the age of 41 took Carter Bryant only wanted to build his own dream house away from barbie. So, the story begins with Carter Bryant, but what is fascinating and what drew me to tell the story that i thought had to be told without in order for barbie to be knocked offer pedestal and in order for a new doll line to thrive really like a greek tragedy the parents had to be written off and Carter Bryant individual become sort of a pond and then disappears really from the scene and this is still a david versus goliath story, but the david here is not Carter Bryants. Its actually a much more powerful david. It is isaac larry and, a jewish iranian immigrant who starts, found his own toy company and its really kind of that bold hes the owner now because of bratz, because of the largest most lucrative privately held toy company in the United States because he really has that ability to go over go after or resist about goliath, mattel, that as the story unfolds you see how it really uses everything it can to fight off competition, different expressions, images of barbie that they dont control so going after not just toy makers, but going after artists that represent barbie in a different way, musicians, film producers just sort of a roller coaster story who mattel views in the scene of presenting challenges. Another thing that was fascinating is how much history repeats in this sense because when you actually go to when i started uncovering the history of these dolls in these Cultural Icons it turns out that barbie from her very inception was also not really created by whoever thought that she was created or just like mattel said that they own bratz because the next employee had thought about the ideas for bratz, barbies inception also can be traced to litigation tween the new world, mattel, the American Company in the old world where she was pulled in sort of a secret dark history there of her german photography origins that mattel did not want us to know about, but it also allowed me to open these windows into how was it that in the 50s suddenly a fashion doll given to the scene because before that, you know, girls would play with 80 dolls kind of imagining themselves as mothers, maybe, but for the first time they are playing with a real not very realistic, but a grownup woman with unrealistic proportions and you start seeing these colorful characters from the past and again seen how history repeats in that sense, so i will read it to you a little bit about if you watched madmen and you know about some of the history of advertising and marketing in the 50s and 60s and the whole culture there. This is the real look of madmen and so they hired this guru, another immigrant austrian immigrant who really transforms the way that marketing is done and mattel is really innovative in using consumer psychology, really freudian psychology and marketing and advertising, so this is the marketing guru they hired. In the 1950s, he transformed products beyond their monday function. Soap was about sensuality, not personal hygiene. Tobacco really stressed symbolized for reality and was a reward for a good day at the office. Smoking and health concerns, he wrote efforts to reduce the amount of smoking signify a willing iced to sacrifice pleasure in order to massage the feeling of guilt. Guilt feeling may cause harmful, physical effects, not at all caused by the cigarettes used, which may be extremely mild. Such guilt feeling alone may be the real cause of the injurious consequences. Rather than a lethal habit, tobacco smoking, he said, was comparable to sucking at the nipples of a gigantic i apologize for the audience that brought kids. One campaign displayed a man smoking next to his date captioned smoking rounds out other forms of enjoyment, illicit sex along with tobacco was another reward for a good day at the office. Lipstick was a phallic play on that desire and since consciously hinted to women and men buying makeup for women an invitation. Marketed cars to trigger mans family fantasies of a mistress and write this like hes actually very clear about what hes trying to do in his marketing. Suddenly hes asked how about marketing to children, had we do that next had we convince mothers to buy a clearly sexualized doll for their little girl and theres a lot of thought that i sort of uncovering the book. The other thing that i want to say about what drew me to tell the story, which again is sort of a legal thriller that opens; about how contemporary times and how we compete is that this case really, i started looking at it when i was writing my previous book, talent wants to be free, and there i was showing sort of more in the Research Field how employers have this mindset of not letting employees use their own ideas and not letting them move from competitor to competitor and how it that has not only real cost on the lives of workers and our careers, but on regions and what kind of products we have and what consumers can experience and how innovation happens and how collaboration happens. I was very honored and fortunate that in the summer of 2016, i actually got a call from the white house. I like saying that, so i will say it again. I got a call from the white house to talk about talent wants to be free before president obamas policy team and from the treasury department, department of justice and the Labor Department as well as presented in front of the various states and they were concerned about noncompete policy that i was researching and a lot of scholarly articles i published and in talent wants to be free and i became part of a working group that was kind of culminated in the president s call to action to the states to try to curtail this rise and trying to fence the mobility of employees, but the more and more i looked at this case in you dont own me of mattel it became pragmatic to me that its not just about the kind of pure noncompete causes, but a lot of different areas of law and ways and contractual ways like in this case of asking employees and we have all signed these contracts with whatever industry you work at asking them to assign all of their ideas, all of their knowhow, all of their creation, creativity, innovation, inventions weekends and nights included to the employer and really but effective creating these fences even if you dont use the blunt language of you cannot move to a competitor. So, i started delving into this case, but when i did of course the cinematic quality and the roller coaster and wild the facts and the colorful personality of this case just became very very clear. It became clear that its not just about that, that we have here a case that opened questions about the american dream, the rise of feminism, the making of icons, about marketing , consumer psychology, the trail, racism. One of the reviewers said a civil action set in toy stores and another reviewer said, l woods remix referred to legally blonde would eat this story alive. I think what happens in the child really when you read it you get a chance sense of how much the kind of saddle or dispute that starts as though its a contractual dispute between an employer, powerful corporation and a previous employee. You see how it becomes really about the emotions, compassions and the rationality a lot of time of executives are operating in markets and how theres often times this use of the courtroom as a sledgehammer to work things out, but should be worked out in the marketplace. One of the things that is really fascinating is how much these personalities matter. You can see this because this trial happened twice and this is what i keep referring to as the roller coaster that. The same facts in the same plaintiff and defendant when they come before a different jury, two sets of juries, two sets of judges, two sets of attorneys because the teams of attorneys change. Its because a completely different environment, completely different trial and sort of setting in the courtroom and claims about actually for the corporate ethics of the corporation that initiated the trial come about, so in this kind of next round of the trial one of the things that starts happening and is very important is that mga, who was sued by mattel as having stolen this idea for a bratty doll because they hired a former employee, they find out a lot of details about whats mattel has been doing to them and other competitors. I will read to you some paragraphs. Mj couldnt figure out how mattel was anticipating its every move until a mattel insider jumped ship and revealed the shocking information about mattels practices. Jennifer keller who is the attorney that comes on board later and really shifts the whole kind of jury motion told the jury that mattel was the worst type of offender in the corporate espionage world. The kind that maintains its own corporate espionage department. They had a manual in the courtroom called how to steal manual. That was internally used to. Pick she described to the jury mattel conduct as unlawful, outrageous, despicable and argued it cost mga tens of millions in losses. Mj presented evidence that while mattel was preparing for its final attack on mg and the court it engaged in the illegal act espionage and mga termed mattels scorched earth a strategy as the worst type of market battle. Together these two frontiers, litigation and spine became a great weapon and innovation moores. Nation brought to drive competition out of the market is time to gain an unfair advantage over the hearts and dollars of consumers. As m ga told the jury barbie was flailing and barberie was failing and mattel executives when a state of panic. Mattel desperation grew as bratzs popularity exploded. Mattel operated like a well oiled undercover trial with internal memos employees are instructed to use the codename nhp instead of mga. Can crack the code . And hb is one letter off nga bring to mind another shift in letters in space odyssey, the computer is often sought to be based on a one letter shift from the name ibm. s have been denied by their mattel denied and hb was a code, but when it comes to the next hot plastic toy loose lips can sync its classic toy ship. So, all of these questions that came in that kind of facts discovered in the courtroom really brings a lot of pause to, not just to the toy and Entertainment Industry, but how we battle and how we create markets and how we create culture and im happy to talk about a lot of different aspects about the book, but one of the things that becomes very clear is that right now theres this moments of a lot of uncovering of Corporate Culture with that Metoo Movement and white went to suggest to you is that a lot of these contracts, theres really two sides of the same coin that we see a lot of attempts by concentrated markets to both the silence the speech of insiders when they see wrongdoing, when they see misconduct whether its Sexual Misconduct or other misconduct and they also have this mindset that they do own as they do own me in the sense that everything that is created can be owned, all ideas and sort of this idea of intellectual property expanded and expanded to infinity so, as i said the cinematic quality of the case really drew me to tell the story , which just had to be told and i have been very pleased that while i thought actually when i was doing some of the interviews i would ask the people that i interviewed, the insiders, the attorneys, jurors, the judges that i sat down with, my final question was so, if this was a movie who would play you and now i really am a feeling very pleased that a lot of the reviewers in the new yorker and unpublished weekly and the wall street journal are all sort of talking about this cinematic quality of you started case you dont know where it will lead you and the drama of a decadelong litigation is just kind of opens up as the poet says, its the nest where the entire world meets. Thats what you dont own me is for me, so thank you and im happy to take any questions. [applause]. [inaudible question] the cost of litigation was in the hundreds of millions, cass. 400 . 600. Or hundred four mattel and 200, four and nga. [inaudible question] the turn of events is one attorney that i interviewed that worked on this case said this is the greatest reversal of fortune he is seen ever in a case where in one trial one litigant wins ownership over a billion dollar industry and then or branded line and then when there is a reversal of fortune the other side gets hundreds of millions of dollars, but the actual winners i have learned the more i study the case and the more i talked to the people involved on the actual winners are really only the attorneys in the legal team. As you mention, have taken in on astounding i actually think very problematic amounts of money when especially when we are talking about a publicly held corporation. Its not clear that its really justified. Its not clear that when executives make these decisions to litigate that its a rational and right decision. There have been insiders that talk about how there is kind of that repeat representation by a by law firms a kind of push to the limit this idea of scorched earth litigation and take two trial cases that are losing cases and i describe a lot of these cases where mattel took artists to trial for like the barbie song. I dont want to really saying on cspan, but im a barbie girl in a barbary barbie world. The danish band. That actually was another case where mattel decided they are using the word barbie and were going to litigate against them and time and again with that case in other cases where an artist, tom forsythe put barbie in a blender and all kinds of positions and photographed her. They sued him. Time and again actually, the ninth Circuit Court of appeals in california said no, you cant control culture that way and thats what intellectual property is about. Theres this doctrine affair. There is a common place where we share culture and not allow one company to control the images of their icon, but whats really kind of interesting is that they didnt stop. They continued to litigate and i do think that part of it is misguided legal advice where again, the loser and winners come more complicated when there is the legal teams that have their own interests. Sounds like from what you said in addition to the financial costs there was quite a personal cost as well. Can you tell a little more about carter and how he survived these 10 years . So, carter really didnt survive in the industry at all. One of the things that is important to understand is that when we have a culture of very very broad contracts that curtailed the ability of movements and of people, creative people in an industry its not only that it chills the likelihood of them actually moving, but when they actually decide to move its wire much more likely they will move to another big competitor that can actually protect them, indemnify them and so its patterned in that way that it depresses talent mobility, but also very much curtails new entry and entrepreneur where he would glided alone and in this case he really kind of disappears from the scene. He wants to remain anonymous partly because hes afraid and thats why the whole litigation starts a couple years after bratz was such a smashing hit. Theres an anonymous letter that arrives with an interesting side story about that also. Suddenly it tells mattel, you know that employee, Carter Bryant, hes actually the creator of bratz, so hes dragged into court when he really has not a lot of interest anymore in the case ticket base to him and mga, but he settled before the trial starts and gives up all his millions. He loses and moves away from the toy industry, moves away from los angeles, but he still in the first trial is tried trying to explain that he was inspired when he was away in missouri. He saw pool girls coming out that they are so different in the cold icy whites never changing 50s barbie and he has the story about the weekends and nights and on that, but you see him so different. Theyre sort of the Carter Bryant in the first trial in the Carter Bryant in the second trial. He doesnt want to sit through weeks and weeks of testimony and he is basically dragged into the court. He has again no interest anymore. Is a witness and dragged into the court by a court order because he basically disappeared and he just you see him not responding. Responding very very short answers and as you saw when i mentioned in red sort of at the beginning he had Health Issues with all of this and theres also again, you have to read the book for all of these interesting details, but theres also a lot of problematic decisions that were made about what he could testify about. In the first trial hes questioned about his sexuality, about finding pornography on his computer and the second judge actually says i cannot believe all of this was actually part of the first of testimony and so the second judge actually kind of took order in some of that. But, Carter Bryant is i think an extremist example of how much this has mattered personally to people, but actually you see all of the actors. Is so, mattel executives basically ousted from mattel after these years of litigation, bob eckert leaves the toy industry. Ben, isaac larry and the colorful very energetic entrepreneur who takes on mattel told me when i sat with him in the boardroom in his boardroom he told me, my wife always told me i have to be completely crazy not to settle with these people and to be dragged into court for years and when he finally wins and some iteration of the trial hes weeping and he says i missed a lot of the childhood of my son and again, its a sort of that question of how much of his it when we can spend so much of our creed of energies and actually innovating and developing better products, whether its in tech, you can take these stories to all industries. I have been writing about apple versus samsung and theres others and you kind of see that dynamic of how like was said many years ago, we turn every issue into a legal issue and we are diverting a lot of resources from what we really need. I love the way you celebrate disruption and i just wondered in doing the research of this particular set of cases and stories, what was added to your ideas of the pair night paradigm of disruption to make you out, and disruption, most of the time really is celebrated definitely where i come from now in california, Silicon Valley disruption both of business models, of technology, of industries, but even kind of legal destruction is celebrated in going between the lines and testing new methods. I think that this story, like i said the cannibalization worries of concentrated markets is exactly like economists predicts, so Kenneth Arrow many years ago a noble artist said if we had a company that has such a big market share, they dont have incentives to disrupt their own products. You will see the same exact market or same exact Product Offering methodologies, just staying and power for some years because theres really no incentive to compete with your own success, and thats why i think one of the most important things that we can do in all of these industries is to make sure we have come petition, we dont have too concentrated markets and that we have new entry as i said. It not just pattern it with two conglomerates battling it out, but also individuals and smaller newer entrepreneurs. I think theres also disruption that sometimes can be very problematic when we are trying kind of to push the lines into unethical behavior. Should make sure we are drawing the right line in these areas because as i mentioned, one of the dynamics that you can also see come to life in the book is how there is that when there is a mindset that you control resources including human resources, there will be a lot of ways to sort of find the next loophole; right . I mean, people have this intuitive of like the tax system like you buy one policy and then some way of evasion or some practice that you dont want so Something Else pops up. Its sort of shows that dynamic between what can be done by contrast, by using legal tools. What then cannot be done when we pronounce that and enforce its through lawmakers, through legislation or the courtroom and then how sort of again, Companies Use their creativity may be to disrupt, but maybe not in the most productive ways, but in ways novel [inaudible] information about these companies, i mean, i assume they would be very protective over the information. Thats a great question. For me, it was sort of a new challenge, a full story at Michael Lewis style expose about our Corporate Cultures and insider play and i sort of take the play very seriously in this book. I was very fortunate that this epic battle plays itself out over decades of litigation in the public courtroom, so the first up was really to read thousands and thousands of pages of transcripts and testimonies and a lot of internal memos that were presented in discovery that for sure the companies were resistant to not happy that they came out, but under those settings and requirements in the court, but then the next set for me really when i thought i knew everything i could know from all of the documents was really to Start Talking to the insiders and as you suggest in the question it wasnt without resistance, so turns out that attorneys are very happy to talk they were the first gatekeeper in the first people that were just kind of opening their thoughts to me and i interviewed attorneys on both sides and thought a lot of kind of the back story of the dynamics and why they chose the different strategies that they chose and how they viewed the litigants. In classic life imitates art the executives on each side really almost and i write about this in the book, to me, they felt like they were emulating the dolls they were selling and marketing an image controlling, so we have the kind of sassy bratty immigrants jewish iranian entrepreneur who actually names the first brat doll bratz. Dot after his daughter jasmine is very open to talking and he invites me into his Company Wants to tell me his david versus goliath story and his rags to riches the story and his opinion about all of these people that hes been battling, so for example hes very passionate about the toys he makes if he brings his kids into the courtroom and he brings them into the product that he creates and he says, bob eckert whose counterpart ceo of mattel at the time, says he comes from cheese because he was the ceo of crafts before that and he knows nothing about toys and he repeats that in kind of shows evidence about that. The ceo people like bob eckert were kind of colder and a sort of like barbie like an icy front , quiet, didnt want to engage and they didnt want to be in courts. It was very clear. The judge actually had to tell bobbitt bob eckert that he had to sit in courts and he was not happy about that at all. There are a lot of anecdotes about that in the book, but i did manage well, i got a very polite but short email from eckert saying i no longer work for mattel and night do not give any comments about the company. I did manage to talk to some insiders on both sides and one of the really most terrific things that i got to have like inside and an insight was from conversations i had with jurors, which, which was really great to get the perspective of how they sell all these actors battling it out, but really you can talk about legal doctrine and about the statute in all of that, but really what they cared about was the fairness, the passion of the two sides and the narrative of who controls the story what they believe and then also i sat down with the very controversial then judge kozinski who actually just after the book was published, he was involved in allegations against him about Sexual Misconduct and the way that he treated his clerks and he resigned from the ninth Circuit Court of appeals whereas i describe in the book his assent to the chief judge of the night Circuit Court of appeals and how important his jurisprudence wasnt property i property right law has been. I was fortunate to sit down with him and ask him about his many views on the case and his decisions in several cases on mattel. I will tell you one of the anecdotes that i describe in the book and the new yorker review that just came out this week picks up on, i sat down with kozinski and i told him i was raised by a mother whos a psychology professor who taught me that barbie sends a wrong image or wrong message about the body images of young girls and he looked at me kind of a puzzled and he said i dont see anything wrong except when i lift up her skirt i see nothing. So, you can actually see again some of his personality coming out and i describe again his history, his previous before this scandal that kind of made him resign his previous investigation by the Court Ethical community about having some pornography on the premise server, so theres a lot there that i tried to kind of conveyed by both interviews and everything i could read and get a hold of documents. How did the case and . Well, not going to give spoilers. You have to read the book. In truth, its basically neverending because there was a reversal of fortune. There was victory on one side and victory on the other side, but the two sides have said were not giving up and now, we will move to court and more claims. I mentioned theres claims about pricefixing and antitrust violations and economic espionage and questioning on the stand of mattel executives allawi didnt they recall quick enough toys products when that were produced in china when they presented health risks and toxins and risks that were really causing death of children, so again, it became bigger and bigger, but i can tell you that you dont you dont own me in this sense and today victory that with it judge kozinskis guidance it remanded to a new trial and with i think a judge that sees the full picture and guides the new jury in a kind of structured way suddenly this new court says no, you cant just claim an entire doll empire just because its a former employee and we should give weekends and nights to employees and we should be very cautious about having these really really long assignment clauses that say anything that you conceive of it even if its the most abstract idea, even if its not copyrightable, whether its compatible are not compatible we should have limits because we have to make sure we have a vibrant public domain, that we have culture that everyone can remix, that every competitor can compete on equal playing and in that sense i think the case is a real victory to creating more icons rather than less. More created critically rather than less. You are talking about in this case in terms of competition. How do you see the connection between intellectual property in the employee employer space and antitrust because of competition i think thats a good question. Something that not only attorneys should be worried about, but the public in general we focus a lot about on drawing the right lines in law and copyright law and trademark law, but really i think we have become very very sort of got into the idea that intellectual property is just property and people really own things that are not naturally owned. We have to remember i teach intellectual property and historically intellectual property was in fact a field of antitrust law. It creates a unnatural monopoly over knowledge, information, over the ability to create, remix, build upon the shoulders of giants to create progress in the arts and sciences. A lot of this has been forgotten in some of these very visible bottles i mentioned, apple versus samsung and many others. Google books battle over scanning all books. We have to remember that intellectual property has limits and therefore, we also have to understand that even when its not litigated under or understood under the statutes for the pillars of intellectual property, but when we are talking about employment relationships, contract relationships theres also those kind of limits that we have to understand there is a purpose in our policy for all of these laws and if they are subverting the very purposes that the constitution talks about, which gives progress in the arts and sciences in their actually competing progress, thats where they are really operating in the antitrust field of monopolizing and preventing the next step. Is there any trend that you see . Both sides had tremendous amounts of money. Yeah, i dont think that this that we are becoming less litigious. I think that we are becoming more concentrated of the markets and then we have a lot of litigation by big competitors. And especially again in these fields of trade secrecy, intellectual property and we have really seen over the past couple of decades an increase in which should use this litigious this. A lot of research is being spent on it and i also think that we are not seeing when we look at sort of counting the number of cases you said and this is a onceinalifetime case, so this is a very special case because we had defendants who are willing to take it to the end. What i want to warn is that dc kind of these personalities that are really strong and you can see why there is now a victory against the goliath, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many decisions along the way by people who are silenced school of the cats these trends and are maybe we cacs and desist letter that your mapper actually see or have signed a contract that they will never test in court and so below this kind of tip of the iceberg theres just huge amounts of sort of use of the threat of litigation to pattern what we do what we cannot do. Again, it should really resonate with what we see now with the Entertainment Industry and 20 industry. I wrote about it in Southern California and 70 other industries where just now, we uncover a lot of practices that we are silenced for years and everyone knew about, but a lot of people were worried about speaking out. There is a much bigger footprint of the Litigation Practices on all of us who might never become litigants, but this case will matter. Will matter to what we do, can do, what we see, what we have as consumers, what we have as parents and as inventors, as creative people. I think ill think everyone. I hope you enjoy the book and share and spread the word and review it and i would love to hear all of your thoughts about you dont own me. Thank you. [applause]. Heres a look at some of the best books of the year according to the San Francisco chronicle, historian Leslie Berlin reports on how Silicon Valley became that center of technological innovation in troublemakers. Neil Degrasse Tyson shares his research on the universe. In grand, pulitzer prizewinning biographer explores the life of the president ulysses grant. On scene is a collection of unreleased images of africanamerican culture from the New York Times photo archives. And bestselling biographer recounts the life of leonardo da vinci. In 1482, theres a big delegation that goes from florence to milan to the duke of milan that is led by a playwright and a poet. It has an architect artist, engineers and of all things leonardo goes as a musician because he does everything especially cause he loves theater, so he has invented Musical Instruments including one like a violin, but he made in the shape of a horses head. He brings it to milan is a gift as part of that cultural delegation, but he kind of wants to stay there. Needs a new horizon hes a bit tired of being just a painter turkeys been blocked on the last couple paintings hes done, so he writes one of the cruelest coolest job application letters in history to the duke of milan. Its 11 paragraphs long, and the pursed first 10 paragraphs are about engineering and science. He said i can make great weapons of war or something he had not really done, but sketched out a lot of them including a large crossbow. He said i can build great buildings, diverted rivers. Its only in the 11th paragraph almost as an afterthought when he says and i can also paint as well as any person. Many of these authors have appeared on book tv and you can watch them on our website, book tv. Org