Well, welcome to session three in security privacy and innovation reshaping law for the AI era. This symposium is co-sponsored by the Reese Center on Law and Security at NYU Law School, the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University, Justice Security and the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. It's my pleasure to welcome you all. My name is Ruth O'Kedige. I am a co-director at the Berkman Klein Center and your moderator for this session. The previous two sessions of this symposium have addressed responses to AI enabled surveillance and digital authoritarianism and the protection of constitutional values and the rule of law in the AI era. This is the concluding session, and this session is entitled protecting and promoting AI innovation, patent eligibility reform as an imperative for national security and innovation. Our session this afternoon will consist of two one hour panels with a 10 minute intermission in between. The first panel will feature a debate between arguments for and against reform to the patent eligibility doctrine. Those of you who are patent experts attending this webinar will know that this has been a hot topic for some years now. The debate around whether the US needs to reform its patent eligibility doctrine has been ongoing, as I mentioned, for some time, at least during the last decade. There were efforts at reform in 2019 on the hill that were stalled, but that did not end the varying opinions that continue to exist about whether we need to reform what we need to reform and why. Even how does the patent system and particularly the patent eligibility regimes affects the ability of the United States to expand innovation in AI and then other critical technologies is really the key question of the day. The National Security Commission on AI is an independent commission set up by Congress in 2019 and to really look at the intersection of national security and intelligence and associated technologies. The Commission assesses that we are in a technological competition with other nations, particularly with China, and focused in particular on securing national security and economic interests as well as in promoting democratic values. In March or on March one of this year, the Commission issued a final report. The second part of the report focused on winning the technology competition, including an entire chapter on intellectual property. The Commission's high level IP recommendations are that in essence the US should recognize intellectual property as a national priority and develop a comprehensive national IP plan to reform and create IP policies and regimes to incentivize expand and protect artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. The Commission also set forth a non-exhausted list of 10 IP considerations to assess and to inform policymakers in developing such new approaches to national IP strategies. One of these considerations is patent eligibility. What is patent eligibility and do current legal regimes need to be changed in light of national security and economic interests? We have a distinguished panel with us today. Many of them are not strangers and I'm delighted that they will be here to help shed light, contribute to the debate and reflect on the Commission's recommendations. We will start with our former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Paul Michelle, who will set the stage for us on why patent eligibility is a topic of discussion and why it's relevant to winning this competition globally. We will then have a debate between former USPTO Director Andre Iancu and David Jones, the Executive Director of the High Tech Inventors Alliance. Their debate will focus on whether the US patent eligibility doctrine should be reformed at all. Before we begin the discussion, there is a brief note on CLE credit. You should note that the event comprising both panels of this session has been approved for two credit hours of professional practice category for the New York State's CLE credit, so please take note of that. At a certain point in the program, just for logistics, we will pause to display and to read aloud a CLE course code or set of codes and so those of you seeking CLE credit need to record the code or codes and submit them on your attorney affirmation form. The most attendees, I believe all attendees, should have received a link to the attorney information form in their reminder email for the event, and the form can also be sent after the event is concluded. Please note that the event is appropriate for both newly admitted and experienced attorneys. I want to introduce Judge Michelle and I know of course many of you already know and are familiar with the judge, but I do think it's important to start with an introduction of the former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He served for more than 22 years on the Federal Circuit retiring on May 31, 2010. From December 2004 until his retirement, he discharged the duties of Chief Judge of this important court, serving simultaneously on the US Judicial Conference, the judiciary's governing body and by appointment of the Chief Justice on its seven judge executive committee. Judge Michelle, former Judge Michelle judged several thousand appeals he authored more than 800 opinions, one third of them concerning intellectual property law. Intellectual asset management magazine and ducted him into its Hall of Fame, he was designated as one of the 50 most influential leaders and intellectual property law in the world, his contributions have been recognized by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Property Owners Education Foundation, the ABA Association Intellectual Property Section and many more. In 2010, the Los Angeles IPN was remained in his honor. Judge Michelle received the Jefferson Medal, the Eli Whitney Award, the Katz-Reidli Prize, many other awards as well as an honorary doctor laws degree from Catholic University of America and the John Marshall Law School. He's written lots of articles on patent law advocacy, he's taught related courses at the George Washington University, the University of Akron and the John Marshall Law Schools. He's a frequent speaker. He was appointed a distinguished scholar in residence by IPO following his retirement. He continues to remain active in the intellectual property field, advising clients consulting for law firms, conducting moot courts, and of course advising on strategy and mediation services. It is an honor to have former Chief Judge Michelle here with us and I will invite him to speak and set the stage for the debate that will follow. Thank you so much Professor and I'm sorry to not be visible but hopefully I'm audible to our assembled group. Patent eligibility of course is the gateway, the threshold. There are five other tests that have to be met before a patent can be issued or before it can be upheld if challenged in court, but eligibility is the first of the six hurdles. The patent act itself in Section 101 established four broad categories as being eligible. They are processes, machines, manufacturers and compositions of matter. Those four categories have been essentially unchanged since the founding era and the first patent act of 1790. Over the many decades since then, however, the Supreme Court has created three broad judicial exceptions to those four categories for laws of nature, first, secondly, products or phenomena of nature and third abstract ideas. Now in my view for over 200 years, the regime that was in existence until 2012 was entirely workable was clear enough and could be consistently applied by patent examiners by judges and by others involved. In fact, challenges to eligibility were quite rare before 2012. In my 22 years on the court, I remember only two or three such challenges, but now there has been a sea change that occurred in 2012 because of a case which for shorthand we refer to as Mayo. Before Mayo, patent claim was ineligible only if it claimed the judicial exception itself, that was actually the word use itself, meaning essentially covering the law of nature or abstract idea and nothing else so that it would preempt anyone else from using it. After Mayo, the test was subtly changed in the unanimous Supreme Court opinion. So after Mayo, if in one of the many elements of a patent claim, one of these exemptions was merely recited, then the claim was presumptively viewed as not eligible, and could only become eligible if it was transformed, end quote, by the other elements of the claim that could be found to reveal a quote inventive concept, end quote. After the Mayo case, which was reaffirmed two years later in 2014, in a case we refer to as Alice for short, eligibility challenges in litigation and in the patent office became routine, hundreds and hundreds of patents granted after full examination by expert examiners in the patent office were invalidated as ineligible. And this new regime, in my view, created high level of uncertainty, unpredictability, inconsistent results across cases, and impossibility for inventors and investors to have confidence to rely on patents as stable assets. The case law unintentionally made previously clear doctrine, unclear and very difficult to administer, resulting in chaos or what was referred to by former director tapos as a mess. It meant that if someone got a patent, it could be later, even many years later taken away, either by the same patent office or by the courts, applying the new tests under the Mayo Alice regime, and therefore patents were viewed as no longer sufficiently reliable to incentivize all the investment and invention that they previously have. Perhaps the hardest hit area was medical diagnostics, but also computer implemented inventions such as AI are also now under a cloud when patented because of the way this test works out in practice. Ironically, while the US narrowed the scope of patent eligibility, the 27 European countries and most major Asian countries including China substantially broadened the scope of eligible inventions. And so hundreds and hundreds of actual inventions found ineligible in the United States have later been found eligible in those other jurisdictions. In the nine years since the Supreme Court Mayo case the Supreme Court has declined to clarify or revise its Alice Mayo test, despite receiving something in excess of 50 petitions. So requesting. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has struggled to implement the Alice Mayo regime and its tests. And in doing so it has expanded the ineligible ineligibility standard of the Supreme Court. So as to hold essentially all medical diagnostics as a category ineligible. And there are cases in which that happened over and over and over involving famous institutions, including the Cleveland Clinic. Many of you know about cases such as Athena and Ariosa in which many of the judges of the Federal Circuit protested that the invention should be eligible but they felt unable to find it eligible because of the statements of the Supreme Court in the Mayo case and some that were repeated in the Alice case. Michelle, can I ask a question while while we're on this point. Sure, it might be helpful for our audience to hear what you think the challenges are to addressing the patent eligibility column and in particular, what efforts has Congress undertaken in the last few years to address this and do we have any results can we expect anything there what's your sense. Well, my view is that it's shared by many, many people though not universally is that the law needs much greater clarity patents need more reliability. And therefore, the Congress should clarify its intention as embedded in section one on one and the four categories I mentioned. And if there are specific things that need to be excluded such as perhaps patenting of genes, then that could be done legislatively and other things would be viewed as eligible and would get patents if but only if they could pass the other five tests in 2019. Then IP subcommittee chairman Coons and ranking member tell us led an effort to come up with a legislative solution. They held numerous round tables of 60 or 70 very diverse stakeholders and ultimately held hearings as you mentioned in June of two days of hearings 45 witnesses by my count 40 witnesses agreed the law was a mess and needed to be legislatively corrected. Five disagreed and said the status quo was good enough. As you mentioned professor is the effort stalled over the summer of 2019 and ever since there have been attempts to revive it and right now there are ongoing negotiations, including some being heard from in these programs. There will be a third negotiation session in October supervised by the staff of Senator Tillis hard to predict when or if it will bear fruit. But that's the current state of affairs to try to revive efforts to address legislatively the chaos that has ensued unintentionally from the Alice may regime so only time will tell. Thank you so much. Let's turn to director young who and and Mr Jones and really open this up. Thank you. Thank you Michelle because I think you've raised certainly the leading concerns and the, the pathway here has been long and difficult and and so let's hear from two individuals who are not unknown to this audience and so I will skip our introductions because they both have lengthy and impressive bios, but I suspect you're all here to hear their thoughts on this point and so I'm going to ask both Dr Yankee and and and director Jones director Jones to speak to the proper function of patent eligibility eligibility. And is that function being served by the current case law PTO practice and policies directory uncle I'm going to begin with you, and then director Jones I will turn to you but in light of judge Michelle's reflection and expressions of both concern and some dismay perhaps where we are, let me start with director young who and then turn to director Jones. What is the proper function of patent eligibility. Okay, great. Well, thanks Professor and great to be with everyone. So I generally agree with judge Michelle that the law in this area of patent eligibility is in an unpredictable phase right now and has been for about a decade or so. Well, why is this important, like all laws predictability is key. This is especially true in the patent system. And, and why is that, well, innovation and frankly investments in new technologies in the United States require the private sector. We need our private sector to participate. The private sector need the certainty of a patent system to to protect the investment they have made in those innovations. And this is true is specially for disruptive technologies, especially for new newly created technologies very risky technologies those that we really don't know if they're going to work. Such as the very fast development nowadays of artificial intelligence, and many other things. So clarity and predictability are key. Now, turning to patent eligibility. As judge Michelle said, this is the first threshold question. When we look at the various requirements as to whether a patent should be granted or not. The very first question we need to ask is, is this new creation. What is the patent system at all. Let me make it just very just give a very simple example. There's lots of new creations in the fine arts paintings, music, all sorts of things like that, that are not subject to the patent system, many of them are subject to the copyright system, for example, scientific technological practical applications of those principles usually are subject to the patent system. What's happened in the past several decades is that the technologies have become more and more difficult to square with the stat through the eligibility statute, which as judge Michelle indicated was written by Jefferson and Madison at the founding of this nation. The statute has originally written in 1790 1793 says, and it's effectively unchanged to this day says that what's patentable are useful processes machines manufacturers or compositions of matter. But as we get into more and more advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, potentially, you know, blockchain, cryptography, quantum computing DNA analysis. Today, as brilliant as our founders work and they wrote the statute. They certainly didn't anticipate those things. And so the statute haven't hasn't changed technology certainly has changed a lot and courts have struggled to figure out how to fit these new technologies into determine, are they subject to the patent system or are they perhaps, or should they be outside of the patent system. My personal view is that since technology has moved so much since the founding of this nation, it is time for our policymakers, Congress in particular to take another look and weigh the pros and cons of the outer bounds as to what's in and out of the patent system, because what we need most of all is clarity and leaving it up to the courts. One case at a time has made it very difficult and resulted in the situation. We are in right now. One final point before I turn it over to my colleague David Jones is this. The courts have issued their, it's a whole body of law, especially in the past decade on this issue, although it goes back several decades but very active, and most problems arise out of the cases from the last 10 years or so. So what the US patent office has done, because we see at the US patent office, approximately 700 over 700,000 patent applications a year that this analysis has to be done on. And there's lots of cases to square these, these new applications with. So what we have done in 2019 is to issue new guidelines to our examiners that synthesize the, the court decisions and create a more predictable path, an analytical path to make this patentability decision. And the approach, a new analytical approach that we have employed at the patent office is to the patent office is 2019 really has improved the predictability of patentability decisions. We know this because we, our chief economist at the US PTO issue the study last year that indicated that the uncertainty of examination with respect to this section of the patent code has decreased by 44%. So that's a major improvement, but obviously the administration has to work within the existing body of law. We cannot change the body of law, that's only up to Congress. So if we are truly going to stabilize the system and return to a more predictable patentability determination, we need an act of Congress. So I think I hear thank you so much. Director Yonku, who has just to clarify for the audience, former US PTO director, and, and we will be turning now to hear from executive director Jones who is with the high tech inventors Alliance but I want to just highlight two things that Director Yonku whose comments reveal one is question of institutional pathway. Is this is this really a job for Congress, are we at a point of time in history that we've never seen before where the courts have not been able to recalibrate this this question. But there's also the fact that the federal circuit, you know, doesn't have to, unlike other countries, abide by the PTO's guidance and guidelines so when once we begin the conversation a bit more in a more fulsome way I'm going to be curious to hear. If you think the predictability point that the guidelines might provide is undercut by our unique system in the United States where really we have three different bodies making patent policy in very distinct ways I'm going to turn now to David Jones who I believe has a different perspective. So over to you, director Jones, what is the proper function of patent eligibility and what is your view is the institutional pathway where potential change might might be necessary, or perhaps not. Thank you, Professor. So I thought my statement kind of was going to be controversial here that the purpose of eligibility is to distinguish between subject matter that's appropriate for patenting in subject matter that is not appropriate for you wouldn't believe it, but in the hill debates that's actually a controversial statement. I think directory Anku and I it sounds like agree on that. So, you know, I think that's the function is is the kind of current eligibility case law performing that function. I guess my answer would be it's not perfect. It's relatively predictable. I mean, not only has there been the 40% decrease in uncertainty in kind of the patent application process and the application of one on one in that context. You know, all the empirical studies that I'm aware of that looked at this have found that in almost all technology areas applicants responded very very quickly to the changes in law and drafted different applications. You see this kind of new generation of applications that were drafted after Mayo and Alice, you see 101 rejections that are in many cases with many technologies actually lower than they were prior to these case law developments. Right, and that suggests that there isn't unpredictability if applicants were able to respond. Clearly they were able to predict the outcome in advance, you know, when they were drafting their applications. And so, getting back to the purpose of eligibility, you know, I think it's important to remind everybody that there's a historical context here right so in an international one. Every country historically and almost every country currently does not allow things like aesthetic creations this director young coup mentioned to be patent eligible, but you know it goes way beyond just aesthetic creations. So typically, you know anything that is an abstract idea is excluded from most of the major patent systems that you have from patent protection or most of the major patent systems. I think this is a very important thing to have happen I mean there there's actual empirical evidence that the patenting of abstract ideas reduces rather than increases investments and R&D. In other words, the patenting of things like business methods has exactly the opposite effect of what the patent system is supposed to have. At least one scholar had looked at this empirically and found that companies who were obtaining business methods right applying for and being granted business method patents, prior to Alice. After Alice increase their investments in R&D, because those patents were no longer available. So it's a little counterintuitive but this is something that you know that has been believed by many over a course of several hundred years. The patent protection should be limited to actual technology that you know the types of fields that you would learn in a vocational school and engineering school, rather than pure sciences aesthetic creations fine arts or the social sciences. I guess to conclude, you know how was Alice, how are Alice and Mayo doing at distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate subject matter I'd say they're doing much better than the prior case law, which allowed eligibility for everything pretty much. I know I know we're, I know you're ready to get at each other and I want to make sure that we don't exclude Judge Michelle from this conversation because there is a point of engagement that is critical here and one is directly on to Mr. Jones he mentions that actually what you described as unpredictability and lack of clarity is is proof of other words that's not eligible. Now one that we're actually having the same conversation. Two questions one is, should we recognize a firm boundary around one oh one. And so, to whom, should we direct the responsibility of deciding or but I just want to keep those two things in view. I'm going to invite you to respond. Sure. And I didn't get the whole question professor because I think you were going in and out at least for me, but I think I got a gist of it. Just, I want to make sure that I'm being heard well please interrupt. Let me know if I, if somehow I'm, it's on my end. So, look, there's, there's several things here. I apologize for interrupting but if you could speak directly also to the AI issue which is really the question on on the table now in responding I just wanted to clarify that. Absolutely. So, first of all, with respect to the courts and you asked this question a little bit earlier professor are the courts undermining the administration zone guidelines. The fact is, and this is not going to change the fact is we have an independent judiciary, and it should be that way we have separation of powers between the branches. This is the bedrock of American of the American constitutional system, and the courts are not bound by what the administration does. But they could voluntarily pick up what the approach that the patent office has done now that we see that it is working very well in other words, the unpredictability of results as they've mentioned since as I mentioned has indeed gone down at the USPTO applicants and predict better now, during the application process, how things are going to turn out. So, and it's working, and it's following the case law. It's, it's, you know, it's just it's it's only, it's not a substantive change that took place at the patent office it's just an analytical change. It's a framework of analysis to be able to step through it in a logical manner that that is is that that leads to more predictable results, and courts could do that or something similar to it if not identical, but they're not doing it and that is what what leads to unpredictability on the litigation side, or whenever things get to the court system. Because I do think we have more or less address the issue and on the on the administration side on the patenting side of things, but but if courts are not going to change their approach, then, then we have overall the whole system, we don't know what the result will be years down when the patent is to be challenged to address a couple of David's points, especially vis-à-vis artificial intelligence. I don't think there is a substantive disagreement between what Dave Jones is saying and what I am saying as to what should be in and what should be out. Or if there is, it's a matter of fair debate and that's what Congress is meant to do right Congress balances pros and cons of various things, and decisions can be made, should business methods be in or business methods be out, things like that. I think there's general, more or less there's never uniformity of opinion but there's general agreement this through the broad categories of things, they should be in and should be out. The question is a procedural one, and, and what framework do you follow in order to be able to be to decide what is in and what's out and artificial intelligence is a key example of this. So, Dave says correctly so that abstract ideas should not be eligible for patenting. I have me personally, in my personal capacity I happen to agree with that. The question becomes what is an abstract idea. This is the problem. And this is especially acute in artificial intelligence perhaps more than anywhere else. A business method where we talk about, gee, how do we increase the number of sales of a particular widget on an internet platform is very different from, you know, the processing of information through mathematical formulas in order to enable computers to engage in machine learning and generate new thoughts on their own, very different. Yet, under the courts approach to abstract ideas, they're treated basically the same. The mathematical formulations are viewed as abstract ideas to a large extent the processing of information is viewed as abstract ideas, and there is no boundaries provided by the courts. When they do their analysis that result in a predictable outcome. This is the key in my opinion. Congress, if Congress is to act here, it needs to provide the framework to be able for all of us to distinguish what is the stuff that we don't want to patent, such as the pure business method for example if that's the decision made, a practical technical application, such as deep learning by machines, which seems to me at least, I don't know if they would agree but to me at least it seems like that should be eligible for for patenting. But at least me to know what the outcome should be. Thank you so much. I think that that director Yankee youth, you've raised some counterpoints, and I think also clarified the need for a framework there's still the, and it sounds like you do agree that this is a matter that Congress should attend to but I think, David as you respond to this, it would be helpful to ask the question about implications, what are the implications of our current doctrine for the advancement of AI and other emerging technologies like quantum quantum computing. If we frame it as a national question of national competitiveness, should that change the way we view 101 is 101 effective as a vehicle for for concerns about national competitiveness vis-a-vis other nations that seems to be the elephant that is certainly part of the parade of elephants, whenever we have this debate so so David let me let you respond to the director and, and also to judge Michelle, who also spoke very clearly about the need for Congress's intervention. I do have a couple of points in response to director Yankee we, I think, you know, if you're listening to this it's going to sound like we agree mostly and I actually think we do agree mostly on this. The real sticking point is so so any any eligibility system to be workable has to do two things. One, it has to define what's eligible and distinguish that from what's ineligible, but it also has to deal with situations where you just include token language so so if abstract ideas are out. The question becomes, what do you do if you claim an abstract idea, and then add the magic words on a computer. Right. And if that makes abstract ideas patent eligible, then at least in the world that I live in in the tech world everything operates on a computer, you know, nowadays, almost everything the world involves a computer, if just adding those words on a computer, or adding a preamble that says a processor configured to is sufficient to satisfy the eligibility requirements then you go back to a system where you actually just have no line at all right anything is patent eligible you just have to add the kind of token magic words. As the unpredictability in litigation since this is an AI firm that there's a very interesting paper out there, where a guy used a an off the shelf module AI module machine learning and trained at using claims that have been held invalid and got the AI and relatively simply was not using like advanced manic semantic analysis or anything like that it's just a word salad approach, he got to about an 80% accuracy rate, which in the law is pretty high. So I think you know in in litigation as well. It's relatively predictable how cases are going to come out. And I'm blanking on what you asked us competitiveness. So yes, let's let's switch back because that is a key issue. The important point here is that the US PTO grants more patents to foreign inventors than us inventors. Right, and that's something that's important to realize is the international context here under the trips agreement all the trip signatory countries the member countries, and I think they're something like 164 165 of those so it's basically the world everywhere you want to patent and are obligated to treat foreign inventors in exactly the same way as they treat domestic inventors into treat foreign inventions in exactly the same way as they treat as they treat us inventions. As a result of that any change that you make in the law isn't going to have an effect on your international competitiveness vis a vis any of these other kind of trips member countries. You know you cannot incentivize somebody through the patent law that you have domestically to either do you know bring r&d from another country to the United States or mark migrate r&d from the United States to another country, because, you know the the inventor who's in the US, you know let's take an example. The veteran who's in the US, it frustrated with Alice perhaps is going to be you know if he moves his ear she moves her r&d to China to get a US patent. She will still have to face that frustration with Alice right so that's completely unchanged, and she can get a Chinese patent from the US right so changing the r&d moving things from one jurisdiction to another has no impact on r&d choices I mean at least with respect to r&d choices that might be based on the patent system it just doesn't it doesn't play into these decisions. Let's pause for a brief minute so that I can have our administrators who are wonderfully behind the scenes display the CLE course code. Many folks are taking precious time away from billing hours and so let's make sure that they get the course code for this. We're calling in the course code is RCLS887. Let me repeat it the course code is R for Robert C for Charlie L for like S for Sam 887. Thank you. Judge Michelle I wanted to to invite you to to intervene briefly to what is the emerging tension between David's point and director Yankee's point. You have clearly articulated a need in your view for congressional action and I think something that certainly patent law students my patent law students are interested in hearing about and is well why is this different why is artificial intelligence different. And what are the implications of that difference if Congress does not act. So artificial intelligence according to numerous experts is the key technology of the future that will infuse itself into almost every kind of product and activity. So it couldn't be more important. It's clear that in advanced technologies of the new century. Most invention is very expensive, and therefore strong incentives are needed to convince people who control money whether they're corporate CEOs or venture capitalists or others to make those risky, slow investments. And that's why it's so important for the patent system to work in this area as in others. You know when David Jones says there's plenty of predictability at least that's what I heard him to be saying. There is in his eye but when I look at 100 federal circuit or district court cases and I read the patents and then I try to guess what will the outcome be as to eligibility. I have no idea and I'm wrong almost all the time. The line doesn't exist. It's not just unclear. It doesn't exist. What's happening is judges are eyeballing a claim and saying it looks abstract to me case dismissed without claim construction without evidence without prior art without expert testimony. It's complete chaos so you don't have the predictability that's needed to incentivize the investment because of a failure at the courts. First the Supreme Court with vague statements in Alice and Mayo and two other cases but particularly Alice and Mayo and the federal circuit is completely failed in my view to clarify the law to rationalize it to make it more consistent or coherent. In fact it's actually made it much worse because it's front loaded into the eligibility analysis. All the other five tests like adequate written description full enablement claim definiteness non obvious is novelty. So now everything is a matter of eligibility and it's the defensive choice in virtually every case and the results are unpredictable. So capital is fleeing the United States and fleeing hard technology for less risky investments and that to both venture capital and also corporate capital. So we're destroying our future because we can't get our act together. So David I see that you want to jump right in there so I'm going to let you have a 30 second comment or let's say 90 second comment. I mean I have to say I just don't think that's accurate again under the trips agreement. There is no reason R&D would be migrating to other countries and when you look at what people say when people are asked corporations for us. Are you moving money to Asia for R&D or are you moving R&D functions to Asia and if so why. The top things that they list are nothing to do with the patent system. It's like access to Marcus access to human capital these types of things. So to the extent that R&D is migrating. It's clear that it's not migrating because of patents as the predictability issue. I guess all I can say is a guy actually trained in AI to get to 80% accuracy in predicting. You know to say that it's absolutely unpredictable I think is just not true. And I guess my last point would be you know I didn't really give my spiel about who HTIA is but you can think of it as a bunch of big tech companies. But you know my members include a number of the top patent owners in AI and a number of the top patent owners in quantum computing. These are the leading companies in the world doing this stuff. And they tell me that there's no problem here that they don't have a problem in litigation that they don't have a problem obtaining appropriate patent protection from the office. And you know I think it's important to recognize that the industry itself. Right I mean I have two members that have actually produced a working quantum processor which only a handful of entities in the world have done. So you know the people that are really doing the cutting edge work here don't feel that there's a big problem. They just simply don't agree. Professor if I could respond I'll take 30 seconds. Yes please and actually it's important to ask this question. So directly on cloud was going to put it to you as you responded. You know the trips agreement which David has raised does require no discrimination and field of technology so one question that we ought to as mostly lawyers gathered around this webinar is. The violation of trips by not including a I as PSM is that is that something that concerns you as a former director of the USPTO. And I think then for all of you I will invite you to weigh in later on the question of impact one of our challenges is it one on one applies to all technologies all industries all companies and all sizes, and the balancing that happens happens at the court level, and we may need to think about that but directly on could you address the question of trips violation. Yeah, look there are some folks out there that do argue that this, the de facto rules created by the 101 jurisprudence in the United States does create a violation of trips, because as a de facto matter, certain areas of technologies are of technology are out of our patent system. For example, diagnostic techniques, you know that tests to diagnose whether we have a human being has a certain condition or not. So by the Federal Circuit has said that by and large, none of those have been approved for patenting under the recent under their recent jurisprudence. Well, if that's the case, that's an area of technology that is being treated differently than others. So some have argued that that is a trips violation similar type arguments vis-a-vis information processing techniques. Having said that I personally don't have a view on that. I don't know if this is actually a technical violation of trips, but I don't think that's either here, neither. I think that's neither here nor there because the issue, the real issue is what is the impact on innovation in the United States. Ultimately what we really look the patent system is a tool. It's a very important tool, but it's just a tool for the ultimate goal of creating more innovation and getting more technologies invented and brought to market. Let's keep in mind the real important aspect of innovation is the investment of capital in brand new, very risky technologies and ventures. And we have to keep in mind the startups, the small and medium enterprises and all the companies that depend on venture capital investment and need a reliable patent system to secure that investment. And if that doesn't happen in the United States, if those protections are not in the United States, therefore reducing the amount of investments, private sector, venture investment in these risky technologies that capital is going to flee overseas. But Director Yanthu, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but David who represents many of these companies says that's not happening. He doesn't represent these companies. That's the thing. He represents Google. I don't want to speak for his membership, but I believe it's Google, Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Salesforce. I'm sure I'm leaving somebody. Michael, Micron, Samsung, and I'm probably leaving somebody out, so I'll get in trouble after this, but you get the idea. It's large tech companies. Okay, so David represents large tech companies that are very important, that are very important players in the space, but they have other business calculus calculations. So for them, whether they do the R&D in China or in the United States, maybe it doesn't make a big of a difference. Having said that, I think the proof in the pudding is where is the United States right now vis-a-vis China on many of the technologies of the next industrial revolution. Take deep learning, for example, China takes out six times as many patents worldwide than the United States. Take 5G and 6G. Where is the United States vis-a-vis those technologies and installations around the world? We're not even close. And then take artificial intelligence. All you have to do is read the excellent report from NSCAI on these issues to see the competitive threat under which we are now. There are many issues that go into this, but intellectual property protection is a key ingredient to making sure that enough investment is made in the United States in our AI and all of these other technologies so that we can compete on the innovation in the innovation ecosphere on a worldwide scale. Ruth, if I could respond to that very quickly. Okay, please do. And then there's a question from the audience that I want to really pose to the both of you. I just don't think that the impact on investment in R&D is being accurately stated. One of the points of the international patent system set up under their trips was to divorce the location in which the invention was conceived from the entitlement to patents. And so you have exactly the same ability to patent if you do the R&D in the United States or in China. Therefore, any kind of domestic patent issue cannot, by definition, create an incentive to move R&D to another country. It just doesn't happen. No, it may not happen by itself. I mean, I would take the medium point between you and the director. It may not be the sole consideration, but I think the director is saying it is a consideration. Director, you wanted to respond? Yeah, if you look at venture capital dollars for small and medium companies, there are small companies that want to start their businesses here in the United States. What are we saying? What are we saying that they should go do it in China because their capital is more secure there if they come up with a new thing? Now, I understand that if you invent something in China, and then you can still apply for a patent here in the United States. Not directly germane to the main point, which is what we need to do here to invent to incentivize new dollars, new companies, new startups and new technologies to be developed here in the United States. So somebody asked the question about whether the problem is language. In other words, why is AI such an issue? If we replace it with machine learning or applied statistics, would it be different? No, I don't think so. I don't think it's just a language problem. AI is fundamentally different from many of the things that came before. In part, it's because most of the AI research that's being done now is being done in the area of machine learning. And that results in some kind of quite odd interactions with the patent system, but mostly in my view, outside of the 101 context, creates real, in my view, again, 103 and 112 issues. Yeah, so look, I agree with that. And the fact is I don't think Dave and I would disagree on the fundamentals here. It's not a question, the fundamental of whether a particular technology in this area should be patentable or not. It's not a question whether it's machine learning or artificial intelligence. The net and the phraseology, the key here is the unpredictability because these technologies use mathematical formulas and algorithms. They're very practical results from these algorithms. They do stuff for us. But because they use math, the Supreme Court has said that, look, because they use math, that could be abstract. And unless there's something more beyond that, we cannot be patenting math. I think there's broad agreement with that point. But the question then becomes is what is it beyond the pure math that you need. And this is what the courts have left unsaid to a large degree. And this is why I believe that we need clarification from the legislature on that point. But obviously there's this agreement on that specific point, whether we need further clarification. Or whether in true common law style, the evolution of the law will adjust over time. David, you have the last word. So I take any clarity I can get. So no system is perfect. And I completely agree that increasing clarity and predictability is always a good thing in leaking systems. I guess my question is an institutional one. Is Congress and any act of Congress likely to increase predictability and clarity? And on this particular topic, I would say no, I'll also point out that there are economic studies out there that have looked at what happened to venture capital after Alice for small kind of software and tech startups. And found that they found across the board that it was associated with increased access to venture capital rather than decreased access to venture capital by us startups. Well, let me just say thank you to our panelists for a really rich and honest debate. This is an important question, not only for patent policy, but really for national competitiveness and our consideration of what we can do with the patent leavers. So thank you to Director Yonku, to David Jones, to former Chief Judge Michelle. We're so grateful. Thank you so much. We will reconvene in 10 minutes for a more full-throated debate. Thank you to our audience for your participation as well.


The three Illinois, 17 inhibitors, Sikukinumab, Ixacizumab, and Brodalumab are approved for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but only one study found treatment emergent antidrug antibodies, ADA, in 0.41% of patients during a 52-week treatment period. The study also found that two out of the four patients with ADA had neutralizing antibodies, but they were not associated with decreased efficacy. Only one study reported ADA against Ixacizumab, and 9% of patients developed titers to the drug after a loading dose followed by a maintenance dose. 19 out of 1,150, 1.7% developed high-titer ADA that impacted clinical outcomes. The variability in ADA development makes it difficult to draw a conclusion from the findings, but most trials did not develop ADA, and if they did, the majority of the time they were not neutralizing. Only Ixacizumab showed decreased efficacy in cases with neutralizing ADA, but no increased adverse events were reported. This article was offered by Logan W. Thomas, Erika B. Lee, and Jeshin J. Wu. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


I noticed the title of today's proceedings, it breaks it, a risky business. For me, I suppose it's a pleasant change from government formation, a risky business, 80 days. I also feel I should remark, like many people here in the room, first time in the Viva Stadium at 9 o'clock in the morning, without a green scarf. But I do think it's important for the purposes of our engagement today that we do acknowledge the importance of the green scarf and indeed wear the green scarf in the context of this important UK-EU debate. Today we find ourselves exactly five weeks from polling day when that really important and crucial decision will be made by the British people on the matter of their further relationship or otherwise with the European Union. 35 days, I've fought shorter general election campaigns and indeed, as any of my colleagues will tell you, the campaign is now only beginning to crank up that there is a lot of time now over the period of 35 days for active and constructive and positive engagement. But I'd like at the outset to acknowledge the great work of the Institute, Tom and Brendan, for your leadership on this issue over recent years and I stress years rather than months because the Institute was one of the first out of the blocks in terms of informing people of the existence of the debate and the importance of the debate, not just from an Irish perspective here in Dublin but in Northern Ireland, in Britain and indeed across a range of European capitals. Your analysis, your reporting, your seminars, your meetings have made a very important contribution to this debate and I know you're far from finished in terms of your active engagement on behalf of the government. I acknowledge that indeed, I appreciate it. I want to make one thing clear from the very start and that is that is the firm view of the Irish government that we want the United Kingdom to remain active and positive and serious members of the European Union. We've set out this perspective repeatedly over the past number of years in terms of our own economy, in terms of our close people-to-people relations in terms of Northern Ireland and in terms of the really valuable role played by the United Kingdom within the European Union of 28 states. So I might spend most of the time available to me this morning to focus on the third aspect and that is the importance of the membership of the UK for the Union itself. Much is said about the economic situation, undoubtedly. I'm going to hear it later on today. The Northern Ireland dimension is both special and unique but perhaps less has been debated here about the United Kingdom within the European Union and quite simply, it is my view that the very effectiveness, the internal balance and the very credibility of the European Union itself would be damaged by a UK departure. Today's world presents us with many complex and disparate challenges. In very many cases, the best response to these challenges emerge when we work together as a Union of 28 with our combined weight, allowing us to achieve a level of critical mass to deliver for our citizens across Europe. In Ireland, we find ourselves by no means alone in very much valuing the UK membership of the European Union. I know from my own exchanges with my foreign minister colleagues around the Foreign Affairs Council on a monthly basis in Brussels that there is a strong sense across Europe that the UK's own history and the history of the Union are very much linked, not least in a shared vision of the rebuilt and peaceful and prosperous continent in the aftermath of the devastation of the Second World War. On the matter of the role of the United Kingdom in the EU, I strongly prefer their continued membership, not just to avoid the many consequences of their leaving, but I prefer this outcome because of what the UK can bring to the EU as a fully engaged member state in the years ahead. Within the European Union, I again prefer to keep the UK's shared determination with Ireland for policies which continue to support jobs and growth and indeed as we continue with our own national efforts on recovery here. I prefer having the influence of the UK and their voice as we seek to deliver concrete actions in favour of jobs and growth such as trade agreements and the completion of the EU digital single market. Urgent and important initiatives highlighted in the UK settlement deal reached by the 28 EU leaders in February and of course strongly supported and participated in by Ireland. So these are the building blocks for the ongoing prosperity of all our citizens. Indeed, it's almost exactly three years ago that one of these actions was boosted substantially through the work of Ireland and the UK. Ireland as chair of the EU presidency secured the mandate for the EU-US trade negotiations with strong support on the occasion from the UK and then the very next day the UK as host of the of the GA summit up the road at Lockhearn formally launched the negotiations in the company of President Obama. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I again prefer to have the UK at the table on foreign policy issues. I see what my colleague Foreign Secretary Hammond brings to the EU Foreign Affairs Council in terms of the UK's global reach, its permanent membership of the UN Security Council, its expertise, its influence across a range of strategic important international issues. The role of the UK in shaping and contributing to the European aid policy is also hugely important for the largest contributor to the European Development Fund and while we work with them directly on the ground in various locations almost always under the umbrella of the European Union. For example, Syria-Leone, recent example of this, where the UK and Ireland played a leading role in efforts to combat and indeed ultimately eradicate the scourge of Ebola. And this work that we do together in other locations continues to make a real difference on the international stage. So I would prefer not to have to spend crucial time on unraveling the extensive and extremely complex EU dimensions of such important work if the UK were to consider leaving the Union. So instead, I'd very much strongly prefer this sort of work to continue into the future because of its importance across the global stage. Much of what I've mentioned are big ticket global policy issues, but my preference for continued UK membership of the EU is also informed by work that we do on a daily basis together on areas which involve the daily lives of most of our own citizens. Thinking, for example, the role of the UK and Ireland's work within the area, for example, of consular protection when our citizens travel abroad. Currently on the basis of EU arrangements, if there's no embassy or consulate in any particular location, an EU citizen may call upon the assistance of another EU member states embassy or consulate because we share a common language. Many Irish citizens who find themselves in such circumstances will approach the local British embassy or consulate in order to garner support. I'm thinking of a very sensitive and difficult case in recent times where an Irish citizen is in very difficult and challenging circumstances in Northern Iraq. We don't have people there, but we have our friends from the UK there who offered great encouragement, help and assistance in order to ensure that what might have been a crisis was dealt with in a way that had a very much satisfactory outcome. And that's one recent example of the importance of working together, Ireland and the UK, under the umbrella of the European Union. Also, times of major accidents, a tourist incident, a natural disaster. EU member states continue to pull together to coordinate their efforts to respond, sharing the knowledge and indeed sharing resources to assist people, to get them home to their people as soon as possible and safely and so on. We act centrally in Brussels and on the ground in the location where the incident from time to time might occur. So the UK and Ireland, Ireland countries with populations which travel extensively are key players in these efforts. And I want this work to continue with the United Kingdom firmly as a member state of the European Union. I could go on, Tom, and mention other areas ranging from climate change to the practical value of removing telephone roaming charges to hugely important issues such as the EU's relations with the Middle East, Africa, Russia, the unions, many other neighbors. In all cases, the active presence of the United Kingdom at the EU table is one that we want to keep because it's worth keeping. However, to be clear, I'm not saying that the United Kingdom will suddenly and rather magically become a part of the European voice if it votes to remain within the European Union. The distinctive and often questioning elements of the British voice would still be there, but its energy would be used constructively and positively to improve how the EU continues to do its business in a changing world. So in many respects, this is a referendum, not simply a referendum. In that context, the settlement agreed by EU leaders in February in which the T-shirt played a central role is crucial. If the UK votes to remain, it also endorses the terms of the deal which fundamentally recognizes the need to improve the way in which the European Union does its business. Indeed, for the Union to continue to deliver long-term growth and stability for our citizens, we must engage with this agenda in the period ahead. And many of the items on this agenda are not new because these are issues that have been raised from time to time in the context of our own referendum over a long number of years. Many of the issues now included in the UK EU reform package are issues that Ireland can firmly support and issues that have raised their head in the context of debate during our own nine referendum in the context of my own period in Parliament. So, I said at the start of the 35 days left, this decision, of course, is solely and exclusively and firmly in the hands of the UK electorate, but having heard both signs and I believe it's important, of course, that we at all times respect that this is an issue entirely for the electorate as registered, but I believe we have an important role to play in ensuring that the process of information is such that we place on the record our strategic national interest. Indeed, as we know from our own referendums, a lot of people, especially many of those who are undecided, only make up their minds as we approach polling day. And in the meantime, to help and assist them make up their minds, they do so on the basis of information received oftentimes from people they trust personally when making up their minds. And as we all know here, and perhaps if I can venture to say I probably know more than most, people vote for many and diverse reasons. So it's really important that we engage, all of us engage in the 35 days that lie ahead. That's where all of us can come in when talking to colleagues and indeed when talking to everyone we know who has a vote and anyone who not only has a vote, but anybody who cares about the Irish-British relationship and the Irish-British dimensions to this important debate. These people are at the core of the Irish stake in this issue. We speak as a friend of the UK. We speak as a neighbour of the UK. We speak as a 62 million euro trading partner, billion euro trading partner with the UK. As partners in facilitating and supporting work to help secure peace and stability in Northern Ireland and the prosperity agenda across our respective islands. So I encourage every person here today to set yourselves a target in talking to people at the Juneau who are on the electoral register. Let's pick 20. Let's pick 20 friends. If you haven't got 20 friends, maybe you have 20 family. If you haven't got 20 family, maybe you have 20 clients or customers or partners or whoever. I know some of you will know far more than 20, but I think if we pick 20 as an average and give yourself the task of ensuring that you make personal contact with them, give them the Irish perspective, ask them to share the word between now and the 23rd of June. And I believe it's critically important that we turn our attention in these final weeks away from ourselves, all of whom are probably of a mind here, but that we look at those who are undecided or the unconvert. Let's ensure that we get our message across to them. And also I think it's important that we reflect here as Democrats that low turnouts in elections don't really serve democracy well. So we need to ensure that following the act of engagement and that people do vote and ensure that the turnout is such that whatever the decision, there will be one that is made following due and detailed consideration. So I want everybody to join in the efforts supported by the European movement Ireland and others, for example, the Phone of Friend initiative. Let's encourage people to register between now and the 7th of June and to make their voices heard on the 23rd of June. The Phone of Friend campaign by the Irish for Europe campaign in Britain continues to make a very valuable contribution to this debate and I want to acknowledge their act of participation. From my own part, I am managing a targeted series of ministerial meetings during these final weeks so as we as members of government can reach out directly, meet the Irish community in Britain, put forward the importance British-Irish relations and that dimension to wider audience across the UK. I was in London last month and I have a number of business plans in Northern Ireland. I travel to Liverpool and Manchester at the start of June. On to London in mid-June. Indeed the Taoiseach is attending in London. My cabinet colleagues, many of whom have already arranged a speaking engagement in their schedule of calendars between now and the 23rd of June. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, with the 5th of May elections behind us and the referendum campaign is now properly under way. I have spoken with all the party leaders. I was in Belfat yesterday and as we continue on the work to implement the storm and house agreement and the recently completed fresh start agreement all this work must continue in earnest but between now and the 23rd of June I think the greatest priority must be the issue contained in the referendum on the matter of the relationship between the UK and the EU. It's perfectly clear that the EU supports the Northern Ireland prosperity and the certainty of EU membership brings our invaluable open border arrangement into question and of course it's of vital national strategic importance that this would continue over the next number of years. So just briefly, Tom, if I can fast forward to the 24th of June and the announcement of the result of the referendum. I believe the result of course is one of the themes of your conference later on. If the UK votes to leave the Union we would of course be entering uncharted waters. The negative knock on effects highlighted by a range of independent research. The level of uncertainty overall must not be underestimated. From a European perspective the Union as a whole would face two or more years of an unprecedented negotiation process on the exit of a large but hugely important member state. This would of course take up a huge amount of time for all governments across the European Union, officials, politicians, others. At a time when let's face it we have really important challenges that require our full-time attention. Here in Ireland a huge amount of work is being undertaken across government to be ready to respond, whatever the outcome the importance of this issue was identified as far back as 2014 in our national risk assessment. All our government departments have been working for some time to identify the key strategic and sectoral issues that would arise if the UK were to vote to leave the Union. We will continue to deepen our analysis of the risks and key issues that would require priority attention in the event of there being a Brexit and it will be managed in a most active way in the event of such a scenario. There's already a clear framework in place for bilateral cooperation between the Irish and UK governments under the joint statement which both the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Cameron signed in 2012 as part of this for my own part. I have to say that I have a very a very positive and constructive excellent working relationship with my UK counterpart Philip Hammond. Such a bilateral engagement will of course continue to be the outcome of the referendum but it will become particularly important in the event of there being a vote to leave the Union. Ireland of course would have a large range of national concerns and issues that we would wish to see addressed at EU or bilateral level in the context of a negotiated withdrawal on the part of the UK. These include the operation of the single market the effects on trade between us the common travel area of course of huge significance and the energy interconnection links between our respective islands. We must remember too of course and this has not always been emphasized in recent commentary on the situation between Northern Ireland and ourselves here in the Republic but any negotiations would of course be a set of negotiations between seven member states on the EU side and that matters of the EU competence the scope for bilateral arrangements must be seen in that light and might not be as evident as many of the commentators have so far suggested. We would nevertheless seek to emphasize the very particular relationship that Ireland has with the UK including the delicate and sensitive issue on the island of Ireland and that said let me conclude by looking at the scenario which I strongly prefer along with the vast majority of people in this room I suspect and that is an outcome on the 23rd of June for the UK to remain firmly a member of the European Union. Here we have an opportunity as a renewed union of 28 member states to move forward together with the countries that face us and our citizens. I sincerely hope that the European Union remains a union of 28 members after the referendum on the 23rd of June and that the distinctive and really valuable and important UK voice at the table of 28 remains firmly in situ. So let's make the most of these five weeks between now and the 23rd of June make the Irish voice heard because it's so important for us here in Ireland so important for Northern Ireland so important for our relations with the United Kingdom so important for the European Union as a whole thank you very much


Here is a walking simulator I cannot wait to play. Question! What is a walking simulator? Answer!  They're not mechanically complex, but they can be engaging these games. Every time I've seen The Invincible, I've become that much more certain it's exactly the kind of narrative game I will find engaging. The demo I played during June's Steam Next Fest has done little to dissuade me. In fact, it's made the narrative of The Invincible all the more appealing, the constant tension of being alone on a desolate alien world surrounded by unknown and unknowable flora and corpses while trying to piece together a mystery that goes against your character's understanding of the universe. It makes for an excellent hook in a story told by Polish studio Star Ward Industries. So what if this game is an absolute walking simulator? And there really is no question that it is. I don't mind. An interesting enough story can make for an excellent gaming experience. Walking simulator or not? Just think of what remains of Edith Finch, one of the finest examples of this genre. Whether The Invincible shapes up to be one of those walking simulators we mentioned in the same breadth as Edith Finch is something we can tell only once it sees its full release. This slice of the game, however, certainly has me hopeful. Players of the demo are dropped not at the game's opening but more towards its middle, an interesting choice in itself. No special introductions are made of Jarsna, whom we control, or of the voice in her ear. That voice belongs to Jarsna's commanding officer who will be a constant companion from afar. The relationship between the two promises to be complex, defined by loyalty and guilt, and secrets held far too long.  I love the voice work on both parts, atmospheric to no end and acted out to perfection. You can really feel the emotions of these characters, the curiosity and want and fear they're pursued by. What's more, Jarsna's iron will comes true in a variety of different ways from her decisiveness to uncover the mystery before her to the resigned way she gets down to tackling every new challenge. The game is based on Stanislav Lem's novel of the same name, something I'd forgotten until sitting down to research this video. Lem is one of the sci-fi grandmasters whose works I haven't yet touched and while I'm tempted to jump into the novel before this title is released I think I'll wait and see what I make of the game first. A comparison video might be called for later down the line. How will the game tackle the themes of the novel? How close to the source material does it keep the plot? I have so much fun setting goals for the future, back to the invincible toe, the game. I'm such a nerd about dialogue options and this one tackles dialogue in a way that reminds me of Firewatch. That wonderful and intimate story about a man recovering from loss in the Wyoming wilderness. The setup of Boat is similar, insofar that a single person on the other side of a radio serves as your lifeline. Here in the invincible of course, science-fictional mystery is king. Corpses, machines breaking down and getting stuck in loops that range from the nonsensical to the murderous. Something is amiss on the planet of Registry. I plan on finding out what. Will you be joining me? Let me know in the comments below. If you enjoyed this video, please share it with your friends. Smash that like button and don't forget to subscribe. I'll see you again next time. Bye!


What's the word y'all welcome back to a recap I was gone away from work I was in California shooting a lot of stuff that y'all will see soon And it's just like terrible terrible timing now understand I probably shouldn't be leaving the offices during the playoffs, but hey what money calls you got you gotta go You know I'm saying but it just so happened the week that I was going was like the most entertaining week We had like Kevin around put up a masterclass in game number five putting up 49 points And I want to film a video about it, but I'm not home Terrence Mann has the greatest game of his whole lifetime to win a series And I'm not home to talk about it and those are just some of the on course stuff off the court We a Kimba Walker getting traded. We have coach in Vegas. He's the Dallas Mavericks The whole organization is on fire right now, and I will be talking about those things eventually But today I want to focus on this game seven because we haven't been walking going into Brooklyn and they win No tea, you know game sevens can be hit or miss obviously every NBA fan up there loves a game seven unless You're a fan of the team that's involved because the anxiety isn't all time I but everybody else loves a good game seven But I feel like I don't got the numbers in a back and up y'all know we don't look at numbers on the recap I don't I don't care that much, but I feel like a lot of game sevens Don't live up to the actual hype like even earlier in this playoff run We had Dallas versus the Clippers and that was a good game for like three quarters And then the Clippers pulled away and we didn't have like that super super intensity This one was that Greatest game of the season possibly we had Kevin DeRent dropping 48 Yanis showcasing why he is a two-time MVP I'm not I'm not except. I don't want to accept any honest slender, bro. I've been on this island, bro Understand he's not the guy that's gonna take the game winning three like Kevin DeRent will be able to do You know, that's why he has other teammates, but this guy dominated He had a couple stretches where like he was super fatigued and we're gonna talk about fatigue because at the end of the day There are two things that really determine the series and fatigue was one of them He was fatigued throughout this one You would love to see him guard Kevin DeRent sometime, you know sometime especially Kevin DeRent putting up 49 and game seven and 48 tonight you would love to see that but you didn't you know I'm saying but overall Yanis was amazing. He didn't hit the game winning shot He didn't hit the icing on the cake like cast money Chris did but he was clutch He was amazing tonight. So stop it. You know, I'm saying it's respect the greatness of these players, bro And I'm always gonna be on that. That's where Yanis. That's what Kevin a rant That's what all of the superstar players in the league man because we cannot take these for granted because like like Overall careers are short in the grand scheme of things. You know I'm saying so you got to respect these things But let's talk about the Brooklyn that's here because Kevin a rant game number five game number five puts up a 48 minute game 48 minute game gave us an amazing performance one of the greatest individual performance I've seen in a very very long time, especially when it comes to playoff performances amazing game number six He still play heavy minutes But you have to play every second of the game because Milwaukee won that one conventionally, right?  So Steve Nass is like, hey, I don't trust nobody else I don't trust nobody more than I trust Kevin or more than I trust James Harden on one leg So these guys got to play James Harden was one second away from playing the entire game And that was like an inbound play where Nicholas Klaxon came in and guard the inbounder But like you don't trust nobody more than that and then he goes into the fourth quarter He hits one of the craziest shots to send it to overtime Well, if this man was a size 15 and a half instead of a size 16 They're in a conference finals right now, but his toe is on the line cool And I'm watching this game and I'm being honest I don't care who actually wins the game But I'm pulling for the Milwaukee Bucks because I want the smaller market I want the organic team to have some type of I just think it's better for the league that way You know I'm saying if the Brooklyn that's what one is game. I'm not punching the walls I'm not mad or anything because they're players on this team to absolutely love But I was rooting for the Milwaukee Bucks. It's a little bit more, right? So they go to overtime and in my mind after what just happened coach coach bud Just has a out of time outplayed when they have two and a half seconds on a shot clock and he draws up I don't even know and Brick Lopez has a JR Smith moment and I'm like this game is over That's all the momentum swinging and then Kevin right to set the shot to send it over time I thought this game is completely over but shout out to again the Bucks weather in the storm But the Brooklyn that's at the end of the day was they were fatigued as a team Kevin right shoots We're over six and overtime. He scores like two total poor one for six and two total points and the team scored two points They were fatigued. They were really really fatigued out there and they had they finished with zero bench production I understand as a collective as a bench. They had 18 minutes of Jeff Green who had an amazing game five didn't do anything But commit three fouls Landry Shami was out there doing some cardio for seven minutes and then a Nicholas Klax at the one second on the end bounds and Kevin a rank couldn't do it all man. James Harden is playing on one leg And I know he ended up with ten free thousand seven of those were in the first quarter So he kind of cooled down there, but like This is crazy to say but when James Harden was attempting shots I was looking at it like I'm okay with that right now because since he's come back from his injury We know he's not a hundred percent He hasn't shot the ball well at all like he has had good moments being being a threat James Harden being on the court himself Is a threat you have to guard it whether he has one leg or not But like as I'm watching these games I'm like him taking that normal step back that he took for the last decade I'm cool with that because he ain't got his legs under him You know I'm saying so you you don't really worry about that Bruce Brown had an amazing performance I'm giving them all the credit my guy Nick made a whole video about the type Bruce Brown's the type of guy to every championship team needs He almost did the thing like like late in his game They had so many offensive rebounds and a lot of that was Bruce Brown.  So it's like this is weird thing here Blake Griffin had a solid game, but it just wasn't enough We get to overtime cast so many Chris hit some shots Joe how they didn't have not did not have a good series at all offensively But he had moments in that fourth quarter I think he ended up with like eight or ten points in a fourth quarter alone and that was absolutely huge You could credit his defense or some of the James Harden things and I swear to you, bro I made a tweet like man if they end up losing this game coach bud You got to walk home, bro And somebody showed a screenshot walking from Brooklyn to Milwaukee is like a 10-day thing He would have had to do that, bro Because I'm sorry like I understand in the conference fighters now This is the best they've been you know I'm saying they always have been a second round exit They got to the conference fighters, which is amazing It's big, but I can't help but to look at the way coach bud is coaching this team Like bro, they can be so much better How do you get a timeout late in the game? Two points something seconds on the shot clock a draw up the play you did now Maybe that was Brooke Lopez is not knowing the situation But like if you look at that play they had two people cut and torch the ball in the inbounder I don't know what he's doing there. I don't know what he's doing there And of course, I don't know if I mentioned this earlier I would have loved to see Yannis get some type of possessions on Kevin Arrant I guess I mean it would have been better if they it got that way, but they ended up winning this game Yannis amazing PJ Tucker hitting three threes for PJ Tucker if he's a Tucker's giving you three threes Give him a W. Give the team a W because like there are some games this man PJ Tucker just playing great defense Don't get me wrong, but he's over two over one zero side attempt So when you get a three three point game from him, that's really really good other than the debacle from from Brooke Lopez I think he played a solid game and Chris didn't have a great game But he made timely timely buckets and the only bench points we had in this entire game was Pat Conniton who had three threes which were big because I mean you had some foul trouble from like PJ Tucker Juhade was in some foul trouble. So the 23 minutes from Pat Conniton were really big for the team man I'm happy for the Bucks. It's not over Everybody would say the job's not finished. It's a fact jobs not finished, you know They didn't they don't want to just be a conference finalists They want to win it all and then tomorrow we'll find out who they're going against and then we'll decide if they're the favorite If they're gonna win this and then I want coach bud out of there They win the championship. There's no way they fire coach bud They might not even fire coach bud if they lose in the next round because hey, we made it to the conference finals When it's a get eliminated one of my favorite things to do is to look at their team and be like, okay What's next? Okay, what's next for the Brooklyn nuts? Honestly, I don't know. I don't know if I mentioned this earlier But if James Hard is healthy Carrie Irvin doesn't mess up his ankle. They win this series Easily, you know, I'm saying let's be honest with each other shout out to the Bucks You're in a conference finals right now, but if it was for injuries, you're in a you're in a conference finals right now So when you're looking at this roster, what do they need? They I think they need a legitimate big they can rebound the ball Bros Brown can't be your best rebounder every game every game and guys like Deandre Jordan I think it was Klaxon had good moments throughout the playoffs not necessarily in this series But throughout the playoffs he played pretty solidly I think they need to figure that out and Well, they need to get healthy They need to figure out the special then with the situation because he is a free agent as well I've been seeing things that people throwing him in trace to get another piece or you just keep him on the team just in case James Hardy gets injured again or just in case Carrie Irvin get injured injured again Because you remember when the James Harden trade went down One of the reasons you do that is for Carrie Irvin insurance when they traded for James Harden This is right after Carrie Irvin and take a little hiatus from the team.  They'll be gonna be like, ah You're gonna brick and that's but it's crazy how things can happen in the VA Feels like early season after the James Harden trade everybody pence within Lakers everybody pencil then Brooklyn Nets and again A lot of this is due to injury and LeBron went on this whole little rent on Twitter about the short and off-season And how that has impacted the league and and I didn't agree with everything LeBron said But I think he's onto something. He's definitely honest something I think he said like eight all-stars is are gonna miss some time in the playoffs That hasn't happened before You know that hasn't happened before so if you're a Brooklyn Nets fan Obviously, it sucks to lose in a second round when you have a team of KD Kyrie and James Harden But you're about to get a lot of rest the season starts at the regular time next year So Kevin a rent is gonna have another year of off-season behind cuz you remember he's just coming off an injury Another off-season under him James Harden. I don't expect James Harden to have a major injury again Again, he has been an Ironman throughout his entire career with these clubbing or not And then carry over it's kind of a wild car when it comes to this injury But that's the reason you have so many start players is because of that. So let me know what y'all think about this game I feel like I'm missing missing some things. I should have talked about in this one, but hey We got another game seven tomorrow. It's already been confirmed that Chris Paul is not playing game one Kawhi didn't travel for the first two games in a series So I don't know what's happening in Phoenix versus Clips. Y'all know who I'm rooting for But again, I don't really care too much. Y'all know who I'm rooting for Appreciate y'all. I'll be back tomorrow. It's another game seven. I gotta talk about the other game seven. Yes, and so see you tomorrow


Question is from Jeremiah Johnson. Besides calves, what is your favorite body part to develop and how do you go about training? They must be talking to you guys. Yeah, slight jab there. You know, some of my favorite body parts to train are my favorites because they were, when I was younger, they were areas that were difficult to develop. So like, when I first started working out, there were a few things that I was very, I was obviously body image issues. I would talk about this often on the podcast. It's what motivated me. There were a particular parts of my body that I was really, you know, concerned with. One of them was my shoulders. I'm not a wide person structurally. I don't have a wide bone structure. So I had no muscle, plus I was narrow to begin with. And I didn't like the way I looked in t-shirts. I felt like I looked like a coat hanger. So I made a special emphasis on training my shoulders. Now I did a good job with my technique and my program and whatever. My shoulders ended up becoming a strong suit. Until this day, I really loved the feeling of training my shoulders. I love the way they look when they're pumped. It's a fun body part to train. Same thing for my back. I had the same problem on my back. It was skinny, I wasn't wide. And I remember, I remember like it was yesterday, the first time I got a lat pump. And it was when I had been working on my back for a little while, couldn't feel my back working. I think a lot of people have this issue when they first start working out. It's like, I just feel it in my biceps. I'm like, am I really working my back? And I read this article on supersets and I did a pre-exhaust superset where I did dumbbell pullovers, which is more of an isolation movement. And I went straight to pull-ups. And I remember getting down off those pull-ups and standing there and being like, what? I have a pump in my, that feels weird. Oh my, I was so excited about it. And I love those two parts. Still my favorites. I'm your prototypical like Monday chest day guy. I am that guy. Like I've always loved building and developing the chest. And it was just something that, again, this is kind of playing into your strengths. And it was one of those things I found that I could compete with somebody that was like a good 50, 60 pounds heavier than me. You know, like I could hang with people in that lift specifically. And then also with my triceps as well. So it's kind of that combo of the chest triceps where I was like dips or bench press. If I couldn't think of anything in the gym, it's like I'm doing one or the other because for some, it just gave me this good feeling. I just felt strong and capable. And it didn't hurt that I beat the record for like dips at my school at the time. So I was like reinforcing it. Was it for total dips or weight strapped with a dip? No, it was total dips. What was the total? What was the number? 900 and something. No, I don't even remember it to be honest. Typical Justin. He's so, he's so humble. I know he's like. I would know that number. I was like a hundred and thirty. I don't remember it. It's in the past. Bro, Adam and I, Adam would have a tattoo of it. I would know it for sure. It was definitely over a hundred. Yeah, it's crazy.  You know what's actually funny about this question is that when I, as a kid, 100% it was arms. Cause I think for the first three years of lifting weights, all I did was arms. And then after that, I actually have fall, I've always, still to this day, fallen in love with training the body part that is the weakest or most underdeveloped. Yeah.  I know. Right. I've learned to do that. Yeah. And being completely transparent and honest, probably my least favorite of those, there was lots of underdeveloped parts, is calves and forearms, because they're probably the least contributors to almost everything else going on with the body. Like it's like, if you got strong arms having, you know, weaker forearms, whatever, you know what I'm saying? It's like, they're responsible for very little.  So I think that those ones have always probably, I would say those are my least two favorite to work and develop on, because I think they're just, as far as contributing to your overall strength, your overall physique, I feel like they play the least amount of role. Plus, I think they have the greatest difference, genetic wise, you either have great big forearms, you have great calves, not that you can't develop those two, because I have done that in both areas. It's just less fun in comparison to everyone else. Everything else, like I've loved, I love going to the gym. I mean, currently right now, like it's quad and squats for me. Like I'm all into that, I'm in powerlifting, it makes sense to be kind of in that focus. And so I'm really enjoying developing my legs right now. And I've been here before where that's a focus. I can attest to Salis' shoulders. I've never, I've shared the story when one of my female trainer clients that used to compete told me that my, I asked her to assess my physique because she was a competitor and she said I had weak shoulders and I remember that would like hurt my feelings. And I, you know, that became, and that actually kind of started that. Somebody said no delts to me the other day. Yeah, cool. Yeah, said that to me.  Oh, my back is weak. Oh, my quads are weak. Oh, my hamstrings are weak. And then programming to address that. And what's needed when you understand, when you've been lifting for a really long time, that chasing after the areas that you're weak in, it gives you that sense almost that, like that novelty thing again, where your body is going to respond best. If I go and let's say my biceps, for example, is a major strength of mine because of all the work I did early on and still continued that for many years, it's kind of boring to train them because I'm not going to squeeze very much out of them even when my arms are at their biggest. I can get back to my biggest arms ever with very little effort because I've already put all the work. It's just not challenging. It's not challenging, it's easy. I'm like that with quads. Right, right. So if it's an area that it's easy for me to develop, I'm less interested in, I'm more interested in the areas where like, oh man, if I put some work in, I could see a difference and change. So at one point, they've all, I mean, shoulders at one time was that. I mean, back when I was doing the deadlift thing with Sal and I was competing because your back is like, for sure, one of the biggest difference makers in men's physique, having an impressive back. So I got a kick out of developing that and my shoulders, my arms, my chest for sure. There was a point where I had an uneven chest. My left pec was significantly larger than my right. And so addressing the imbalances there, then catching it up and then getting actually a really good strong bench and a pretty good chest, I've enjoyed all of it. I really reframe how I look at my physique as when I look at weak points and go, oh cool, I have something that I can improve upon and program around and I will see a difference if I follow and execute. And I try and give this tip to a lot of clients when they're focusing in the gym as you know, if you're, especially if you're aesthetic driven, you know, pick something that is a weak area and that you go see the most improvement there than anyone else. If you love with training it and you're going to train it, you're not gonna skip it. That's a great mental strategy.