Alright John, so I just wanted to ask you in this case, do you think Jack Daniels is in the right, should they be attacking these guys? They're just making a dog toy, like what are your thoughts on as an intellectual property attorney? Here's a duty on owners of intellectual property to protect their rights. In the case of Jack Daniels bringing the lawsuit, I don't think if I was their attorney, I would advise the same, because it shows that they're policing their mark. Whether they ultimately should win, it's kind of a conflict between the Lanham Act and trademark rights, versus the right to free speech. That's why this dog toy manufacturer is arguing, it's trademark law, crushing free speech. By prediction, that's probably going to be what happens here, so it's not going to be ultimately good news for Jack Daniels in the case of being able to prevent sales of this. What I think would be helpful is anytime this point court provides guidance, it provides some clarity for future product manufacturers and how far they can go. This is kind of making a statement, innocence, right to anybody else that might have had a problem right there. Right, right.