Thanks, postyle. I always appreciate your thoughts. Note that I am a lawyer, but not a patent lawyer, and thus I am struggling with analyzing the 6 patents and trying to figure out how I would frame the argument that they should survive the 101 challenge even under the current case law as it is applying Alice. I recall when JP Moreno issued his research report, he stated that the patents have very broad applications. But that appears to be a bad thing as judges are using that as a factor in finding against the patent holders. Virtual agility lost because, among other reasons, the ptab concluded that the patents were not sufficiently limited nor did they point to a specific algorithm, etc. Thus, my question to you is, how would you make the argument that the 6 Bascom patents are more than just abstract linking concepts? What is the true inventive step? Is there a specific algorithm required? Are they truly limited in nature such that they don't swallow up the concept of linking relationships in general? Is there more to the computer generated requirements than just having computer carry out the commands of the user? Sorry to ask you to drill down on this, but very curious to hear your thoughts as I have been racking my brain myself trying to come up with the answers. Thanks!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
