Do you really get into detail on software patents? Yeah. Oh, absolutely. It would be a bit of review as well. So let me get into this again. So, in what was the name Alessia of the person Kaitlyn? Okay. So Jalen, you're, you're definitely right. In terms of software being patentable software is not a machine. It's not an article of manufacture, it's not a composition. And software is protectable, because it is a process. So that's the category that it would be protected in. This category covers a lot of ideas. So machine art, Article manufacturer composition of process, software is protectable under the process, but you can't you also have to meet separate requirements, which don't go away novelty, utility and non obviousness. So put this up here. So for software, and it's very common with software to use existing components. So this is a big myths with software a lot of times with software ideas. Inventors know that that algorithm A is already out there, algorithm B is already out there, and algorithm C is out there. And they make the wrong assumption that they have nothing patentable in their idea, because those three are already known. However, the beauty of software is that it's very easy to combine different algorithms together. And if that combination meets these separate requirements of utility, novelty, and non obviousness, then you're in good shape, you've got novelty, the software has to be new, it has to can't be imported, it can't be something you've seen and repurposed. And you have to be the inventor of the software, you can't be an importer of software utility, it still has to work it has to do what it purports to do. And non obviousness, it can't be an obvious variation of what's out there. Now, software is a little bit trickier. Because there's a Supreme Court case, I won't go into too much detail because I know there's not a lot of many times I teach continuing education courses to other lawyers, and I would go into detail on the Supreme Court case of Alice versus C versus CLS bank. But that's an important case because that prevents abstract ideas from being patentable. So you need to work with a patent attorney that's that's very familiar with the our Supreme Court case, and understands the requirements of of the rejections for an idea be too abstract. So your software has to meet specific requirements, they're probably to duplicate the rest of this q&a to go into the details of what you need to do to pass muster under the Alice test. But if you wanted to learn more, you could simply do a search on Wikipedia. And Gabby, you can we can include this as well. And it's Alice vs. C CLS think is the critical, possibly the most important Supreme Court case on software patents that you would want to look at. So take a look at the Alice case and give me some idea of the complexities that you're going to face when you're trying to protect software ideas.