How a Two-Partner Patent Boutique Made AI a Force Multiplier — Without Surrendering Judgment

Collin McKee

Welcome back to the Endeavors AI Podcast. I'm your host, Collin McKee, founder of Endeavors AI, where we talk to people about the intersection of artificial intelligence, law, business, the new economy that's being built around all of it. My guest today runs one of the leanest, sharpest law firms I've come across. He's the founder, founding partner of K2K IP Law, a boutique patent litigation firm in New York. Two senior partners, 25 plus years of experience each, no associates. He left Big Law back in 2013 to build it, runs a patent C patent consultancy called Markman Advisors on the side, and has written close to 400 columns for Above the Law over the last decade. He's also one of the most honest people I've talked to when it comes to AI and where it actually helps a lawyer a lawyer and where it absolutely does not. Gaston Kroub, welcome to the show, sir.

Gaston Kroub

Thank you, Collin. Great to be here.

Collin McKee

So let's start in the beginning. You spent years in big law, made partner in New York in the New York Law Firm Office. and then that firm c became one of the biggest in the nation. And then in twenty thirteen you walked away to build your own boutique firm. Walk me through that decision.

Gaston Kroub

Sure. So I mean, I I very much appreciated the the opportunity to train and learn in the context of a big firm that was at the time I joined already one of the biggest firms in the world. And by the time I left had become even bigger. and it was a very exciting period. It was definitely a period of growth. the New York office while I was there, became the the biggest office in the firm, both in terms of revenue and in terms of number of lawyers. So I feel very fortunate that I, you know, got to grow up professionally in such an environment, the training it provided, the infrastructure, really everything you needed to really learn the business, as well as the profession, and especially specifically, you know, my area of law, which tends to be pretty specialized, which is intellectual property litigation. So, you know, all in all it was it was a great start. Eventually after a couple of years after making partner for a variety of reasons, I decided to jump. I made an intermediate stop in the New York office of another large international law firm before, as you said, Collin, in 2013, leaving to start a patent consultancy and intellectual property boutique firm. throughout our prior firm's history, since because we restructured earlier this year, we always ran a very lean shop. as you mentioned. at at our heyday, we were three partners and one associate. but that was not the barometer that I always used in terms of determining the sophistication of our practice. I really focused on what are the matters that we're working on and who are we up against, particularly in the litigation context. And you know, i from the very earliest days we were fortunate enough to be working on matters that saw us up against you know, the types of firms that we had all come from, including some of the biggest firms in the world or the most prestigious firms in the world. So you know, I think I've had a front front row seat over the last twelve, thirteen years to managing a a small practice in the context of kind of a changing economic environment, navigating through the pandemic like we all had to had to do. and now I think really

Gaston Kroub

in in light of the conversation that we're about to have, the AI component of things has accelerated tremendously, particularly in the last six months, at least with respect to my practice. So I'm very excited to, you know, talk to you more about that, since I know that's of a lot of interest to your audience.

Collin McKee

Yeah, of course. So before we get there, yeah, you didn't just start a firm, you started Markman Advisors at the same time. And for people that don't know that world, what does patent consultancy actually do? Who's calling you and what are they trying to figure out?

Gaston Kroub

So there's a couple of different you know, use cases for a patent consultancy separate from kind of a patent law firm. And I'm the first to admit that the line can be a little bit blurry, particularly for for lay people. but the way I would distinguish it quite simply is if for example, you owned a patent, Collin, and you wanted to sue Google, and you called me to be your lawyer, then that would be something that my law firm would do, right? We would put a case together, get a case on file, and I would be what we call outside counsel to you to try to generate a result against against Google. And that's something that is traditionally done by law firms of all sizes, right? From the solo practitioner to the biggest firms in the world. on the consultancy side, let's imagine a situation where instead of you calling me about your case against Google, there was a hedge fund that Had invested in your company as the plaintiff. And they wanted to know: hey, how is Collin's company doing in their case against Google? Obviously, that's not information that's readily available publicly. They can't call your lawyers. They can't call Google's lawyers. They're not going to talk to them. So having the ability to talk to someone like myself and my partners who have deep experience in patent litigation and can talk through. All right, here's how the case is going. Here's what we know about this judge. Here's, you know, the upcoming inflection points in the case and the timing to trial. That could be very helpful for investors. So it's not necessarily legal work, it's legal adjacent, it's you know legal related. that's the type of assignment that a patent consultancy would would engage in. And our typical client on that front would be a a, you know, a buy-side investment firm or a sell-side research firm that's looking to learn a little bit more about some kind of ongoing patent matter that is that is out there. Just to you know make it even more clear, you know, just this morning I had a call with the hedge fund about they were looking for, you know, kind of an update on what's going on with all the various copyright cases around AI, all these cases of

Gaston Kroub

author suing anthropic or author author suing open ai. they just wanted to get a better sense of you know what's happening. So again, they're not asking me to be their lawyer. I'm not involved in the cases. I'm just a critic, so to speak, from the outside. but that perspective is valuable to our clients and we take that responsibility just as seriously as we do then as if you had called us directly and said we need you to be our lawyer to represent us in this case.

Collin McKee

Cool. Yeah, thanks for the explanation. That's it's an important distinction, but value on both both roles, right? so wanna get into AI, but before we get there, let's talk a little bit about your platform. about four hundred columns you say for above the law, a format you call three questions for. why written interviews and what why that structure?

Gaston Kroub

So actually so the way it started with Above the Law, and just for the folks that don't know, Above the Law is they advertise themselves as a legal tabloid. it's online only. when I was kind of growing up in the big firm space, it was the place you went to for salary information, gossip, you know, they really focus on the legal industry in, you know, sometimes irreverent ways, but also you know, shining a lens on how legal practice actually works. And one of the things that they do that adds a lot of value, I think, to the readership is they'll have guest columns you know, offering different perspectives about different areas of law, different areas of legal practice. So I was fortunate enough to become a columnist. Originally, my column was about the transition from big law partnership to running a small firm. and I did that for a few years. I think I wrote about 80 columns. there's only so much you could say, right? Like once you talk about leasing your first office, you know, that not much follow-up there. so I was I actually got to the point where, you know, I kind of felt like we had gone through the extent of my transition and what I could say you know, smartly about that transition and be helpful about it to the readership. and my editor graciously said, Well, why don't you just write about what you do? And what I do is intellectual property and intellectual property litigation. And the column has, you know, we're close to 400 columns in. And it's really does a a number of different things. One thing I try to do is obviously talk about cases that I think are going to be of interest to a general readership that has a legal background. So for example, when the New York Times sued OpenAI on their AI training using the New York Times information. I wrote about that case. And I'll write about pharmaceutical cases. You know, basically the case of the day or the or the big you know the big legal news in the intellectual property space is something that I will sometimes address in a column. you also referenced Collin my interview series, what I call Three Questions Four. there I decided that I really want to talk to people from a wide range of exposures to the intellectual property space. So any anybody from

Gaston Kroub

former judges to academics to I even interviewed someone who had lost the patent case, random person that had a case and was unsuccessful. So I reached out to them like, what's it like to lose? Yeah. You know, and 'cause I think those perspectives are important and and people you know, value the opportunity. The reason I went with the written interview format was per first of all, I started doing this well before podcasts like this and video existed and was easy. but also because I realized that I would have a much better success rate in terms of getting people to talk to me if I made the process as easy as possible. So the written interview for my works really well. And then, you know, once you have that structure, that three questions for structure, it's very easy to just, you know, replay it and continue it depending on on the interviewee. I think there's only been one or two people that have gotten more than three questions. One of them was a former federal judge. who I actually was in front of in a big case and lost. and who am I to tell her that if she wants to answer six questions, she can only answer three. So I wasn't going there for so, you know, under certain circumstances, you know, three questions could be a little bit could be modified, but the rare exception over the years. and and so that's what I use the column for. It helps me stay in touch with developments in the space. I'll also talk about kind of macro issues so I've spent a lot of times on the air talking about, you know, China's relationship to IP, just as one example, because that's kind of something that happens globally that really impacts us on us here in the States. and you know, sometimes I'll throw in kind of legal practice type stuff. So it's it's very intellectual stimulating for me. Hopefully the the audience appreciates it. I assume if they continue to publish what I write, somebody's reading it. and I and I very much value the opportunity to continue doing it. So thanks for asking about that. It's it's been a career enhancer in a number of ways. mo most most importantly in terms of keeping me sharp and keeping me current.

Collin McKee

Right. Yeah. I I I would imagine with four hundred plus your theory's been proven and and and you've got a good thing going. So and I I like how you you you value it. It's that it's keeping you sharp. You know, we talked about this in our pre call and I kinda wanna see, you know, it what does that bring back to you? You know, does it bring clients in the door? But you you've already kind of touched on it. The value that you find in it is keeping yourself sharp and providing

Gaston Kroub

Yeah.

Collin McKee

value to others. And in that, that's the way that, you know, you're you're you're seeing the true benefit of doing that work. is that a fair synopsis or is there more that you see from it?

Gaston Kroub

I think it's fair. I will I will add, you know, there is also a credibility component that comes from being a published voice, right? And you know, it it it may not seem that way, particularly early on, where you're kind of releasing these columns and you you know there's an audience, but you don't know who's in the audience. every so often I will get people that read something I write and respond to me and we'll go back and forth on it, and that's always welcome. but I think there's particularly as the years go by and you start hitting these thresholds of a hundred columns published, 200 columns published, then the the the credibility aspect of it becomes more important, less to you know convince anybody to make them their lawyer, but more that when I do have a conversation with someone, I could say, listen, this is, you know, my work is out there, right? My thought, my thoughts are out there. and and quite frankly, a number of times I've you know, spoken to people about a particular situation and be like, actually I wrote about this, you know, three years ago and here's what I said then, and and and and that could be that could be very helpful as well. So definitely I think the the the personal benefit is important in terms of, you know, I would say skill development, keeping yourself motivated to stay as current as possible. But there is also credibility piece that comes in, just like I'm sure you see, by putting yourself out there and and, you know, demonstrating some thought leadership in your area. And that's that's always a critical as well. Yeah.

Collin McKee

Yep. A hundred percent. Yep. Okay. So on to AI, the topic of the day, or at least what's behind me here. So, you know, you you're pretty forward thinking when it comes to AI, but we all kind of started in the same place, you know, playing around with chat GPT or whatever as a tool. So when did it flip for you from just being this this cool shiny new toy to something that was an integral part of your business and and you know, an actual tool that was indispensable in your firm?

Gaston Kroub

Mm-hmm.

Gaston Kroub

So there there were there were a couple of inflection points, but I think the most recent and impactful inflection point actually happened towards the tail end of I think it was the tail end of twenty twenty five. It may have even been earlier this year. The dates are the dates are not clear in my in my mind. But the what happened was I had been reading along as as I'm sure you know you people in your audience as well, that You know, the legal industry was one of those areas that was going to be very much impacted by AI. And as someone who came out of or grew out of the soil of big law, you know, the things that resonated the most to me were, you know, stories that I would see in the media about different big law firms experimenting with AI. It's very easy for me to put myself back in that period of time and think, what how would my practice have been different if I had that exposure? and to give you a very simple example, one of the things that the firm I worked at had that I wasn't sure other firms had at the time was they had an in, and this goes back, remember I started in 2002. this goes back to then. they had an internal chat box, right? It was not necessarily something that you spoke to.

Gaston Kroub

One of the things I was fortunate to have exposure to as a as a young associate was an internal chat feature where I could speak to my compatriots in any of our offices anywhere in the world. I didn't have to send them an email. I could, you know, ping them and I found that communication to be actually very good in terms of helping us integrate with each other and helping

Collin McKee

Yeah.

Gaston Kroub

people it was almost like a proto Slack, if you will. you know, because I know lot of businesses have have integrated that very much into their workflows in the past decade or so. So, you know, I I I saw firsthand how technology advancements could benefit, you know, your development as a lawyer and legal practice and how you provided services to your clients. So fast forward to this event, it was actually held at NYU Law School. And the it was a conference that really had nothing to do with AI. But the keynote speaker was the CEO of a company called Harvey. And Harvey's an AI company that is kind of per purpose-built for serving the legal industry. And in particular, I would say purpose built for serving large law firms and large corporate departments. And you know, speaking hearing the CEO speak about, you know, the challenges that they faced. the you know exciting path to growth that they saw, the, you know, the blue skies ahead in terms of additional firms kind of adopting AI technology in their workflow really got me, inspired me to start using it more in my practice. And at the same time, you know, I also work in an area of law where there are other companies, AI-driven companies, that are really trying to crack some of the more difficult problems in our specific practice area. So I'll give you an example. you know, when you work with a client that has a very large patent portfolio, there's a lot of manual data entry and digesting that needs to happen, right? You have to have a list of all your patents. You have to keep track of the expiration dates. You have to keep track of when maintenance fees may or may not be due. And this could be something that happens most likely, not only in the US, but also involving portfolios that are you know, overseas. So we've always had technological solutions for these things, but it was also something where you kinda needed a paralegal or a lawyer to kind to work with the data and stay on top of the data. so when you know, with the advent of AI, we we started to use it to handle some of these kind of docketing features or portfolio evaluation features at a high level, which you know saved us a lot of time and saved us costs in terms of having to

Gaston Kroub

Either go out and buy a different piece of software to do it or hire someone to do it for us. So, you know, that was that was a piece that was very important. But that was a relatively easy nut, I think, for AI to crack. Where it became a little bit more interesting was in something called claim charting, right? So for for the benefit of the audience, let's say you have a patent, Collin, on a chair with three legs, right? That's what your patent says. It describes a chair, it describes a chair on three legs. And you hire me as your lawyer and you say, listen, I think there's people in the marketplace that are infringing on my patent. We want to evaluate. you know, I want you to go out there and evaluate who might be infringing, and then let's come up with an enforcement strategy to try to get them to stop or pay us, right? So in order to to do that, I then have to go out to the market and say, All right, who's selling chairs with three legs? Who's out there? What's the list of people that are doing it? And then Let's say I hit on a company that's doing it. Let's say IKEA is doing it, just as an example. They have a three-legged chair that we think is a dead read on your patent. So what we would do is we would create a claim chart where we would take the language in your patent in the patent claims. And for each of the elements in the patent claim, we would read it on the IKEA chair that we wanted to accuse of infringement that we wanted to sue IKEA on. So it might say, you know, element one might be a seat. Great. Does the IKEA chair have a seat? Sure. All right, good. We've got to click that off. You know, legs, how many legs? Three legs, three legs. All right, good. So you have to create these claim charts. Now, I'm giving you a very simple example, but you can imagine how you know, extrapolate that to an analyzing a semiconductor chip or a graphics processing engine or you know, the microphone in your iPhone, whatever it may be, and it can get really technical and really complicated. so the ability to use AI to Identify infringing products, for example, and then to help generate the claim charts can be a tremendous, tremendous time saver. Really help us filter out much larger portfolios in a quicker way, see what's junk, see what's not, and then allow the lawyers to do what we do best, which is to exercise our judgment and say, actually, you know what? They're actually the way IKEA does it is not ideal. It's not perfect. Maybe they're not the best target. Maybe we have to go after.

Gaston Kroub

I don't know, Macy's instead, because they're selling a chair that's a little bit closer. That's judgment, right? And you might say, Well, I want to go after IKEA because they're selling a lot more chairs, right? And and we would be like, Well, yeah, but it's also a lot riskier because there's a good chance that they they might, you know, not be infringing. So we want to get to the point, no matter how sophisticated, no matter how technically driven your practice is, and IP is, in my view, at the top of the charts in terms of level of sophistication, level of technical know-how that you need in order to do the job properly. you know, we're very much focused on where are places that we can use the AI to support our judgment, enhance it, but never but not replace it. And that's where I think the dividing line is between folks that are using AI productively and responsibly in the legal industry. And the flip side of that is the people that are Using the AI as an excuse to not do the work, and that's where people are getting in trouble. And I know it's a fine line and I know there's temptation on all sides, but you know, we're trying to keep that as our North Star to say, hey, you know, are we doing this in a way that's allowing us to exercise our judgment more pointedly, more quickly, more efficiently? or are we offloading the work in a way where we're actually sacrificing our judgment? And that's a place we never want to be.

Collin McKee

Yep. Yep. Let it be the bean counter, let it do the monotonous repetitive stuff. So give you back the time to do what you know, what you do best. I I think that's very well put. You know, don't try to replace the work that you really need to do with AI because even if you do that, you need to check it over anyway.

Gaston Kroub

Right. That's it's just another type of work, right? Just like just like I can't, you know, just like I would never, you know, in the days of pen and paper and the library and the books, I I would never cite a case to a court without having read the case and making sure that I gave the court the right citation, made sure that the case I was citing was what we call good good law, meaning it hadn't been overturned by a later court. so too, I I can't let AI write something and put it, you know, pass it off as my own work. without checking over what it says and doing the same tasks that I had to do in the pen and paper days. and and that and that's fine and that's healthy. you know I think a lot of attention, unfortunately, and maybe with good reason has fallen on those parts of the legal industry where big firm X gets caught submitting an AI paper that somebody forgot to check to the court and gets punished for it. I think those make for good cautionary tales, but I also have to believe that most of the use by responsible lawyers is more in line with what we're talking about, which is judgment, assistance, enhancement, you know, like you said, buying back time to do what we do best, and less about as a shortcut that stands in the place of actually doing the work in the first place.

Collin McKee

Yep. So that it's a good segue to one of the stories that you told me on our first call. you had a longstanding client that came to you with a demand letter situation, not really, you know, in your purview or completely outside of your purview. And your first instinct was just to refer that out, but you did something different instead. And I'll I'll let you tell that story.

Gaston Kroub

Sure. So, you know, just one of the things, one of the benefits of growing up in a big firm was we had specialists in every conceivable area law. And one of the things I I I learned over the years was that there's a reason for that. And there's a good reason why, you know, clients that can afford to pay for that specialized expertise really demand it. and that as a general matter, I think my My orientation is always I'd rather stay in my lane than extend myself to do something you know, to operate an area law that I'm not expert in, or where the learning curve for me to become sufficiently capable to handle the matter would be cost prohibitive for my client. Right. Like I have a responsibility to my client sometimes to say, you know, there's someone else that's better for this job. And and I and I think that that came out of my big law training, believe it or not. so, you know, I had a long I have a a longstanding client that operates a business that operates really nationwide, in fact internationally. And they sell a variety of products through a variety of different platforms. And they came to me with a demand letter that had they had gotten that had zero to do with any intellectual property issue whatsoever. and zero to do with the other area law where I have a l significant amount of experience, which is federal court litigation and courts around the country. This was a state court case on a w in a West Coast state that had, you know, I had never practiced in and it a matter again that had nothing to do with my with my day job or an area law that I was familiar with. So the client sends me the demand letter and says, you know, what what should we do about this? And my immediate inclination, and the in fact the immediate response I sent back was, it looks like we're going to need to identify a lawyer in this state that specializes in these types of cases. and if you need help finding someone, let me know, and I'm happy to do it. the client, however, pushed back and they said, Well, actually, can you at least take a look and let us know what you think? Because

Gaston Kroub

What the client hadn't told me in the original email was that they had already scheduled their own call with the lawyer that sent them the demand letter. So they were kind of like in a position where they jumped the gun a little bit and wanted to get prepared for this call and were leaning on me to do it. So at that point, I I said, All right, what's the most efficient way for me to figure out what this demand letter is all about? And and just so you know, like I I've dealt with many, many, many demand letters. I've dealt with many, many, many types of settlement agreements across, you know, from very low value to higher, much higher values. so the mechanics of getting to a deal is something that I feel very comfortable with. Where I didn't feel comfortable was what's the ethos of this type of case, right? Because it's not my area of litigation. So I actually pulled up Gemini because I was running the emails, my my G I was running in Gmail, and I dropped the demand letter. into Gemini with a prompt and I asked it, you know, what do I need to know? Right? Where is this letter strong? Where is it weak? how how best should I prepare a response if I'm going to have a conversation with the lawyer on the other side, you know, in the coming days? and just as a matter of practice, I find that the more specific you are in your prompting, the better the output you get. If you just tell the the AI, read this letter, tell me what it's about, you're going to get you know, I don't know, it could be anything from Dr. Seuss back to something way, way, you know, more complicated than what you intended. The more specific you are and the more you give the AI context, I find the more useful the output is. And then you have to refine it and and reprompt it, but at least in terms of getting to a starting point. And what I got back was, you know, a pretty good summary of the issues. you know, c confirmation for me, which was my initial suspicion was that these types of cases were very much you know ready fire aim type of things where you just you just send them out, you threaten people, all they're hoping for is some quick payback, you know, some quick settlement and on to the next victim. so this wasn't going to be a federal case, as they say. so the real so that put me in a in a mode of saying, all right, it seems like the best thing the client could do here is try to get this

Gaston Kroub

off their desk as quickly and cheaply as possible. And if that means trying to resolve it before they have to hire that lawyer in that foreign state and spend all that money to get that lawyer up to speed, then maybe there's a pathway here to help them do that. So I did another round of prompting and I got the information to the point where I felt comfortable writing an outline for my client to use on their call with the other lawyer. Right. And again, it had nothing to do with the merits of the of the complaint. I mean, there were some kind of general legal things about statute of limitations that were, you know, more general. So I felt comfortable opining. But I was very clear to the client that I'm not an expert on this. And there might be stuff that we're missing. But for purposes of this initial call, where all we're trying to do is figure out what the heck do these people on the other side want. Is it 50,000, is it a hundred thousand? Is it a million? Is it less? You know, just for the purposes of extracting that information, the AI was a great tool. The AI combined with my judgment in dealing with nuisance value cases in the past, was enough to l help me create that outline for the client. And ultimately it resolved very successfully. And for me, it was a great example of I ended up getting paid for work that I was Would have been very quick to refer. Actually, my natural exclamation was to refer it out. And the client got the benefit of spending a lot less money dealing with this legal issue because they got to work with me, who's a trusted lawyer for them from the from the the get-go. And we were able to kind of head it off before it escalated and it became a much bigger problem for them to deal with. So great example in my view, and this is why I wrote the column of how AI. was a force multiplier and a practice expander and a revenue generator for me. even though my initial inclination was, I don't want to touch this, you know, let's go the traditional route and find a lawyer that specializes in it. So I thought it was a good example of that and and that's why I wrote about it.

Collin McKee

Yeah, yeah. It is a great example. And I I love you using force multiplier. That's what we want to use it as, not a replacement, just a way to, you know, expand upon the the skill set that we have. and and you were very upfront and honest about your use of it with your clients. And I think that's another part too, you know, let's give credit where it's due and not try to say, you know, I did I did this, that, and the other because, you know, we

Gaston Kroub

Yeah.

Collin McKee

We all have access to the same tools, right? And we all know that we're using them. So let's be upfront and transparent about that. And I think that that builds a lot of credibility.

Gaston Kroub

You wanna you wanna hear something funny, Collin? That same client just emailed me on another issue that they got, similar type of thing, not my area of law. But now their first email to me was their ChatGPT, where they went to the they got another demand letter and they were like, here's what Chat GPT says about what should we do? So yeah, I look, I I think there's a role for you know, the lawyer as what we call counselors, right? Lawyers used to call themselves counselors, and I think it it's an underappreciated job of what we do. Our job is to give counsel. And it doesn't matter what the starting point is. If the client wants to, you know, run their old searches in Gemini or or ChatGPT or whatever, and then, you know, send them to us and say, you know, do you agree, confirm? You know, what's your judgment tell you about this approach? That's fine. If it's He you know, we understand as a client and we expect you as your client that my lawyer is going to use every available tool to provide the best legal service possible and that includes AI, that's fine as well. I it just you know, it's just funny that in the space of, you know, not that long a period of time, we ha that same client kind of went on their own evolution. And, you know, I what I feel fortunate about and what I've always said is, you know, your value as a lawyer is really tied to When there's a problem, who does the client think to call? So to me, it doesn't matter the starting point and it doesn't matter where in the life cycle of a matter the AI comes in because we know it's going to come in. if I'm doing my job right and I'm putting my client's interests in front, which I'm is which is what I'm supposed to do, then hopefully I'll continue to be the lawyer that they call when they have the problem. and then we'll work together to get to the best possible outcome.

Collin McKee

Awesome. Excellent. Well, Gaston, Gaston, this has been exactly what I had hoped it would been. you know, an upfront, candid conversation about how it's practic AI's practical use is helping people and also where where the guardrails need to be. We thank you so much. We'll have links in the show notes to to Gaston, to K2K IP Law, Markman Advisors, and above the law column. So With that, Gaston, I I truly appreciate your time. And if there's anyone out there that is looking for a little bit of advice on how we can how you can apply AI into your business, that's what we're here for at Endeavors AI. We'd love to talk to you. If you found benefit and value to the show, please subscribe. we do these conversations on a pretty regular clip. So with that, for Gaston Kroub, I'm Collin McKee, founder of Endeavors AI, we have Thank you for watching the show and we will see you on the next one.

Gaston Kroub

Thank you, Collin. Goodbye, everybody.

Collin McKee

See ya.