What I would say is that intellectual property becomes fundamental to a knowledge economy. We can do a lot of other things well, which don't touch on it; certainly our natural resource sector is.... I mean, there's a certain amount of intellectual property protection, obviously not copyright; we do well in other sectors also. But in terms of much of the components of a knowledge economy, this becomes a fundamental cornerstone.
Some of our best-known technology companies would tell you that they exist because of intellectual property protection, and they exist in a global context because Canada is just too small a market for them to succeed otherwise. Some of those have this issue that Mr. Angus pointed to, which I had referred to, around protecting against the ability to reverse-engineer. I'd suggest that's a pretty significant group, that maybe some people didn't hear, saying that perhaps the bill went a bit too far.
So I think there is a context in which you have to find that balance that gives the level of protection that's necessary in order to preserve the value for the creator, at the same time as not suffocating the ability to distribute or disperse knowledge. You know, it doesn't really matter who it is: it's not one idea that makes all the difference but rather the innovation that's built on idea after idea. If you wrap it up too tightly in a straitjacket, what you do is suppress innovation.
You have to have the incentive to create. You also have to have the incentive to build.