That absolutely is a great point, and we haven't been prescriptive about the specifics or the rates of how much. We would like to work with Finance or tax policy to design how a program would look like. We've seen some really great examples, as we said, in the U.K. or in the Netherlands, where instead of just giving the SR and ED tax credit for some sort of R and D activities in the businesses, which may or may not actually result in innovations, they really put the focus on commercializing the products. Whatever patent that the innovation box refers to, you check a box on your corporate tax return to say this revenue comes from this particular patent, and it goes through at a lower rate. The idea is much simpler and easier to administer than the SR and ED and it really goes at developing that innovation.
The risk is that if you do a whole lot of R and D activities and you don't get any innovation out of it or you don't actually commercialize the product, you won't benefit from the tax credit. That's why we want to put that in centre right on the actual product. But in terms of actual costing, we think it might be great to replace one with the other, but we haven't.