With Mr. Fergus I touched on a couple of the possibilities with respect to how the notice-and-notice provisions could be improved. There are two others, just to reiterate: Number one, I think some of the patent changes are very good, and they've been long discussed, especially around the issue of trying to deal with patent trolls. I think the problem is that we know what we want, yet by putting it off into the regulation-making process, we're delaying the effectiveness by several years at a time when innovation is a significant part of the government's overall strategy.
The department says they know what they'd like to see included. I don't see any reason we couldn't include, let's say on patent demand letters as a start, precisely what the requirements would be, so that this could take effect at the same time the full bill takes effect, as opposed to putting it off by several years.
Number two, as I mentioned, has to do with linking the IP strategy issues in copyright with the emphasis that we've seen on artificial intelligence, AI. We've now had just about every major player in the AI space argue that there is a significant barrier within the copyright system that they do not face in the United States, Europe or Japan, so given the investment we've put into this, a one-line change within the Copyright Act would make it clear there is an exception for what's known as informational analysis or text and data mining. It effectively allows those engaged in artificial intelligence, in research, and later in commercialization, to ensure the data they are using can be used without fear of engaging in copyright infringement.