Well, there are different ways in which they are unique. It could be done somewhere else, but, first of all, they drive a third-party standards writing process. They will make sure that the committees are balanced, including users, those with general interest—and we fall in the general interest category—and industry. As I said before, for instance, I sit on the BIFMA standards association in the U.S., which truly provides an industry standard.
Because they're all manufacturers, you can see that they all face the same problems. They will make technical decisions based on their industry bias, if you will. It's not that they do that with malice. However, because they face the same general problems on a day-to-day basis, they will agree among them what makes sense for the industry. However, what makes sense for the industry doesn't necessarily make sense for the users, or for a lab like us, for instance.
They write a standard, and one of my main contributions, if I may say so, to their standards, is that I need to decide when I'm done with my test whether it passes or it fails. The way they're writing the standard right now, it leaves me in a grey zone. I'm caught between the end user and the manufacturer. I want to make sure that the end user won't have problems, and the manufacturer says, “Well, you can interpret the standard by meaning this, so you have to let me off the hook”.
It's important to have a balanced structure so that everybody looks at it from a different perspective.