Yes. If I could, I'll jump in.
I think from our point of view at Gilead, our goal is actually for us to work directly with governments throughout the world--you call it voluntarily, but not in the TRIPS terms of a voluntary licence--and work out our arrangements. That is our goal, and that's what we try to do as a company: balance our intellectual property with the needs of patients and access to our products.
If there were ever a case where there was a need for a legislation-like hammer or the flexibility in TRIPS, I would feel, from Gilead's point of view, that we had failed as a company in meeting the needs of these countries throughout the world. We really do think that the requirement to identify the country and have our request come forward is important. Because we'd like to understand if we're not meeting those needs, and we'd like the ability to talk to that government and try to work out an arrangement whereby we can provide our drug to them through our systems, the systems we've put in place.
We have been successful every time doing that. I think that should be the goal. The goal should not be to break patents. The goal should not be to use CAMR. The goal should not be to use the flexibilities in TRIPS. The goal should be for the research and development industry to have responsible pricing mechanisms that allow access to their products by the developing world.