I think I can answer that.
What I would like to see is a form of summary enforcement mechanism. I was not directly involved in the Interplus case, although my firm was, and I know the lengths to which Microsoft went to prove that this particular product was counterfeit. There was a huge amount of evidence that had to be put together to prove that. For future actions, why would Microsoft have to do that every time? Do it once. You have a summary enforcement, so a lot of these evidentiary issues that have to be proven each time in court are resolved in one proceeding. You deal with most of the case, in a summary proceeding, very quickly.
I can't recommend to you specific changes and how I would tinker with the Federal Court act or rules that I had to do that, but I think there has to be a way to be able to deal with these things more quickly by providing the proper evidence quickly for one proceeding and also by eliminating a lot of unnecessary discovery that we tend to have in our Federal Court.