I think it's a red herring in terms of being a real problem. A lot of it really depends on the nature of the technology. In the IT world, it should flow out with the individual--that's the way that place works. That's a good example of what Waterloo has done.
If you get into the biotech and life sciences, you'd better have pretty strong patent protection. If you take some IP that has been generated in the better-owned institution and try to get investors to put money into it when you can't guarantee you have ownership because you've correctly identified the inventors--that's what happens in better-owned institutions--they will walk away from that kind of transaction.
From a national point of view we want to look at the mandate behind it. The mandate is to disclose it so we know it's there; make sure it's developed for the benefit of Canadians; and make sure there's some sort of return back to the institution as an incentive. But after that, leave it to the institutions to make the decisions on the best way to make that happen in their localized jurisdictions, because each one is different. The UBC model would not work at Waterloo. That's very clear.