I think there are a number of ways you can try to address it.
I agree with you; the problem in Texas is enormous. It's the reason you have companies like Samsung sponsoring and paying for hockey rinks in Texas, quite literally, in that eastern district. They appear so often before those courts that they want the potential jury pool to be familiar with and think nicely of a company like Samsung. Small Canadian companies simply aren't about to do that, so there's an enormous disadvantage.
I think there are things we can take a look at, both in terms of the enforceability of judgments here, but also how this represents a trade barrier.
The U.S. is fond of identifying areas they describe as trade barriers from the Canadian perspective, and then pressuring Canadian politicians and policy-makers to make adjustments. We see it in the copyright area.
Mr. Dreeshen earlier mentioned references to publishing and copyright. The reality is that Canadian institutions are spending millions of dollars, still today, on access to various licensing materials, often through intermediaries.
One of the things we ought to note is that the U.S. is even more flexible than the Canadian system, and yet they're pressuring us and claiming that somehow this is a trade barrier.
Perhaps when Canada comes to the table, it ought to be not just about preserving what we have and identifying areas that get a lot of attention, like softwood lumber and the like, in terms of trying to sort out those issues. If we truly believe that IP really is going to be one of the core engines of our economy in the future, we have to ensure that this agreement reflects our national IP interests as well.