I would say that's not correct. When you look at intellectual property measures, they're different in every jurisdiction you go to. So the measures that are in effect in Canada are different from the measures in the European Union, in the U.S., and in Japan. You go around the world, and everyone has a different approach to doing things. As a starting point, everyone has their international obligations under the TRIPS agreement, and then they may choose to go further than that.
You talk about the U.S. and the EU, so, for example, as Jim mentioned earlier, patent linkage is a core component of the U.S. system. There are also patent term extensions and other features. In the European Union, that automatic block on competition—which is sort of a fundamental feature of some of the implementation of the patent linkage systems in Canada and the U.S.—is not present. Again, if a generic company wanted to come to the market, you go through your health and safety approval, and then you can launch your product. If there's a difference of opinion, you'd go straight to an infringement action. It's not really about harmonization. I would say it's more akin to cherry-picking in some respects, in terms of where the original asks were coming from.