The agreement doesn't do 12 or seven, it does eight, or five plus three.
The U.S., or at least the Obama administration, has recognized that it got it wrong, I would argue, given that it has tried to push forward with a reduction.
In fact, it's not so much that it's a disadvantage. There are studies in the United States coming from the U.S. government that argue that there is no need for additional protection for biologics, that the market already has enough incentives to create, and that it is so difficult to create the generic equivalent to biologics—referred to as biosimilars—that they already have that effective protection. So establishing additional terms of protection, whatever the length, may not even be necessary.
When you have cutting-edge innovation, the idea that you're going to essentially be driven by either lobby groups or unknown policies that haven't been developed yet, and lock yourself into those choices, is a mistake from my perspective. In fact, we see it playing out even within the United States. We also see it playing out in Australia. One of their most contentious issues is around this very question, because they can draw a direct correlation between the kind of term of protection that they offer and the cost of health care.