Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming here this morning, in particular Mr. Geist for offering us a different take on the issue we're looking at currently.
I'm going to ask all three witnesses a question about a scenario, and then you can tell me what the difference is in your view.
A person owns a production company and they make a movie, so they have to hire a whole lot of folks, spend a lot of money, invest a lot of their time, etc., in producing the movie, versus someone who just takes that product and spends a bit of time and money at reproducing it.
I guess, to get to your personal situation—I'm speaking to the lawyers—what's the difference between a company that hires pharmacists and doctors and purchases some of the best equipment on the face of the earth to produce a product that does a lot of good for people, versus a person who invests some time and some effort in going to a strip mall, a person who has a very good or reasonable knowledge of the law and goes to a good counterfeiter to produce a nice certificate saying he went to a particular university and obtained a law degree, and then opens his door and gives people legal advice? What's the difference between those two people?
Why should one particular group of people, because they have greater influence on the law, have more influence than another? When people see a product, shouldn't they be able to have reasonable confidence that a lot of research and development—a lot of effort—went into it, making it worth what they're paying for...as a person who wants to take advantage of good faith?
Perhaps we could start with Mr. Geist.