That's a great question.
Just to go back to the insulin example, one way to change them is to really look to see, from a legal perspective, what actually happened in that case. The inventors, Banting and Best, actually assigned their patent to the University of Toronto for a dollar—one dollar. That then ignited the ability for anybody to come and practise the patent. What happened there is that the U.S., having the more robust manufacturing market and really the appetite for risk, took it on and a hundred years ago started building capacity, and now there's a multi-billion dollar industry. From a legal perspective, what we want to avoid.... I should mention that along the way, in filing follow-on IP once the patent expired, they were able to then lock it up and commercialize, because then they owned it. That's how this is something that we missed out on.
Earlier, Monsieur Gravelle talked about this, that follow-on IP, and it's something that I also mentioned in my opening. What we want to ensure is that we have that arsenal, that portfolio of IP. From a legal perspective, we can't give it away. We need to ensure that we are strategic in the way that we keep it, license it and commercialize it. If we want to give it away, let's get money for it, or it doesn't make sense to keep it, depending also on what the business strategy is, because it could be an innovation—and I'm thinking about Alectra, for instance—that is not germane to the business model.