It's not as clear-cut as that. When you mention the end of dual litigation, there are a number of fairly significant components to that equation that I tried to outline in my initial points. We have unique aspects in Canada. We have section 8 damages. Does ending dual litigation mean that the innovators don't have a right to sue for infringement but the generics can still bring actions to impeach patents? Does it mean that the generics are willing to forgo their right to section 8 damages? What does it actually mean?
If the starting point of that discussion is that if in order to get a right of appeal—which is something the generics have, and you don't—to get that equal footing, you have to give something up on the other side, then that's really where we're coming from. That would be unacceptable. When we say end dual litigation, that has a number of very complex components to it, and we're very concerned about the unintended consequences and what the generics are actually giving up in that discussion.