Ann: Update On Indicative Proposals From Adamantem, Rouse, page-24

I enquired with the ACCC a while back. It wasn't an outright no. Also, if you look at their decision not to reject the IPH and XIP takeover a few years ago, you'll see that if you apply that reasoning to an IPH and QIP takeover, it would still pass. The main reason would be that there is sufficient competition in the market for consumers to choose from, e.g., other firms, and the ability for applicants to self-file. IPH is unable to exert market dominance and is not a price-setter. For example, if it were to increase its fees by 50%, its clients could easily transfer their files to another firm or hire their in-house expertise.

There is plenty of competition in Australia's IP services market.

IPH stands to gain the typical economies of scale inherent in a conventional private equity consolidation strategy, particularly in ancillary functions such as back-office administration and marketing. Over the preceding decade, a factor frequently underestimated in the corporate world is the cumulative aggregation of substantial data sets from work product, etc, a byproduct of the considerable historical volume of work these firms have undertaken. A high quality dataset equates to more efficacious artificial intelligence assistants, presupposing that IPH is engaged in AI initiatives, similar to those of numerous major corporates presently, aimed at harnessing and capitalising on their data advantage. Additionally, IPH can integrate well known practitioners into its ranks, provided that it can successfully persuade them to remain engaged.