::::::::I have searched for months for a reliable source (i.e. not a patent company) source that explains the Malta problem (or even calls it the Malta problem), but didn't find any; so that's why I think we shouldn't add it like that. The way I set up the sentence is deliberately ambiguous: I say the 25 countries are needed (which is literally [they really use the number 25!] sourced in the explanatory text of the draft rules); and I say the number drops to 24 before 2007; without explaining the legal effect of that. I think stating anything more gets us into original research and term coining... Btw, Lavoix in their posts evaluates the position shown in many blogs about 1 year earlier, when it was still unclear if maybe only designation for the 13 initialial UPC states might have sufficed in the beginning.