June 27, 2025 • 36 mins
Our next guest to join Lee and Gwilym in our San Diego Pubcast is Rob Jackson. Chair of CIPA's UPC Committee, takes us on a captivating journey from his unconventional entry into patent law to his passionate advocacy for UK patent attorneys' involvement in the Unified Patent Court system. With refreshing candor, he reveals how a suggestion from his mother, a legal secretary, and his childhood interest in what "Pat Pend" meant on Lego bricks eventually led him to a fulfilling career at Danes in London.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Simple message our members should get involved in
the UPC.
That's it.
That's what we're all about.
That's what the committee istrying to do.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Lee Davis and Gwilym Roberts are the two IPs in a pod
and you are listening to apodcast on intellectual property
brought to you by the CharteredInstitute of Patent Attorneys
tourneys.
So, gwilym, I've been spending alot of my time in San Diego in
(00:30):
my hotel gym running and stuff,but I understand that you've
been out on the streets A littlebit yeah, and I feel like we've
been a bit rude about littlebits of San Diego because the
weather was grim and it was likebeing in Rill and I went on
about that, even though we'reright by Tijuana.
I thought I said Portsmouthrather than Rille.
Yeah, well, we Add battleships,Our own points of reference,
(00:51):
but actually we have not talkedabout the good bits A the sun's
out now.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
The sun is amazing.
Yeah, it's quite warm out thereisn't it.
We area.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
It's a big street full of stars and things.
It's quite lively Baseball gamethe other day rammed full of
San Diego Padres fans.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I know nothing about baseball.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Happy hats.
Baseball is wasted on me.
I think it's actually.
It's just like cricket, butstanding up.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Let's not get started on that.
You're going to be a loser.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
You no, and I have to say I've been because you run
on the treadmill.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
I do.
Yeah, my knees are gone.
I can't do it right, I get that.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
I thought I'd give it a go and been running around
because the conference centre,which is enormous it's the size
of a spaceship.
Yeah, not a little spaceship,but in the size of a big
spaceship.
That's not very helpful.
No, yeah, imagine a spaceshipthe size of a convention centre,
then that's how big it is.
That's how big it is, amazing,and running all around it, and
the other side is the bay and itis actually super pretty.
(01:46):
Yeah, that's quite posh boatsas well.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
So I was walking around the convention set at the
back end of it the other day ona lovely walk going to Seaport,
and I came across a highlyrespected Seaport Luminary, ooh,
and he's with us away.
Let's podcast with them.
So we have council member andchair of the UPC committee, rob
Jackson.
Rob, welcome to the podcast.
Thank you very much, lee.
(02:09):
So it's lovely to have you on.
We've not had you on beforehave we?
Speaker 1 (02:13):
No, never.
I've never been on any podcastever.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
But you're quite good at talking, aren't you?
So that which is theprerequisite.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Barely a word passes my lips.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
So we generally start these off with perhaps you
telling us a wee bit about yourbackstory, so where it all
started, how you found yourselfin the world of IP, that sort of
thing, if that's okay.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Yeah, sure, almost by accident.
I guess Everyone says that.
Yeah, I was a slightly strangechild.
I was reasonably good at bothhumanities and sciences, but not
brilliant at either.
I did science A-levels becauseyou can figure out the answers
to those questions withouthaving to do too much homework.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Yeah, OK, so that's quite good.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
But I always had a bit of interest in the law.
So when it came to choosingwhat to do, I sort of dithered
between sciences, engineering orpossibly the law.
I ended up going to universityto do physics, but also had a
bit of a hankering for legalwork.
One of my friends at universitywas studying law and I sort of
found his.
He took about some of hisassignments and they somehow
(03:21):
seemed more interesting thanquantum mechanics.
So that kind of got me thinkingand I left university still not
having figured out what I wasgoing to do.
Yeah, so I spent a year sort ofdithering and traveling.
I had a couple of part-time jobsand it was actually my mum that
came up with being patented.
I'd never met one.
I've no idea.
I never heard the job.
You never met your mum.
(03:44):
Sorry, I don't know where to gowith that.
How did she know about patents?
Well, she was a legal secretary.
Oh, okay, so all I find out.
I do have this vaguerecollection as a child asking
her what Pat Penn meant on theback of my Lego bricks.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
And weirdly she actually knew that.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
She knew, yeah.
So I don't know where that camefrom.
But anyway she was a legalsecretary in a small town where
I grew up.
You know traditional sort ofwills and divorces kind of
practice.
But it just happened that herboss in this small practice had
been at school with a guy whowas a partner in one of the well
known patent attorney firms.
You can name them.
I think it was Ableton Inbury,I'm not 100% sure.
(04:22):
I think it was Ableton Inburyand mum just came home from work
one day with a letterheadbecause once in a while this guy
would have people coming in whoinvented something and he knew
he knew nothing about patents.
So mum came home with aletterhead as I say, I think it
was Ableton Inbury and said oh,you might be interested in this.
So I was and I fired off aletter to the Institute office
(04:44):
and they sent out some littleleaflets about being a patent
attorney and various otherthings and there was a service
where they would put you intouch with a local firm.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
I don't know if they still do that.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
So it was great.
So they sent me off I think itwas a small practice in
Stockport and I went there andspent a day there and just
thought it was fascinating.
So the guys there did a greatjob of interesting me in the
profession and I just thought,oh, I think I'll go for that.
So I fired off a few jobapplication letters, not knowing
really much about it.
I just did a bit of research.
God knows how I found them Ithink it was probably through a
(05:18):
list from SIPA Wrote off to halfa dozen firms and a couple of
them had no jobs.
A couple of them had no jobs.
A couple of them offered meinterviews but I think only one
turned me down completely and umwent off and did a couple of
interviews and got a couple ofjob offers wow, yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
So where did you start off?
Where was, where was first gig?
Um same place?
I am now, oh, danes.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Yeah, I've always been at Danes in London, in
London, yeah, I'll tell you thefunny thing, actually, that what
got me the both job offers wasone great thing about my old
high school.
It was a state comprehensivejust south of Manchester.
It had originally been asecondary modern school, a
technical school yeah, so theyhad the most fantastic woodwork
and metal workshops.
I remember them well.
Yeah, and that was beforethey'd invented health and
(05:58):
safety.
Yeah, of course, yeah, so whatthat meant was that if you got
on well with the teachers,they'd let you go in and use all
that kit during your lunch hour.
Yeah, so I would.
And it also helped that Iborrowed one of the keys to the
tool padlocks.
So I, I had a unofficial copyof the tool cupboard key, uh, on
my, on my key ring.
So we just nip in and you knowI'm going to say tools.
(06:18):
I mean, you know industrialsize lathes, yeah, and mills,
oxyacetylene yeah, all that goodstuff.
And one of my best friends fromschool and I he went on to
become a successful petroleumengineer and worked for an
investment company.
He and I made ourselves amotorbike out of a broken
bicycle in the lawnmower.
So this is when we were I thinkwe were lower six when we did
(06:43):
this and this thing went and itwasn't the most reliable
motorbike you've ever seen?
you'd think not, but it would do25 miles an hour, and again
because health and safety hadn'tbeen invented, and cut the
grass only if you disassembledit.
So that would be good.
So, rather wonderfully, theteachers have won the happy for
us to motor this thing aroundthe school playground during
(07:04):
breaks and whizzed up and downthis path between, called the
link path between two schoolsites yeah so it was great.
so reason I mentioned that is,we took photographs of it and
when it came a few years later,going for job interviews, and
some senior partner at theinterview would say well, I'm
assuming you've got a physicsdegree, but you know, do you?
And I think that probably gotme a couple of job offers
(07:28):
Fantastic.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
So this is one of those times when you've got
another physicist on the podcast.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
You feel at home, happy, happy, although I didn't
get quantum, did you get quantum?
Speaker 1 (07:38):
physics.
Oh yeah, we had to do quantumphysics.
I mean, did I get it?
Until I understand it?
No, but there wasn't thatexpression.
Was it Einstein or somebody Ican't remember?
Somebody said said, if youthink you understand quantum
physics, you don't understand it.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Yeah, exactly.
So we must understand it,because we don't, there you go.
Yeah, you've lost me.
It's uncertainty.
That's what we thrive on in.
So what was the?
Speaker 3 (07:58):
training like it wasn't bad.
I only ask that questionbecause I know that you are an
advocate of training.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
I am.
It was good in the sense thatyou got stuck in.
You worked for a number ofdifferent people, which we still
do, and it meant that youlearnt more than one way to skin
the proverbial cat and it wasgreat.
I've always liked the place.
It's always been a place I'veenjoyed working.
It wasn't terribly formalised,it was all a little bit random.
You just got things thrown atyou.
It was a bit sink or swim, Isuggest.
It probably didn't comply withany kind of ideas of good
(08:27):
practice regarding teaching, butsort of it worked.
What you did get was a lot oftime with some smart people who
were not too.
I mean, danes are fairly laidback, firm in terms of personal
relations and, funnily enough, Iremember somebody saying to me
after I'd been offered the joband discovering I hadn't been to
Oxbridge weren't you concernedabout that?
Because apparently at the timeif you hadn't been to Oxbridge
you weren't going to get a job.
Yeah, yeah, but fortunatelynobody told me that, and Danes
(08:49):
was very laid back about thatkind of thing.
You know they weren't allOxford types.
So I fitted in pretty well andI must have been trained all
right because I passed them allmy exams the first time around
and became a patent attorney,I've seen you describe training
as an apprenticeship.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Yes, I think it is.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Yeah, on the job by doing absolutely.
It's the very definition ofapprenticeship.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Yeah it interests me.
I think the educationists arenot sure what they think about
that.
You're an education, I'm aneducationist, I am.
What do you?
What do you?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
think about that.
So so I think there aredifferent ways you can cut an
apprenticeship.
So you can look at thattraditional model where you do
the, where you do the kind oftheory and the learning in a
college-based oruniversity-based way and you
either practice on the job andthat's an apprenticeship.
But I don't think that that is.
I don't think you can arguethat what we do is any different
(09:37):
.
Yeah, so that the theory, thelearning, may come in a
different way.
It may be more organic, it maybe more down to the individual
in terms of the way they pickthat up, but in terms of the
application of that learninginto sort of like real life
practical settings, it'sabsolutely an apprenticeship.
Yeah, I agree entirely I don'tthink.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
But my personal thinking is that you need to do
extra book work, uh, to get yourexams, but and for me to know
what you don't know.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
But certainly the stuff that I implement most days
comes from that apprenticeshipyeah, and we got sent on the
then queen m and WestfieldCollege certificate course,
which I loved.
It was a little bit unusual.
I got sent on that after acouple of weeks.
I was supposed to go after ayear and then for some reason I
was sent off straight away andactually, having had a year out,
(10:21):
I absolutely loved it becauseall of a sudden I was back at
university being paid money todo stuff that was easier than
doing physics.
So that all seemed good.
But yeah, we've got all that.
So the theory background therewas good to have that kind of
grounding.
But then, yeah, it's learningby doing.
I mean, the only way you canlearn to write a patent is to
write a patent and have somebodytell you what you've done wrong
and have another go Keep ondoing it.
(10:42):
I think.
I don't know of any other way.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
And it's actually in terms of a profession, it's.
It's quite a difficultprofession for you to see it
working in any other way.
So I'll be honest.
So I came to see for, as youknow, like 13 years ago now, and
I I struggled early days to getmy head around the the model,
yeah.
But once you understand thatyou're taking people who are
highly adept, highly qualifiedin their technical field, who've
done the hard years inuniversity yeah, yeah, I get the
qm and other courses have gottheir value in terms of that
initial introduction to the lawunderstand that entirely, yeah,
(11:15):
and see the value in that.
But the reality is these arepeople that don't want to spend
a significant amount of theirlives back in university.
They want to learn on the job.
Yeah, they want to learn thatway.
We need them to learn that way.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
It's perfect marriage I think I think it is.
I mean also, I mean having nowbeing on, now being on the other
side of the fence.
I'm doing they want to learnthat way.
We need them to learn that way.
It's a perfect marriage, Ithink it is.
I mean also now being on theother side of the fence and I'm
doing the recruiting.
It's really important not tofall into the trap of thinking
that because you're a brilliantphysicist, you're going to be a
brilliant patent attorney.
Yeah, you know it's a necessaryTo be sort of reasonably
competent at the science-ycondition for the job.
It's a long way from being asufficient one.
(11:47):
You've got to have that.
I mean.
It's probably why it suited tome, because I wasn't a
particularly great scientist,but I was good enough, but I was
pretty good at the humanitiesstuff as well.
And I think you do need to hirepeople who are interested in
the law.
And I remember people sort ofcomplaining about failing the
exams and sort of saying, well,I got a first class degree and
I've got ad and all thesequalifications in physics.
(12:09):
Yeah, well, yeah you know it's adifferent, it's a very
different skill.
So I think you've got to pickpeople who've got that range of
interests and abilities.
You know they don't necessarilyhave to be brilliant as any one
thing, but you've got to beable to, you know, have that mix
of skills.
But once you've got that interms of you know there's the
law to learn.
But in terms of the practicalskills, like writing a patent
(12:31):
application, I don't know.
It'd be like trying to learnhow to build a brick wall from a
book.
You know, until you pick upsome bricks and some mortar, you
know how are you ever going todo it?
You've just got to have a goMake a few mistakes, make some
mistakes, knock it down, startagain.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
You know, that's the thing, and I know you're quite
proud about the way Dane'strains today.
Yes, I am.
So what's changed or has itchanged?
Do you do things differently?
Speaker 1 (12:53):
Not in principle no, it's a little bit more
structured.
I think we have some of therough edges that were there when
it was a smaller firm when Ijoined.
More formalised yes, there'smore structure.
We have clearer objectivesabout where trainees ought to be
.
At a certain point we saidthere were more courses that we
involve people on, which I thinkis good.
(13:14):
I mean, when I was studying formy finals, you know you've got
the black book, which, for thosewho aren't familiar with UK
practice, is a large black book.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Guide to the Patterns Act yeah and yeah, the Guide to
the Patterns Act and you juststart at the front and read
through it and took notes andknow it was very much self-study
it's.
There's a lot more structure.
We're much better, I think, atgiving people tutorials and, uh,
generally structuring things,but ultimately it is down to the
, to the candidate, to preparethemselves with the feedback
(13:41):
from the, from the partners, andthat I think really the main
thing we do is just make surepeople have exposure as much as
we can to the right work andtake the time.
You know, face to face, yeah,and it might not be very
fashionable, but personally Ilike that to be face to face in
in real life, not over a screen.
So you know, I try to be in theoffice, you know, four days a
week at least talking to people.
(14:01):
You can't always do it.
Sometimes I'm here but you know, trying to spend the time with
people and and just give peoplefeedback on their work and that
hasn't changed and also, withinthat, presumably helping people
to understand that they're readyor they're not ready.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
That's critical.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
I mean the other hobby horse out of several hobby
horses is the idea that's gonearound that our final exams are
some kind of lottery and thatthe key to success is just
buying lots of tickets, Takingthem out yeah.
And I would take completely theopposite view, which is you
really don't want to do themmore than once.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Yeah, you know it's not a fun way to spend your life
.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
Yeah, you know when I'd done them I never wanted to
do them again.
And you know somebody verywisely I remember asking at sort
of I can't remember what it wastake them at that stage and you
know I was getting goodfeedback.
They said, no, wait untilyou've been working.
You know three and a bit yearsor whatever, which is what I did
(14:55):
.
And you know I got good marks.
I passed them and I'm sograteful because, you know, even
if I'd passed two of the papersthe year before, there's
nothing in your life where yourhead's in the books.
It's miserable.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
You know you're young , you don't want to be doing all
that you need to, and there'snothing more disheartening than
failing either, is there no?
Speaker 1 (15:10):
particularly amongst people who aren't used to
failing.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
Yeah, yeah, you know we're not really recruiting
people who are.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
you know, they've probably never failed an exam,
Do you?
Speaker 2 (15:18):
find that the way that people are taught through
primary, tertiary, secondarywell they enough One, two, three
, whatever that order is.
That's changed?
Do you think that's changed theway that people approach how we
train?
Because they come in withdifferent expectations of how
they're going to be taught?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, I mean it's the difference.
Now.
I think they actually aretaught to some extent in
tertiary now, aren't they?
I mean, I remember when I wasat university I mean it was a
good university, I did okay, butthe best teaching I got was at
the end of the second year whenwe got the option of doing a
workshop course.
Back to the workshops again.
The best teachers in ourdepartment were the lab techs
(15:57):
and I got some fantasticteaching.
I mean, I knew the basics ofhow to use a lathe and so forth,
but those guys we had a weekwith them doing a course in case
we wanted to build some kit.
Yeah, I think they were thebest teachers in the department.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Because they were applying the learning in
real-life situations, and that'sthe essence of good teaching,
in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
I mean, compared to some of the brilliant physicists
who would come in.
I mean, there was one guy whowas notoriously so brilliant
that if he dropped a sort of20-page proof on the floor, it
didn't matter which order hepicked the pages up in, he'd
still be able to understand it.
You know, I mean andunfortunately people are that
smart find it really difficultto understand why normal humans
don't get it.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Yeah, so let's scoot it on a wee bit.
Yeah, you've qualified.
You're building your practiceup in danes.
Yeah, at some point you've gotyourself in, involved in,
interested in the work of seaper.
How'd did that happen?
Speaker 1 (16:47):
I remember that it's a long time ago you always tell
me it's a long time ago and oneday I will find out for you when
it was it was too long ago, butI think SEPA had a bit of a
call for younger people to standfor council because we might be
a bunch of dinosaurs now butback then we really you know it
was, there was some I've heardthe stories.
(17:08):
It was, it was you know, reallya bit of a bit of a seniors club
, yeah, and yeah, one of thepartners, I think, said we're
looking for someone to do thisand they probably knew I was
somewhat opinionated and surely?
Not.
So yeah, that was that was itreally had it had a go and and
uh got elected and somehow keepsort of forgetting to stand down
.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
So yeah, I've been there ever since.
How do you think it's changedfrom the Osteocene era?
Whatever the name is Jurassic.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Jurassic.
We all know Jurassic.
I'm tempted to pull Lee's leghere, but I'm not going to.
Will you pull my?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
leg.
No, I won't actually, because Ithink it's transformed actually
in terms of how professionalthe Institute is.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I think it's transformed actually in terms of
how professional the Instituteis.
I think it's a very differentbody.
I think it's morerepresentative.
I think the members of Councilare more representative of
real-life patterns of profession.
We should be looking torepresent all members of the
Institute, but we do also needto be mindful of the sort of
(18:05):
businesses most people work in,and I think we are now much more
representative of the broaderprofession.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Yeah, so I think that's good.
So in my mind, and if we'retalking now specifically about
council, you need that rich mixof people who are young and new
enough for the profession thatthey're practising in the modern
age and they kind of bring thatwith them.
Yeah, but you can't lose theinstitutional knowledge that
people have been around for awhile and it's just about
getting that right.
Yeah, and it feels like we'vegot it right.
(18:31):
I think that's right.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Yeah, and I think also I mean because so many of
us have grown up through theprofession we can all kind of
remember when we started yeah, Iand the pencil rubber and the
pencils.
Oh yeah, it's still, you know.
I try and remind myself what itwas like to be a trainee when
we're talking about those sortsof issues.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
I don't know if we succeed.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
I guess everybody deludes themselves about those
sorts of things, but yeah, Ithink we're doing pretty well.
I mean, there'll still bepeople moaning that we're out of
touch I'm sure they will, but Ithink we've got a good mix of
people on the council.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
I agree.
So one of the things that youfound yourself doing more
recently is leading the workaround the Unified Patent Court.
You can see yeah, talk to us awee bit about that and why
that's so important to you andthe things that you're doing.
Yeah, well, I've always beeninterested.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
It probably ties in with the story I gave you about
how I came into the profession.
I've always been one of thosepatent attorneys who's found the
legal side of the job slightlymore interesting than the
technical side, I enjoy both,but it's the fact that it's a
legal job that sort of got meinto it.
So it always seemed a bit of ashame as a patent prosecutor
that you know you're sort ofbuilding something that you know
.
It's a bit like building a carand never driving it.
(19:38):
Yeah, someone else litigates ityeah, exactly so.
I always thought, you know,that's something I'd like to be
more involved with them.
Whenever cases came up thatwhere we were, you know,
assisting in enforcing patterns,I always found that really
exciting and interesting.
And then the opportunity cameup.
Years ago the opportunity cameup to qualify as a patent
attorney litigator, to gethigher courts rights.
So I was one of the relativelyearly people to do that.
(19:59):
I went off and did the oldnottingham course, which I found
really interesting and I'm, youknow, very proud of having done
that.
And so over the years I've notdone as much of that work as
perhaps I would have liked, butI have conducted cases.
I conducted the first case allthe way through to trial in our
firm without involvingsolicitors, it was just us and
the barrister, and that was tenyears ago now that that trial
(20:21):
took place.
So I was involved in othermatters before then, but that
was the first matter that I tookall the way through myself and
it was.
You know it was hard work but Ifound it very rewarding and
I've always thought there's alot of potential
cross-versalization between whatyou learn when you're enforcing
a patent and what you need toknow when you're writing it.
Yeah, so, you know, going backto the car analogy, really you
know until you've driven one youdon't really know how to design
(20:44):
one.
So I think, in a way, I knowthere's good practical reasons
why people tend to focus on oneor the other, but I've always I
really think there's a lot.
You need to transfer thoseexperiences from enforcement to
prosecution.
So that was kind of at the backof my mind, always found that
interesting.
And then, of course, the UPCcame along.
It's always struck me as being agreat opportunity for a couple
(21:06):
of reasons.
One, because of theinternational scope of it and
the fact that it gives the uk asyou know, a country within
europe has been coming up aleading place in legal
professions.
It's always seemed like areally good opportunity as a
country.
But also, you know, because wehave in this country we've got a
, you know, experience of a lotof epo contentious experience,
yeah, and you and some of ushave worked in litigation in the
(21:30):
courts as well.
So it became clear that the newsystem was going to be a little
bit of a mixture of thosethings.
So it just seems to be a greatopportunity for UK based patent
attorneys to get involved insomething that's really
important and actually offersomething that fixes a lot of
problems with the existingsystem in terms of making
litigation affordable andefficient, because UK litigation
(21:50):
might be expensive quite anumber of continental
jurisdictions, it's awfully slowand maybe not the most reliable
of outcomes, so it really lookslike one.
A great opportunity for us asprofessionals, but generally a
good thing.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
So I've just always I hope that makes some sense it
makes sense, but there's a bigleap from there in terms of you
as a practitioner, yeah, toleading it in the way, leading
in the way that you've gone,yeah.
So why you?
I mean, it feels like you'rethe right person to do it.
Yeah, because the things thatwe're doing are amazing, I think
, around upc at the moment.
So so why you?
And what?
What are the really excitingthings that we're doing around
UPC?
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Well, why me?
I suppose it was a little bitof a.
Nobody else stood up.
I think I guess I was oncouncil at the right time.
As I say, I had the mixture ofsomeone who's done quite a lot
of EPO contentious practice anda reasonable bit of UK
litigation, so I guess I had theknowledge of both sides.
(22:46):
I've also got a bit of anapproach to these things that
you know, I've always felt thatsome solicits, some patent
attorneys, have a little bit ofan unnecessary sort of cringe
about the knee towards otherlegal practitioners and you know
I don't want to, I don't wantto talk down anybody else,
because you know there's somebrilliant people in all the
different legal professions, butI have sort of felt that
(23:09):
certain, you know, I get alittle bit annoyed when some
patent attorneys sort of thinkthat as soon as they get an
assignment or something slightlylegal, they have to pass it off
to someone else who may youknow, who may well know no more
about it than they do.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
And.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
I had a few experiences Years ago as a
trainee or associate where wewere involved on cases.
I'd get phone calls from juniorsolicitors at some big-name
firms who clearly hadn't thefoggiest what was going on.
So it really made me think thatactually it's not what your job
title is, it's how much timeyou've invested in learning and
understanding the system, and Ijust feel really strongly that
(23:46):
patent attorneys have got theability to understand the case
in the whole in the round.
You know in a way, that if yourtraining is focused so much on
litigation and you're great atstrategy and tactics, you maybe
don't have that mindset thatjust says what's the answer.
You know, I know patentattorneys might go to the other
extreme.
But you know we do handle a lotof contentious work anyway.
So I just think we're reallywell placed to be doing that
(24:08):
kind of work, of contentiouswork anyway.
So I just think we're reallywell placed to be doing that
kind of work.
And then, as I say, when theUPC comes along, it sort of fits
our skill set.
Because of the similaritieswith the EPO it fits our skill
set even better.
So why I ended up doing it?
Speaker 3 (24:18):
I think I just felt strongly that someone ought to
do it and I just well, you know,I'm the guy on council who can
do this- yeah, so we've had thisconversation previously and I
know that there's some reallyinteresting things that the UPC
committee is doing, but I thinkwe were talking a week or two
ago about the need for this tobe really practical, really
hands-on, nuts and bolts-y sortof learning that we do Can you
(24:40):
say a bit about that.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Well, yeah, actually just a thing I forgot to mention
, because what really startedthis off was actually Matt
Vixen's UPC task force, yeah, soI have to give a lot of credit
to that.
Guns for hire, yes, but I mean,that was the most important
first step which I really shouldhave mentioned, which was, you
know, we had this opportunityfor one year only to get lots of
(25:01):
.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
As many Patent attorneys into the system.
Into the system?
Yeah, because that's really.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Everything else follows from that.
Yeah, everything else followsfrom that.
Yeah, and you know thefantastic outcome of that is
that you know the UK, despitenot even being a UPC member
state, has the second largestnumber of UPC representatives.
You know that there are.
So that's a fantastic startingpoint.
Yes, but then, as you say, youdo require some practical
training and the.
You know, the problem with anyarea of practice like this is
(25:26):
there are lots of books on thelaw, lots of articles on the law
.
It's always difficult.
I remember, I remember findingthis from um learning litigation
.
Yeah, you know, because peopleare generally used to being in
the law firm.
That's got the old um outdoorclerks, as they used to call
them.
Who would, you know, sortthings out?
Yeah, there was always a sortof these things always done, but
you know you never really quiteknew.
(25:47):
You know there was somebody whodid these things, but you know
the nuts and bolts, things likehow do you issue a claim in a
particular court.
Yeah, you know that stuff tendsto be missing from the books uh
, so you even described it to besimpler than this.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
How do you find the court?
Yes, where is it exactly?
Speaker 1 (26:01):
yeah, yeah, yeah well , yeah, exactly, and I realized
this was an issue even goingback to the old days of the
patterns county court.
Before it was, I was IPEC andthere was this you know, I
remember a seat put on afantastic seminar where a guy
came and just explained what youdo, because in those days, in
order to issue a claim, you hadto go to the old Regent's
something or other near Regent'sPark.
There was a county court upthere and it was a lovely
(26:23):
Regency Crescent.
No-transcript was it was like itwas like something in a soviet
supermarket.
You know, it was just crackers.
(26:43):
But the point is it wasn'trocket science, but there's no
book.
That told you that you had toget it, so that was it.
And that told you that you hadto get it, so that was it.
And again, as you say, thefinally caught.
Well, my colleague Laura and Igave a talk in Manchester.
Manchester, yeah, a regionalmeeting or a Northwest regional
meeting a couple of weeks agoand that was one of the slides
we had, because, you know, wegot to Paris for the actually
(27:05):
the oral hearing on the firstcase to have been filed in the
Paris Central Division wasn'tquite the first hearing, because
a couple of cases overtook us.
We got there and everybody'sseen the beautiful pictures of
the Paris court on the UPCwebsite, but what they don't
tell you is how to get into theplace and after doing two, if
not three, laps of the entirebuilding, which is a city block,
we eventually figured out thatthe only way into this building
(27:27):
was these sort of dull, grey,green doors on the back with no
sign and we sort of gingerly,you know, crept in there and
walked through a building siteand actually turned out once you
get in there.
The people were lovely and verywelcoming but you know, if that
had been the day of the hearing,we'd have been the pickle, yeah
, yeah.
So if you have people, that'swhat we want to teach people
really.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Just get people the confidence to know how to do it,
dare we talk about where thingsmight one day go with the UPC
in the UK.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
I was thinking about it.
We can always edit it out if itdoesn't feel right.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
There's tiny talk, isn't there, about just
investigating that possibility alittle bit more.
I think council's positionwould be support, not being the
primary driver.
But, rob, when you're open,what do you think Should we go
for it?
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Well, I certainly think it would be a good thing
if it happened.
I can't see any real downside.
I mean, the whole UK was alwaysgoing to be in the UPC.
It was only a result of Brexit.
Well, a political decision.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
It was a political decision.
Actually, it wasn't even aresult of Brexit.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
So yeah, I mean there were a lot of smart people who
thought we could negotiate a wayto stay in the UPC.
And I have to say, when youtalk to judges and people
involved in the UPC, they seemto be very welcoming to us from
the UK.
I should say that's one thing Ihaven't sensed.
There hasn't been any kind ofwhat are you guys doing here?
They seem to be very keen and Ithink we're reciprocating that
(28:51):
by supporting the UPC verystrongly.
Yeah, so I think it's a sort ofwin-win for everybody.
You know there's no, there's apractical question rather than a
legal question or a politicalquestion.
Yeah, there's no.
You know, there seems to benothing but positives for that.
You know there areopportunities for English
solicitors and barristers to getmore involved as well as our
members, our fellows.
(29:12):
I should say We've got lots ofmembers who are solicitors and
barristers, so that's anopportunity.
I think there's.
I've certainly heard you cansee judges actually in relation
to Ireland saying we wishIreland would jolly well hurry
up and join, because we needsome common law judges who can
tell us what some of these bitsof the rules mean, because
obviously quite a lot of therules are based on English legal
concepts.
It's not a civil law system,it's very much a hybrid system.
(29:33):
So there'd be massiveadvantages in terms of getting
some top judges involved, sothere's every practical reason
to do it.
Then you're just running to thepolitics.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
We will need the political will.
We're seeing that move at themoment.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Well, today, isn't it A?
Speaker 3 (29:49):
central feature of this has always been the primacy
of the CJEU, and we're seeingthat that's becoming less of an
issue in other areas of industryand commerce.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
I guess you're thinking about the food.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
I mean ultimately.
I assume that means we're goingto agree to follow what the
CJEU rules about the food rules,and in any case, upc cases seem
to not find themselves.
No.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Well, the UPC courts haven't referred a single case
to the CJU yet, and, as someonewho tried to persuade them to do
it, they don't seem terriblyinterested.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
I picked up somewhere .
They don't really want tobecause they know that the
expertise isn't there.
And then I'm not a bit honest.
There's some legal, there'ssome fine point that you can
only refer things up.
That's the point of EU law, andthere is many.
I mean.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
The really important point that people need to
understand, which is spelled outin a number of judgments, not
least the Microsoft judgmentregarding representation by
in-house representatives, isthat it's not an EU court.
It is subject, in certainrespects, to the supremacy by
in-house representatives.
Is that it's not an EU court?
(30:57):
Yeah, it is subject in certainrespects to the supremacy of EU
law, but it's not an EU courtand it has its own, basically
enforces its own law.
I mean, the articles of the UPCagreement set out patent
infringement law and the EPCeffectively sets out patent
validity law.
So you know, most of the law isits own.
So you know, I think that'svery important because people,
you know, no doubt, if we do tryand support a campaign to
(31:18):
rejoin, there will be peopletrying to call an EU court,
which you know isn't.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yeah, I saw a report from the Fordham Conference,
which is that big ticket one,and it's either in New York or
is it Cambridge, anyway,whichever this year and I think
some of the UPC judges wereasked what their regrets were
and they said that they don'tget that alternative approach
available from the UK systembecause we were so instrumental
in setting it up.
(31:42):
But at the moment my feeling isthat all the lovely little
British bits we put in thecommon office have a risk of
withering, aren't they?
So we need to watch that.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Yeah, I think there is, because people, you know, I
guess that's a risk, isn't it,if you've got judges who aren't
used to thinking I want to hearthis witness being
cross-examined, or I wishsomebody had ordered, you know,
requested disclosure of thisevidence, or whatever.
Yeah, I mean that that is therisk I should say.
I mean, one of the cases one ofmy colleagues was involved with
, they did actually call expertwitnesses and there was a
(32:13):
limited amount ofcross-examination.
Yeah, it was quite controlled,but you know it did happen.
So those things are stillhappening, but I'm sure, I'm
sure it would be good to havehave the judges matching the law
gwen was looking at me becausehe knows I've got an eye on the
time, because I'm time keeping Iwas actually checking your part
rate.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Time keeping is one of the things that I do, rob,
and we're coming towards the endof time, but I've got a closer,
unless you've got one, no, doit, do it.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
So do you want to say more.
I want to say one thing, whichis really that simple message
our members should get involvedin the UPC.
That's it.
That's what we're all about,that's what going to do.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
We'll make that the tagline for this podcast.
Thank you, which actually weget lots of the stuff you said
about the upc how to use it insnippets, which has been really
good, yeah.
But yeah, we'd like to have alittle fun close close of it,
which has got something to dowith something we've talked
about, but maybe onlytangentially.
I'm gonna ask willem and thenask you and then will ever
(33:06):
surprise me by asking me andI'll surprise Gwilym by my
answer.
That's the way it works, soit's a tried and tested formula.
We were talking a little bitabout school and stuff like that
.
I don't know what yourfavourite subject was at school.
What was?
Speaker 2 (33:17):
your favourite subject at school?
It was actually English,english, bizarrely.
Come back to your point, though, skills as a result, and that
does feed into this job quitewell.
No, I really really enjoyedEnglish.
I only did it up to GCSE.
I did history A level, buthistory for me is like science
English.
You know what I mean.
It's more practical.
No, I loved, I really lovedEnglish.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Wow, yeah, I wasn't expecting that, no no, I was
twice.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
I thought, you'd be Winner of the school poetry
prize Wow.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
Oh yeah, oh you're going to write some poetry for
me at some point.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Oh, you did yesterday about ducks.
You did yesterday about ducks.
Probably should repeat that one, though no, no, no.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
Rob, favourite subject at school Can't be
physics or anything like that.
History, history, yeah, wow.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Yeah, we had a fantastic history teacher First
gosh, probably two or school uh,really fantastic history
teacher, always loved it.
Yeah, I mean, I, I really Iremember being torn because, of
course again, for people whoaren't from the uk listening to
this may not know that you haveto choose three subjects when
you're 16, which is bonkers.
So it is if you, if you, ifyou're me, it's bonkers.
(34:20):
Yeah, um, because I, you know,I wanted to study physics and
history, but there's nouniversity that'll let you in if
you've got a history, becauseyou don't know enough other
artsy stuff to do history andyou don't know enough science to
do physics.
So that was my two favouritesubjects, so I had to just can
the history and go down the sortof sciencey route.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
I don't know.
I got into university withphysics and history, did you?
You can still go back.
You can still do history, youcan go back.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
I think what I realised is you can kind of read
history books.
You can't read physics books.
Fair point.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
Go on Latin.
Don't shush Really, yeah.
So I went to City of Portsmouth.
Boys' School doesn't existanymore, right.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
Yeah, Nor does Latin really.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Back end of Pompey.
Rough as it comes, comesPompeii.
But it only taught Latinbecause it just happened to have
a teacher who was a classicistwho taught Latin.
Sadly, we stopped doing it inmy second year at City Boys
because he died in a motorbikeaccident.
His name was Bomber Whiteleybecause he used to wear a bomber
(35:23):
jacket and his surname wasWhiteley and he was about four
foot six seven but drove thismassive Harley Davidson bike and
would.
Yeah.
So I, yeah, I got my Kikilius,estin, atrio and all that sort
of malarkey and I used to lovemy Latin lessons.
That's fascinating of course itnever made any impact on me
because it stopped after he died.
So we stopped learning it.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
You've told me elsewhere that you've got a bit
of the German.
Yeah, the German as well Iwould have said that the Latin
grammar must have helped you.
Yeah, yeah, definitely, yeah,yeah, so.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Rob, thank you so much for spending your time on
the podcast.
I've been wanting to get you onfor ages, so it's a bit of a
success story for me, gwilym.
See you on the next one, mate,in a few minutes hey, we'll see
(36:39):
you next time.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Bye.
Simple message our members should get involved in
the UPC.
That's it.
That's what we're all about.
That's what the committee istrying to do.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Lee Davis and Gwilym Roberts are the two IPs in a pod
and you are listening to apodcast on intellectual property
brought to you by the CharteredInstitute of Patent Attorneys
tourneys.
So, gwilym, I've been spending alot of my time in San Diego in
(00:30):
my hotel gym running and stuff,but I understand that you've
been out on the streets A littlebit yeah, and I feel like we've
been a bit rude about littlebits of San Diego because the
weather was grim and it was likebeing in Rill and I went on
about that, even though we'reright by Tijuana.
I thought I said Portsmouthrather than Rille.
Yeah, well, we Add battleships,Our own points of reference,
(00:51):
but actually we have not talkedabout the good bits A the sun's
out now.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
The sun is amazing.
Yeah, it's quite warm out thereisn't it.
We area.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
It's a big street full of stars and things.
It's quite lively Baseball gamethe other day rammed full of
San Diego Padres fans.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I know nothing about baseball.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Happy hats.
Baseball is wasted on me.
I think it's actually.
It's just like cricket, butstanding up.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Let's not get started on that.
You're going to be a loser.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
You no, and I have to say I've been because you run
on the treadmill.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
I do.
Yeah, my knees are gone.
I can't do it right, I get that.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
I thought I'd give it a go and been running around
because the conference centre,which is enormous it's the size
of a spaceship.
Yeah, not a little spaceship,but in the size of a big
spaceship.
That's not very helpful.
No, yeah, imagine a spaceshipthe size of a convention centre,
then that's how big it is.
That's how big it is, amazing,and running all around it, and
the other side is the bay and itis actually super pretty.
(01:46):
Yeah, that's quite posh boatsas well.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
So I was walking around the convention set at the
back end of it the other day ona lovely walk going to Seaport,
and I came across a highlyrespected Seaport Luminary, ooh,
and he's with us away.
Let's podcast with them.
So we have council member andchair of the UPC committee, rob
Jackson.
Rob, welcome to the podcast.
Thank you very much, lee.
(02:09):
So it's lovely to have you on.
We've not had you on beforehave we?
Speaker 1 (02:13):
No, never.
I've never been on any podcastever.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
But you're quite good at talking, aren't you?
So that which is theprerequisite.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Barely a word passes my lips.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
So we generally start these off with perhaps you
telling us a wee bit about yourbackstory, so where it all
started, how you found yourselfin the world of IP, that sort of
thing, if that's okay.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Yeah, sure, almost by accident.
I guess Everyone says that.
Yeah, I was a slightly strangechild.
I was reasonably good at bothhumanities and sciences, but not
brilliant at either.
I did science A-levels becauseyou can figure out the answers
to those questions withouthaving to do too much homework.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Yeah, OK, so that's quite good.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
But I always had a bit of interest in the law.
So when it came to choosingwhat to do, I sort of dithered
between sciences, engineering orpossibly the law.
I ended up going to universityto do physics, but also had a
bit of a hankering for legalwork.
One of my friends at universitywas studying law and I sort of
found his.
He took about some of hisassignments and they somehow
(03:21):
seemed more interesting thanquantum mechanics.
So that kind of got me thinkingand I left university still not
having figured out what I wasgoing to do.
Yeah, so I spent a year sort ofdithering and traveling.
I had a couple of part-time jobsand it was actually my mum that
came up with being patented.
I'd never met one.
I've no idea.
I never heard the job.
You never met your mum.
(03:44):
Sorry, I don't know where to gowith that.
How did she know about patents?
Well, she was a legal secretary.
Oh, okay, so all I find out.
I do have this vaguerecollection as a child asking
her what Pat Penn meant on theback of my Lego bricks.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
And weirdly she actually knew that.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
She knew, yeah.
So I don't know where that camefrom.
But anyway she was a legalsecretary in a small town where
I grew up.
You know traditional sort ofwills and divorces kind of
practice.
But it just happened that herboss in this small practice had
been at school with a guy whowas a partner in one of the well
known patent attorney firms.
You can name them.
I think it was Ableton Inbury,I'm not 100% sure.
(04:22):
I think it was Ableton Inburyand mum just came home from work
one day with a letterheadbecause once in a while this guy
would have people coming in whoinvented something and he knew
he knew nothing about patents.
So mum came home with aletterhead as I say, I think it
was Ableton Inbury and said oh,you might be interested in this.
So I was and I fired off aletter to the Institute office
(04:44):
and they sent out some littleleaflets about being a patent
attorney and various otherthings and there was a service
where they would put you intouch with a local firm.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
I don't know if they still do that.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
So it was great.
So they sent me off I think itwas a small practice in
Stockport and I went there andspent a day there and just
thought it was fascinating.
So the guys there did a greatjob of interesting me in the
profession and I just thought,oh, I think I'll go for that.
So I fired off a few jobapplication letters, not knowing
really much about it.
I just did a bit of research.
God knows how I found them Ithink it was probably through a
(05:18):
list from SIPA Wrote off to halfa dozen firms and a couple of
them had no jobs.
A couple of them had no jobs.
A couple of them offered meinterviews but I think only one
turned me down completely and umwent off and did a couple of
interviews and got a couple ofjob offers wow, yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
So where did you start off?
Where was, where was first gig?
Um same place?
I am now, oh, danes.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Yeah, I've always been at Danes in London, in
London, yeah, I'll tell you thefunny thing, actually, that what
got me the both job offers wasone great thing about my old
high school.
It was a state comprehensivejust south of Manchester.
It had originally been asecondary modern school, a
technical school yeah, so theyhad the most fantastic woodwork
and metal workshops.
I remember them well.
Yeah, and that was beforethey'd invented health and
(05:58):
safety.
Yeah, of course, yeah, so whatthat meant was that if you got
on well with the teachers,they'd let you go in and use all
that kit during your lunch hour.
Yeah, so I would.
And it also helped that Iborrowed one of the keys to the
tool padlocks.
So I, I had a unofficial copyof the tool cupboard key, uh, on
my, on my key ring.
So we just nip in and you knowI'm going to say tools.
(06:18):
I mean, you know industrialsize lathes, yeah, and mills,
oxyacetylene yeah, all that goodstuff.
And one of my best friends fromschool and I he went on to
become a successful petroleumengineer and worked for an
investment company.
He and I made ourselves amotorbike out of a broken
bicycle in the lawnmower.
So this is when we were I thinkwe were lower six when we did
(06:43):
this and this thing went and itwasn't the most reliable
motorbike you've ever seen?
you'd think not, but it would do25 miles an hour, and again
because health and safety hadn'tbeen invented, and cut the
grass only if you disassembledit.
So that would be good.
So, rather wonderfully, theteachers have won the happy for
us to motor this thing aroundthe school playground during
(07:04):
breaks and whizzed up and downthis path between, called the
link path between two schoolsites yeah so it was great.
so reason I mentioned that is,we took photographs of it and
when it came a few years later,going for job interviews, and
some senior partner at theinterview would say well, I'm
assuming you've got a physicsdegree, but you know, do you?
And I think that probably gotme a couple of job offers
(07:28):
Fantastic.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
So this is one of those times when you've got
another physicist on the podcast.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
You feel at home, happy, happy, although I didn't
get quantum, did you get quantum?
Speaker 1 (07:38):
physics.
Oh yeah, we had to do quantumphysics.
I mean, did I get it?
Until I understand it?
No, but there wasn't thatexpression.
Was it Einstein or somebody Ican't remember?
Somebody said said, if youthink you understand quantum
physics, you don't understand it.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Yeah, exactly.
So we must understand it,because we don't, there you go.
Yeah, you've lost me.
It's uncertainty.
That's what we thrive on in.
So what was the?
Speaker 3 (07:58):
training like it wasn't bad.
I only ask that questionbecause I know that you are an
advocate of training.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
I am.
It was good in the sense thatyou got stuck in.
You worked for a number ofdifferent people, which we still
do, and it meant that youlearnt more than one way to skin
the proverbial cat and it wasgreat.
I've always liked the place.
It's always been a place I'veenjoyed working.
It wasn't terribly formalised,it was all a little bit random.
You just got things thrown atyou.
It was a bit sink or swim, Isuggest.
It probably didn't comply withany kind of ideas of good
(08:27):
practice regarding teaching, butsort of it worked.
What you did get was a lot oftime with some smart people who
were not too.
I mean, danes are fairly laidback, firm in terms of personal
relations and, funnily enough, Iremember somebody saying to me
after I'd been offered the joband discovering I hadn't been to
Oxbridge weren't you concernedabout that?
Because apparently at the timeif you hadn't been to Oxbridge
you weren't going to get a job.
Yeah, yeah, but fortunatelynobody told me that, and Danes
(08:49):
was very laid back about thatkind of thing.
You know they weren't allOxford types.
So I fitted in pretty well andI must have been trained all
right because I passed them allmy exams the first time around
and became a patent attorney,I've seen you describe training
as an apprenticeship.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Yes, I think it is.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Yeah, on the job by doing absolutely.
It's the very definition ofapprenticeship.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Yeah it interests me.
I think the educationists arenot sure what they think about
that.
You're an education, I'm aneducationist, I am.
What do you?
What do you?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
think about that.
So so I think there aredifferent ways you can cut an
apprenticeship.
So you can look at thattraditional model where you do
the, where you do the kind oftheory and the learning in a
college-based oruniversity-based way and you
either practice on the job andthat's an apprenticeship.
But I don't think that that is.
I don't think you can arguethat what we do is any different
(09:37):
.
Yeah, so that the theory, thelearning, may come in a
different way.
It may be more organic, it maybe more down to the individual
in terms of the way they pickthat up, but in terms of the
application of that learninginto sort of like real life
practical settings, it'sabsolutely an apprenticeship.
Yeah, I agree entirely I don'tthink.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
But my personal thinking is that you need to do
extra book work, uh, to get yourexams, but and for me to know
what you don't know.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
But certainly the stuff that I implement most days
comes from that apprenticeshipyeah, and we got sent on the
then queen m and WestfieldCollege certificate course,
which I loved.
It was a little bit unusual.
I got sent on that after acouple of weeks.
I was supposed to go after ayear and then for some reason I
was sent off straight away andactually, having had a year out,
(10:21):
I absolutely loved it becauseall of a sudden I was back at
university being paid money todo stuff that was easier than
doing physics.
So that all seemed good.
But yeah, we've got all that.
So the theory background therewas good to have that kind of
grounding.
But then, yeah, it's learningby doing.
I mean, the only way you canlearn to write a patent is to
write a patent and have somebodytell you what you've done wrong
and have another go Keep ondoing it.
(10:42):
I think.
I don't know of any other way.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
And it's actually in terms of a profession, it's.
It's quite a difficultprofession for you to see it
working in any other way.
So I'll be honest.
So I came to see for, as youknow, like 13 years ago now, and
I I struggled early days to getmy head around the the model,
yeah.
But once you understand thatyou're taking people who are
highly adept, highly qualifiedin their technical field, who've
done the hard years inuniversity yeah, yeah, I get the
qm and other courses have gottheir value in terms of that
initial introduction to the lawunderstand that entirely, yeah,
(11:15):
and see the value in that.
But the reality is these arepeople that don't want to spend
a significant amount of theirlives back in university.
They want to learn on the job.
Yeah, they want to learn thatway.
We need them to learn that way.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
It's perfect marriage I think I think it is.
I mean also, I mean having nowbeing on, now being on the other
side of the fence.
I'm doing they want to learnthat way.
We need them to learn that way.
It's a perfect marriage, Ithink it is.
I mean also now being on theother side of the fence and I'm
doing the recruiting.
It's really important not tofall into the trap of thinking
that because you're a brilliantphysicist, you're going to be a
brilliant patent attorney.
Yeah, you know it's a necessaryTo be sort of reasonably
competent at the science-ycondition for the job.
It's a long way from being asufficient one.
(11:47):
You've got to have that.
I mean.
It's probably why it suited tome, because I wasn't a
particularly great scientist,but I was good enough, but I was
pretty good at the humanitiesstuff as well.
And I think you do need to hirepeople who are interested in
the law.
And I remember people sort ofcomplaining about failing the
exams and sort of saying, well,I got a first class degree and
I've got ad and all thesequalifications in physics.
(12:09):
Yeah, well, yeah you know it's adifferent, it's a very
different skill.
So I think you've got to pickpeople who've got that range of
interests and abilities.
You know they don't necessarilyhave to be brilliant as any one
thing, but you've got to beable to, you know, have that mix
of skills.
But once you've got that interms of you know there's the
law to learn.
But in terms of the practicalskills, like writing a patent
(12:31):
application, I don't know.
It'd be like trying to learnhow to build a brick wall from a
book.
You know, until you pick upsome bricks and some mortar, you
know how are you ever going todo it?
You've just got to have a goMake a few mistakes, make some
mistakes, knock it down, startagain.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
You know, that's the thing, and I know you're quite
proud about the way Dane'strains today.
Yes, I am.
So what's changed or has itchanged?
Do you do things differently?
Speaker 1 (12:53):
Not in principle no, it's a little bit more
structured.
I think we have some of therough edges that were there when
it was a smaller firm when Ijoined.
More formalised yes, there'smore structure.
We have clearer objectivesabout where trainees ought to be
.
At a certain point we saidthere were more courses that we
involve people on, which I thinkis good.
(13:14):
I mean, when I was studying formy finals, you know you've got
the black book, which, for thosewho aren't familiar with UK
practice, is a large black book.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Guide to the Patterns Act yeah and yeah, the Guide to
the Patterns Act and you juststart at the front and read
through it and took notes andknow it was very much self-study
it's.
There's a lot more structure.
We're much better, I think, atgiving people tutorials and, uh,
generally structuring things,but ultimately it is down to the
, to the candidate, to preparethemselves with the feedback
(13:41):
from the, from the partners, andthat I think really the main
thing we do is just make surepeople have exposure as much as
we can to the right work andtake the time.
You know, face to face, yeah,and it might not be very
fashionable, but personally Ilike that to be face to face in
in real life, not over a screen.
So you know, I try to be in theoffice, you know, four days a
week at least talking to people.
(14:01):
You can't always do it.
Sometimes I'm here but you know, trying to spend the time with
people and and just give peoplefeedback on their work and that
hasn't changed and also, withinthat, presumably helping people
to understand that they're readyor they're not ready.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
That's critical.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
I mean the other hobby horse out of several hobby
horses is the idea that's gonearound that our final exams are
some kind of lottery and thatthe key to success is just
buying lots of tickets, Takingthem out yeah.
And I would take completely theopposite view, which is you
really don't want to do themmore than once.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Yeah, you know it's not a fun way to spend your life
.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
Yeah, you know when I'd done them I never wanted to
do them again.
And you know somebody verywisely I remember asking at sort
of I can't remember what it wastake them at that stage and you
know I was getting goodfeedback.
They said, no, wait untilyou've been working.
You know three and a bit yearsor whatever, which is what I did
(14:55):
.
And you know I got good marks.
I passed them and I'm sograteful because, you know, even
if I'd passed two of the papersthe year before, there's
nothing in your life where yourhead's in the books.
It's miserable.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
You know you're young , you don't want to be doing all
that you need to, and there'snothing more disheartening than
failing either, is there no?
Speaker 1 (15:10):
particularly amongst people who aren't used to
failing.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
Yeah, yeah, you know we're not really recruiting
people who are.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
you know, they've probably never failed an exam,
Do you?
Speaker 2 (15:18):
find that the way that people are taught through
primary, tertiary, secondarywell they enough One, two, three
, whatever that order is.
That's changed?
Do you think that's changed theway that people approach how we
train?
Because they come in withdifferent expectations of how
they're going to be taught?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, I mean it's the difference.
Now.
I think they actually aretaught to some extent in
tertiary now, aren't they?
I mean, I remember when I wasat university I mean it was a
good university, I did okay, butthe best teaching I got was at
the end of the second year whenwe got the option of doing a
workshop course.
Back to the workshops again.
The best teachers in ourdepartment were the lab techs
(15:57):
and I got some fantasticteaching.
I mean, I knew the basics ofhow to use a lathe and so forth,
but those guys we had a weekwith them doing a course in case
we wanted to build some kit.
Yeah, I think they were thebest teachers in the department.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Because they were applying the learning in
real-life situations, and that'sthe essence of good teaching,
in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
I mean, compared to some of the brilliant physicists
who would come in.
I mean, there was one guy whowas notoriously so brilliant
that if he dropped a sort of20-page proof on the floor, it
didn't matter which order hepicked the pages up in, he'd
still be able to understand it.
You know, I mean andunfortunately people are that
smart find it really difficultto understand why normal humans
don't get it.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Yeah, so let's scoot it on a wee bit.
Yeah, you've qualified.
You're building your practiceup in danes.
Yeah, at some point you've gotyourself in, involved in,
interested in the work of seaper.
How'd did that happen?
Speaker 1 (16:47):
I remember that it's a long time ago you always tell
me it's a long time ago and oneday I will find out for you when
it was it was too long ago, butI think SEPA had a bit of a
call for younger people to standfor council because we might be
a bunch of dinosaurs now butback then we really you know it
was, there was some I've heardthe stories.
(17:08):
It was, it was you know, reallya bit of a bit of a seniors club
, yeah, and yeah, one of thepartners, I think, said we're
looking for someone to do thisand they probably knew I was
somewhat opinionated and surely?
Not.
So yeah, that was that was itreally had it had a go and and
uh got elected and somehow keepsort of forgetting to stand down
.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
So yeah, I've been there ever since.
How do you think it's changedfrom the Osteocene era?
Whatever the name is Jurassic.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Jurassic.
We all know Jurassic.
I'm tempted to pull Lee's leghere, but I'm not going to.
Will you pull my?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
leg.
No, I won't actually, because Ithink it's transformed actually
in terms of how professionalthe Institute is.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I think it's transformed actually in terms of
how professional the Instituteis.
I think it's a very differentbody.
I think it's morerepresentative.
I think the members of Councilare more representative of
real-life patterns of profession.
We should be looking torepresent all members of the
Institute, but we do also needto be mindful of the sort of
(18:05):
businesses most people work in,and I think we are now much more
representative of the broaderprofession.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Yeah, so I think that's good.
So in my mind, and if we'retalking now specifically about
council, you need that rich mixof people who are young and new
enough for the profession thatthey're practising in the modern
age and they kind of bring thatwith them.
Yeah, but you can't lose theinstitutional knowledge that
people have been around for awhile and it's just about
getting that right.
Yeah, and it feels like we'vegot it right.
(18:31):
I think that's right.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Yeah, and I think also I mean because so many of
us have grown up through theprofession we can all kind of
remember when we started yeah, Iand the pencil rubber and the
pencils.
Oh yeah, it's still, you know.
I try and remind myself what itwas like to be a trainee when
we're talking about those sortsof issues.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
I don't know if we succeed.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
I guess everybody deludes themselves about those
sorts of things, but yeah, Ithink we're doing pretty well.
I mean, there'll still bepeople moaning that we're out of
touch I'm sure they will, but Ithink we've got a good mix of
people on the council.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
I agree.
So one of the things that youfound yourself doing more
recently is leading the workaround the Unified Patent Court.
You can see yeah, talk to us awee bit about that and why
that's so important to you andthe things that you're doing.
Yeah, well, I've always beeninterested.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
It probably ties in with the story I gave you about
how I came into the profession.
I've always been one of thosepatent attorneys who's found the
legal side of the job slightlymore interesting than the
technical side, I enjoy both,but it's the fact that it's a
legal job that sort of got meinto it.
So it always seemed a bit of ashame as a patent prosecutor
that you know you're sort ofbuilding something that you know
.
It's a bit like building a carand never driving it.
(19:38):
Yeah, someone else litigates ityeah, exactly so.
I always thought, you know,that's something I'd like to be
more involved with them.
Whenever cases came up thatwhere we were, you know,
assisting in enforcing patterns,I always found that really
exciting and interesting.
And then the opportunity cameup.
Years ago the opportunity cameup to qualify as a patent
attorney litigator, to gethigher courts rights.
So I was one of the relativelyearly people to do that.
(19:59):
I went off and did the oldnottingham course, which I found
really interesting and I'm, youknow, very proud of having done
that.
And so over the years I've notdone as much of that work as
perhaps I would have liked, butI have conducted cases.
I conducted the first case allthe way through to trial in our
firm without involvingsolicitors, it was just us and
the barrister, and that was tenyears ago now that that trial
(20:21):
took place.
So I was involved in othermatters before then, but that
was the first matter that I tookall the way through myself and
it was.
You know it was hard work but Ifound it very rewarding and
I've always thought there's alot of potential
cross-versalization between whatyou learn when you're enforcing
a patent and what you need toknow when you're writing it.
Yeah, so, you know, going backto the car analogy, really you
know until you've driven one youdon't really know how to design
(20:44):
one.
So I think, in a way, I knowthere's good practical reasons
why people tend to focus on oneor the other, but I've always I
really think there's a lot.
You need to transfer thoseexperiences from enforcement to
prosecution.
So that was kind of at the backof my mind, always found that
interesting.
And then, of course, the UPCcame along.
It's always struck me as being agreat opportunity for a couple
(21:06):
of reasons.
One, because of theinternational scope of it and
the fact that it gives the uk asyou know, a country within
europe has been coming up aleading place in legal
professions.
It's always seemed like areally good opportunity as a
country.
But also, you know, because wehave in this country we've got a
, you know, experience of a lotof epo contentious experience,
yeah, and you and some of ushave worked in litigation in the
(21:30):
courts as well.
So it became clear that the newsystem was going to be a little
bit of a mixture of thosethings.
So it just seems to be a greatopportunity for UK based patent
attorneys to get involved insomething that's really
important and actually offersomething that fixes a lot of
problems with the existingsystem in terms of making
litigation affordable andefficient, because UK litigation
(21:50):
might be expensive quite anumber of continental
jurisdictions, it's awfully slowand maybe not the most reliable
of outcomes, so it really lookslike one.
A great opportunity for us asprofessionals, but generally a
good thing.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
So I've just always I hope that makes some sense it
makes sense, but there's a bigleap from there in terms of you
as a practitioner, yeah, toleading it in the way, leading
in the way that you've gone,yeah.
So why you?
I mean, it feels like you'rethe right person to do it.
Yeah, because the things thatwe're doing are amazing, I think
, around upc at the moment.
So so why you?
And what?
What are the really excitingthings that we're doing around
UPC?
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Well, why me?
I suppose it was a little bitof a.
Nobody else stood up.
I think I guess I was oncouncil at the right time.
As I say, I had the mixture ofsomeone who's done quite a lot
of EPO contentious practice anda reasonable bit of UK
litigation, so I guess I had theknowledge of both sides.
(22:46):
I've also got a bit of anapproach to these things that
you know, I've always felt thatsome solicits, some patent
attorneys, have a little bit ofan unnecessary sort of cringe
about the knee towards otherlegal practitioners and you know
I don't want to, I don't wantto talk down anybody else,
because you know there's somebrilliant people in all the
different legal professions, butI have sort of felt that
(23:09):
certain, you know, I get alittle bit annoyed when some
patent attorneys sort of thinkthat as soon as they get an
assignment or something slightlylegal, they have to pass it off
to someone else who may youknow, who may well know no more
about it than they do.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
And.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
I had a few experiences Years ago as a
trainee or associate where wewere involved on cases.
I'd get phone calls from juniorsolicitors at some big-name
firms who clearly hadn't thefoggiest what was going on.
So it really made me think thatactually it's not what your job
title is, it's how much timeyou've invested in learning and
understanding the system, and Ijust feel really strongly that
(23:46):
patent attorneys have got theability to understand the case
in the whole in the round.
You know in a way, that if yourtraining is focused so much on
litigation and you're great atstrategy and tactics, you maybe
don't have that mindset thatjust says what's the answer.
You know, I know patentattorneys might go to the other
extreme.
But you know we do handle a lotof contentious work anyway.
So I just think we're reallywell placed to be doing that
(24:08):
kind of work, of contentiouswork anyway.
So I just think we're reallywell placed to be doing that
kind of work.
And then, as I say, when theUPC comes along, it sort of fits
our skill set.
Because of the similaritieswith the EPO it fits our skill
set even better.
So why I ended up doing it?
Speaker 3 (24:18):
I think I just felt strongly that someone ought to
do it and I just well, you know,I'm the guy on council who can
do this- yeah, so we've had thisconversation previously and I
know that there's some reallyinteresting things that the UPC
committee is doing, but I thinkwe were talking a week or two
ago about the need for this tobe really practical, really
hands-on, nuts and bolts-y sortof learning that we do Can you
(24:40):
say a bit about that.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Well, yeah, actually just a thing I forgot to mention
, because what really startedthis off was actually Matt
Vixen's UPC task force, yeah, soI have to give a lot of credit
to that.
Guns for hire, yes, but I mean,that was the most important
first step which I really shouldhave mentioned, which was, you
know, we had this opportunityfor one year only to get lots of
(25:01):
.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
As many Patent attorneys into the system.
Into the system?
Yeah, because that's really.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Everything else follows from that.
Yeah, everything else followsfrom that.
Yeah, and you know thefantastic outcome of that is
that you know the UK, despitenot even being a UPC member
state, has the second largestnumber of UPC representatives.
You know that there are.
So that's a fantastic startingpoint.
Yes, but then, as you say, youdo require some practical
training and the.
You know, the problem with anyarea of practice like this is
(25:26):
there are lots of books on thelaw, lots of articles on the law
.
It's always difficult.
I remember, I remember findingthis from um learning litigation
.
Yeah, you know, because peopleare generally used to being in
the law firm.
That's got the old um outdoorclerks, as they used to call
them.
Who would, you know, sortthings out?
Yeah, there was always a sortof these things always done, but
you know you never really quiteknew.
(25:47):
You know there was somebody whodid these things, but you know
the nuts and bolts, things likehow do you issue a claim in a
particular court.
Yeah, you know that stuff tendsto be missing from the books uh
, so you even described it to besimpler than this.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
How do you find the court?
Yes, where is it exactly?
Speaker 1 (26:01):
yeah, yeah, yeah well , yeah, exactly, and I realized
this was an issue even goingback to the old days of the
patterns county court.
Before it was, I was IPEC andthere was this you know, I
remember a seat put on afantastic seminar where a guy
came and just explained what youdo, because in those days, in
order to issue a claim, you hadto go to the old Regent's
something or other near Regent'sPark.
There was a county court upthere and it was a lovely
(26:23):
Regency Crescent.
No-transcript was it was like itwas like something in a soviet
supermarket.
You know, it was just crackers.
(26:43):
But the point is it wasn'trocket science, but there's no
book.
That told you that you had toget it, so that was it.
And that told you that you hadto get it, so that was it.
And again, as you say, thefinally caught.
Well, my colleague Laura and Igave a talk in Manchester.
Manchester, yeah, a regionalmeeting or a Northwest regional
meeting a couple of weeks agoand that was one of the slides
we had, because, you know, wegot to Paris for the actually
(27:05):
the oral hearing on the firstcase to have been filed in the
Paris Central Division wasn'tquite the first hearing, because
a couple of cases overtook us.
We got there and everybody'sseen the beautiful pictures of
the Paris court on the UPCwebsite, but what they don't
tell you is how to get into theplace and after doing two, if
not three, laps of the entirebuilding, which is a city block,
we eventually figured out thatthe only way into this building
(27:27):
was these sort of dull, grey,green doors on the back with no
sign and we sort of gingerly,you know, crept in there and
walked through a building siteand actually turned out once you
get in there.
The people were lovely and verywelcoming but you know, if that
had been the day of the hearing,we'd have been the pickle, yeah
, yeah.
So if you have people, that'swhat we want to teach people
really.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Just get people the confidence to know how to do it,
dare we talk about where thingsmight one day go with the UPC
in the UK.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
I was thinking about it.
We can always edit it out if itdoesn't feel right.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
There's tiny talk, isn't there, about just
investigating that possibility alittle bit more.
I think council's positionwould be support, not being the
primary driver.
But, rob, when you're open,what do you think Should we go
for it?
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Well, I certainly think it would be a good thing
if it happened.
I can't see any real downside.
I mean, the whole UK was alwaysgoing to be in the UPC.
It was only a result of Brexit.
Well, a political decision.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
It was a political decision.
Actually, it wasn't even aresult of Brexit.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
So yeah, I mean there were a lot of smart people who
thought we could negotiate a wayto stay in the UPC.
And I have to say, when youtalk to judges and people
involved in the UPC, they seemto be very welcoming to us from
the UK.
I should say that's one thing Ihaven't sensed.
There hasn't been any kind ofwhat are you guys doing here?
They seem to be very keen and Ithink we're reciprocating that
(28:51):
by supporting the UPC verystrongly.
Yeah, so I think it's a sort ofwin-win for everybody.
You know there's no, there's apractical question rather than a
legal question or a politicalquestion.
Yeah, there's no.
You know, there seems to benothing but positives for that.
You know there areopportunities for English
solicitors and barristers to getmore involved as well as our
members, our fellows.
(29:12):
I should say We've got lots ofmembers who are solicitors and
barristers, so that's anopportunity.
I think there's.
I've certainly heard you cansee judges actually in relation
to Ireland saying we wishIreland would jolly well hurry
up and join, because we needsome common law judges who can
tell us what some of these bitsof the rules mean, because
obviously quite a lot of therules are based on English legal
concepts.
It's not a civil law system,it's very much a hybrid system.
(29:33):
So there'd be massiveadvantages in terms of getting
some top judges involved, sothere's every practical reason
to do it.
Then you're just running to thepolitics.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
We will need the political will.
We're seeing that move at themoment.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Well, today, isn't it A?
Speaker 3 (29:49):
central feature of this has always been the primacy
of the CJEU, and we're seeingthat that's becoming less of an
issue in other areas of industryand commerce.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
I guess you're thinking about the food.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
I mean ultimately.
I assume that means we're goingto agree to follow what the
CJEU rules about the food rules,and in any case, upc cases seem
to not find themselves.
No.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Well, the UPC courts haven't referred a single case
to the CJU yet, and, as someonewho tried to persuade them to do
it, they don't seem terriblyinterested.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
I picked up somewhere .
They don't really want tobecause they know that the
expertise isn't there.
And then I'm not a bit honest.
There's some legal, there'ssome fine point that you can
only refer things up.
That's the point of EU law, andthere is many.
I mean.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
The really important point that people need to
understand, which is spelled outin a number of judgments, not
least the Microsoft judgmentregarding representation by
in-house representatives, isthat it's not an EU court.
It is subject, in certainrespects, to the supremacy by
in-house representatives.
Is that it's not an EU court?
(30:57):
Yeah, it is subject in certainrespects to the supremacy of EU
law, but it's not an EU courtand it has its own, basically
enforces its own law.
I mean, the articles of the UPCagreement set out patent
infringement law and the EPCeffectively sets out patent
validity law.
So you know, most of the law isits own.
So you know, I think that'svery important because people,
you know, no doubt, if we do tryand support a campaign to
(31:18):
rejoin, there will be peopletrying to call an EU court,
which you know isn't.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yeah, I saw a report from the Fordham Conference,
which is that big ticket one,and it's either in New York or
is it Cambridge, anyway,whichever this year and I think
some of the UPC judges wereasked what their regrets were
and they said that they don'tget that alternative approach
available from the UK systembecause we were so instrumental
in setting it up.
(31:42):
But at the moment my feeling isthat all the lovely little
British bits we put in thecommon office have a risk of
withering, aren't they?
So we need to watch that.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Yeah, I think there is, because people, you know, I
guess that's a risk, isn't it,if you've got judges who aren't
used to thinking I want to hearthis witness being
cross-examined, or I wishsomebody had ordered, you know,
requested disclosure of thisevidence, or whatever.
Yeah, I mean that that is therisk I should say.
I mean, one of the cases one ofmy colleagues was involved with
, they did actually call expertwitnesses and there was a
(32:13):
limited amount ofcross-examination.
Yeah, it was quite controlled,but you know it did happen.
So those things are stillhappening, but I'm sure, I'm
sure it would be good to havehave the judges matching the law
gwen was looking at me becausehe knows I've got an eye on the
time, because I'm time keeping Iwas actually checking your part
rate.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Time keeping is one of the things that I do, rob,
and we're coming towards the endof time, but I've got a closer,
unless you've got one, no, doit, do it.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
So do you want to say more.
I want to say one thing, whichis really that simple message
our members should get involvedin the UPC.
That's it.
That's what we're all about,that's what going to do.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
We'll make that the tagline for this podcast.
Thank you, which actually weget lots of the stuff you said
about the upc how to use it insnippets, which has been really
good, yeah.
But yeah, we'd like to have alittle fun close close of it,
which has got something to dowith something we've talked
about, but maybe onlytangentially.
I'm gonna ask willem and thenask you and then will ever
(33:06):
surprise me by asking me andI'll surprise Gwilym by my
answer.
That's the way it works, soit's a tried and tested formula.
We were talking a little bitabout school and stuff like that
.
I don't know what yourfavourite subject was at school.
What was?
Speaker 2 (33:17):
your favourite subject at school?
It was actually English,english, bizarrely.
Come back to your point, though, skills as a result, and that
does feed into this job quitewell.
No, I really really enjoyedEnglish.
I only did it up to GCSE.
I did history A level, buthistory for me is like science
English.
You know what I mean.
It's more practical.
No, I loved, I really lovedEnglish.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Wow, yeah, I wasn't expecting that, no no, I was
twice.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
I thought, you'd be Winner of the school poetry
prize Wow.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
Oh yeah, oh you're going to write some poetry for
me at some point.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Oh, you did yesterday about ducks.
You did yesterday about ducks.
Probably should repeat that one, though no, no, no.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
Rob, favourite subject at school Can't be
physics or anything like that.
History, history, yeah, wow.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Yeah, we had a fantastic history teacher First
gosh, probably two or school uh,really fantastic history
teacher, always loved it.
Yeah, I mean, I, I really Iremember being torn because, of
course again, for people whoaren't from the uk listening to
this may not know that you haveto choose three subjects when
you're 16, which is bonkers.
So it is if you, if you, ifyou're me, it's bonkers.
(34:20):
Yeah, um, because I, you know,I wanted to study physics and
history, but there's nouniversity that'll let you in if
you've got a history, becauseyou don't know enough other
artsy stuff to do history andyou don't know enough science to
do physics.
So that was my two favouritesubjects, so I had to just can
the history and go down the sortof sciencey route.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
I don't know.
I got into university withphysics and history, did you?
You can still go back.
You can still do history, youcan go back.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
I think what I realised is you can kind of read
history books.
You can't read physics books.
Fair point.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
Go on Latin.
Don't shush Really, yeah.
So I went to City of Portsmouth.
Boys' School doesn't existanymore, right.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
Yeah, Nor does Latin really.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Back end of Pompey.
Rough as it comes, comesPompeii.
But it only taught Latinbecause it just happened to have
a teacher who was a classicistwho taught Latin.
Sadly, we stopped doing it inmy second year at City Boys
because he died in a motorbikeaccident.
His name was Bomber Whiteleybecause he used to wear a bomber
(35:23):
jacket and his surname wasWhiteley and he was about four
foot six seven but drove thismassive Harley Davidson bike and
would.
Yeah.
So I, yeah, I got my Kikilius,estin, atrio and all that sort
of malarkey and I used to lovemy Latin lessons.
That's fascinating of course itnever made any impact on me
because it stopped after he died.
So we stopped learning it.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
You've told me elsewhere that you've got a bit
of the German.
Yeah, the German as well Iwould have said that the Latin
grammar must have helped you.
Yeah, yeah, definitely, yeah,yeah, so.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Rob, thank you so much for spending your time on
the podcast.
I've been wanting to get you onfor ages, so it's a bit of a
success story for me, gwilym.
See you on the next one, mate,in a few minutes hey, we'll see
(36:39):
you next time.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com