June 2, 2025 • 27 mins
Lee and Gwilym are joined in the Pod Box by Heather Steinmeyer, who shares how her journey to becoming INTA’s Chief Policy Officer began unexpectedly in 1980s New York publishing. There, she gained valuable exposure to content creators and author rights—experience that would later prove foundational to her IP career.
Her fascinating trajectory, which includes time in both corporate and private legal practice before serving as INTA President in 2010, has equipped her with unique perspectives that now shape her comprehensive approach to global IP policy development.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
hey, grillam.
So I've been sending photoshome so the family can see where
I am, and I had a little walkaround I think it's called
seaport and took some pictureswhile I was going and after I
sent them I had already thoughtthis myself.
I thought looks a little bitlike portsmouth, and my oldest
daughter said dad.
She said you've kidded us,haven't you?
You've not really traveled,you've not really flown for 12
hours, uh, 7 000 miles.
You're actually in south sea.
(00:20):
There you go.
So I was describing it as realrecently.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Now you're actually in South Sea.
There you go.
So I was describing it as realrecently.
Now you're saying it'sPortsmouth, it's Portsmouth yeah
, I'll tell you what thataircraft carrier is astonishing.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Yeah, midway, yeah, it's got lots of aircraft on it.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Yeah, I don't think they're not working, as far as I
can remember I hadn't had youdown.
You surprised me, I hadn't hadyou down as an aircraft spotter
that when I was a kid lived inHong Kong.
The aircraft carriers used tocome and park around the back of
Hong Kong Island.
I could see it out my window,and that was in the early 80s,
and so they all had the PhantomF4s on them or something amazing
(00:52):
.
Did you ever go on?
Speaker 1 (00:54):
not on an aircraft carrier, because so in
Portsmouth we had this thing,and it just shows how the
world's changed, because theyone now, but the big american
carriers used to come in.
I remember the gordon canalcame in and portsmouth harbour
is deep enough for it to enter,and then american sailors would
ferry you over there in littleboats, so young teenagers, that
you could go and wander aroundthis big aircraft carrier, and
it just wouldn't happen.
Now I'm loving this booth.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Can you imagine if this booth was on the aircraft
carrier?
Speaker 1 (01:18):
oh, yeah, could only be better.
Couldn't if we were in aperspex box on an aircraft
carrier?
Speaker 2 (01:25):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
So, gwilym, great pleasure now to welcome to the
podcast Heather Steinmeier.
Heather, welcome, did I getyour name right?
Do I feel the air fantastic?
So can we start off by youperhaps giving us a little bit
of back history?
Can you tell us a wee bit aboutyou, how you came to do what
you do at Inter?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Sure, absolutely.
When I thought a little bitabout this I realized I somehow
have managed to spend my wholecareer in intellectual property
and didn't even know it forabout half of that time.
I started working in publishingin New York in the 80s and then
eventually moved down to lawschool and practiced law in both
a corporate practice and aprivate practice.
(02:31):
But when I look back I thinkabout that time in publishing
and the exposure it gave me tocontent creators and the
dynamics with authors and theirrights that so perfectly has
dovetailed with what I laterended up doing in the law.
So that part of my career Inever really considered to be IP
until I started to think aboutit more and realized how
(02:52):
influential it probably was inthat journey for me.
And then, after working in acorporate environment for quite
a long time again as apracticing lawyer, I eventually
made the transition two yearsago to working for INTA's chief
policy officer.
Throughout my time as apracticing lawyer I volunteered
at INTA so.
I was on various committees.
(03:12):
I served as one of its officersI was the president in 2010 and
so had that exposure throughoutand grew to love the work very
much, and so it was an excitingopportunity for me when the
chance came along to work forthe company directly so I've got
some questions going, if that'sall right I know, you've been
writing notes, so I know you'vegot well.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Actually I wrote them police officer and I had to
replace it with policy officer Igot it right in the end so a
couple of questions.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
What area of publishing were you in?
Legal and technical okay so,and so my other question was
it's quite unusual for someonein my experience, certainly in
membership bodies in the UK it'squite unusual for someone to
have held an office likepresident of an association and
then go to work for it.
How did you find that?
Because you know all thesecrets.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
You do know all the secrets, absolutely.
I think it's just ongoingengagement, meaning not only did
I serve as president, Icontinued to be on project teams
and task forces and, you know,I think, hopefully along the way
, demonstrated that I can bringsomething to the table in the
area of policy development, andso when the job opened up, it
was an opportunity for me.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Amazing.
And what areas of policy areyou focusing on?
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Gee, golly, that is.
There are just so many.
To be very honest, we have 21policy committees within the
advocacy space, focused on alldifferent forms of intellectual
property, not only trademarks,but copyrights, designs, trade
secrets,geographical-counterfeiting work
.
It can also mean enforcementbefore courts and administrative
bodies, filing amicus briefsand engaging directly in court
(04:49):
interventions.
We also have a huge interest inAI.
I think you can't have anyconversation in.
IP right now without that topiccoming up in some way.
And of our 21 committees, 18 ofthem are working on something
related to AI.
And of our 21 committees, 18 ofthem are working on something
related to AI.
There are so many issues wecould go on, but that maybe
gives you a flavor of some ofthe areas that we operate in.
(05:12):
We also focus, if I may add onemore thing, on, I would say,
threats to IP, not just from apeer enforcement standpoint.
But we have one committeefocused on what we refer to as
brand restrictions, which islegislation which is well
intended for perhaps anothertype of public policy purpose,
such as health or environmentalor linguistic and cultural
(05:33):
protections, but can have anunintended effect on the way
products can be branded andcommunicated to consumers, and
those two things sometimesrequire some education to
legislators about thoseunintended effects.
So, we also focus on, I wouldsay, legislative challenges to
IP rights.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
That's why we know all about unintended effects
from various trade agreements,because we'll have this little
claw to the back of theagreement that says, oh and by
the way, we don't do patentsanymore, or something.
It's like, ah, guys, guys, guys.
So that's interesting, sothere's threats.
Is it most on the branding side, or do you look at the kind of
the bigger anti-IP issues thatare around?
How far do you go with that?
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yeah, it's fair, I would say both.
So certainly, the committeethat is focused on brand
restrictions is looking at themore specific challenges and
issues that we encounter, but weare absolutely aware of what is
sometimes referred to as IPbacklash and the need to make
sure that, as we engage with theworld, backlash and the need to
make sure that, as we engagewith the world, you know it is
(06:30):
in a way that is that helpshelps demonstrate the value of
intellectual property to jobscreation, to consumer safety, to
not being a barrier toinnovation but, in fact, an
enabler of innovation.
With the subtext being, we wantto counter that narrative but I
guess I mean it was interesting.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
You had a huge organization.
You've got many, manycommittees looking at big issues
of policy.
You're going to get a lot ofdifferent voices within that,
but I guess you guys are quitewell represented between users,
the owners of IP and the peoplewho have to work their way
around IP and take it seriously.
So I guess doesn't that balancehelp in terms of getting policy
from both perspectives?
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Absolutely, and we consider our members to be an
extension of our policy team, ifyou will.
They often join us in thedialogues and the conversations.
Their voices are frequently themost persuasive ones when we're
speaking with legislators.
They want to hear directly frombusiness about the impact on
business of the laws andregulations and practices.
(07:24):
If it's an intellectualproperty office that they are
putting forward in practices, ifit's an intellectual property
office that they are puttingforward, they really want to
understand that and having thosevarious voices within our
communities enables us torespond to that need and help
shape where policy goes as aresult.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Those legislators you're talking to, the actual
implementers of policy, is thatmostly in the US global?
Who do you talk to?
Who listens to you?
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Global absolutely In the US.
Global who do you talk to?
Who listens to you?
Global absolutely so we haverepresentative offices in all
major regions around the world.
But we also specific, so weengage.
I'm mucking that one up.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Keep going.
We like it.
It makes it real.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Alright.
Well, it's highly real in thisinstance.
Let me try this again.
So we have our representativeoffices on a global basis and
they engage on a day-to-daybasis with legislators,
regulators, intellectualproperty offices in the regions
they represent.
But then we also do formalforms of engagement that we
refer to as delegations, wherewe take a specific set of people
(08:23):
with a specific set of issuesto usually a seat of government
in order to engage with thelegislators there and help
address some of the issues thatwe see as opportunities.
So, for example, maybe two weeksago, etienne Sanz de Acedo, our
CEO, elizabeth Bradley, ourpresident and myself and our
Brussels team were all inBrussels on the ground.
(08:44):
We met with members ofparliament, we met with DGs at
the commission, we met with IPattachés.
We met with members ofparliament, we met with DGs at
the commission, we met with IPattachés, we met with Business
Europe.
So we take our messages out ina very specific and deliberate
way in that May as well, and wedo that around the world.
We have lots of trips lined upfor this year.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
So, taking that one as an example, first of all,
that's a great group of peoplethat you were meeting there.
So, you just ticked the list ofall the people I think I know
about.
Um, did you have kind of a listof issues?
Did you have to have one, onekey issue that drives the visit,
or how did you play that?
Speaker 3 (09:14):
no, we do have a list , you know, because we meet with
a broad spectrum of people andso their interests are vary and
we we want to discuss with themwhat's relevant with them.
So, for example, with dg agri,we discussed geographical
indications, just to give oneexample, but no, we definitely
have a list.
A significant issue for us inthis last round is
anti-counterfeiting.
(09:35):
It's always probably the numberone topic for our membership Of
interest and concern.
It touches so many businessesand the companies that work with
those businesses from anenforcement standpoint, and
right now there is an impactpolicy cycle taking place in the
EU and we want to help ensurethat IP crime is included in
that policy cycle.
It is included in the currentpolicy cycle, which runs through
(09:58):
the end of this year, and it'sbeen very successful, but it was
iffy about whether it would beincluded in the policy cycle
beginning in 2026.
So that was an example of onetheme that we brought up over
and over again, if you will,with legislators to try to help
them understand the significanceof the issue, and it was very
fortunate that we had ourpresident, elizabeth Bradley,
(10:19):
with us, because she comes froman industry that is heavily
impacted by some of these issuesin the IP crime space and she
was able to give direct examplesof harm to consumers as a
result of fake products beingput into the market.
Legislators really listened tothat, so it was a very, I think,
effective opportunity to send amessage like that.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
We've definitely had some debates about that in the
UK and how far IP crimedefinitions go.
Obviously, there are veryclear-cut instances where it's
wrong, and counterfeiting isalways such an obvious problem.
I think we've seen it, though,going too far, I think, and in
particular, things like when youget to more registered rights,
like designs and so on,criminalising that kind of thing
(11:00):
.
It's just a really complex areaand things need to be done to
make sure that people don't makebad aeroplane parts and all
that kind of thing.
But that debate is always sonuanced, isn't it?
Speaker 3 (11:09):
It very much is.
There are people on all sidesof the issue, you know, with
viewpoints from every direction.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
But I think, from our point of view, keeping products
out of the hands of consumersthat can harm them is the North
Star.
Yeah, and I think that maybe,as again with all your different
interest groups, there's goingto be dispute or a different
point of view, but I suspecteverybody's going to agree.
It's nice to have a nice coremessage that you can all agree
on, and you mentioned variousrights there as well.
Obviously, there's increasinginterest in patents now at Inter
, which is fascinating.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Yes, absolutely.
I think, from an insideperspective, it's an extremely
logical next step in anevolution that's been taking
place for some time.
You know, obviously our namesignals our origins and our
roots in trademarks, but for along time, we have done more
than look at trademarks.
We've had committees focus, asI mentioned earlier, on
copyrights, trade secrets,designs, other forms of
(12:03):
intellectual property and howthey all work together.
In fact, there's probablyalmost no product in the market
that isn't actually potentiallyprotectable by more than one
form of intellectual property,and what we found was that
patents are effectively amissing link for us, and many of
the issues that we address nowfeel like there's a hole in our
ability to perhaps address theissue fully and holistically
(12:26):
because we have not yet adopteda point of view on the role of
patents with respect to thosetypes of issues.
I'll give one example Withtrade secrets, when there's a
new innovation, there's often afork in the road moment if
you're the innovation ownerabout how you're going to
protect it.
Are you going to try to patentit or are you going to try to
protect it with trade secrets?
(12:46):
So we have a trade secretscommittee which is capable and
working into advice and toolsand policy relating to the
protection through trade secrets, but we're not really able to
fully address that fork in theroad, so it's important that we
take that on.
We also, I think, are alwaysconscious of listening to our
members.
We take all of our cues fromthem as a member-driven trade
(13:08):
association, and a couple ofother things that tell us this
is the right direction to go inare that we hear from our
members that in the increasinglydo more with less environment
in which we all work and operate, practitioners need to be able
to take on more areas thanperhaps are part of their native
territory, and so helping themhave the tools to understand how
(13:32):
to be a leader of afull-fledged IP department, even
if your historic practiceorigins are in copyrights or
trademarks.
How to manage a patentportfolio and practice in order
to have the tools andcapabilities to continue to
develop and advance in theircareers is important.
The other thing we hear a lotabout from our members is the
importance of lookingholistically at their portfolios
(13:55):
, managing them holistically,their portfolios of intangible
assets.
I should say Managing themholistically, looking at all of
the forms of intangible assetsthat comprise those portfolios,
which clearly include patents.
For some of the biggestcompanies and for startups as
well, right, it's how theydemonstrate their value to
investors in many instances.
So we need to have the tools tosupport our members that also
(14:19):
look at IP holistically,including patents.
So there are many reasons whywe're heading in that direction.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
You know, certainly with any innovative company they
need to go through all therights and make sure they're
covered.
And the legislation side isquite interesting, isn't it?
Because, as you say, there'ssuch overlap.
A simple example in my world isthere's carve-outs in the
Patents Act for somecomputer-related stuff, because
at the time they were thinkingwell, copyright's got that and
you've got to look at both ofthem together because otherwise
(14:46):
either the overlap getscomplicated or they miss
something and something fallsbetween the soles Right.
So is there a lot of interestin the patent side of things?
This year?
Are people signing up to allthe sessions and everything
doing?
Speaker 3 (14:56):
that?
Yes, I think so.
You know there's goodattendance planned for the
patent series.
There are four sessions theretaking place on Tuesday One of
them addresses that very fork inthe road issue that I mentioned
, and we're also looking at IPdynamics and enforcement and
professional development.
You know the other sort ofdimension to this that I
mentioned.
So it's definitely geared forour current membership on their
(15:17):
journey to perhaps wanting tounderstand that space more, and
there's a reception for patentpractitioners as well and those
who just want to know more aboutpatents.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
I've already seen quite a few SEPA members here,
Willem.
Yes, it's good to have themhere, we're walking around so we
know there are a fair few UKpartners.
Have you said yes?
Speaker 2 (15:34):
The enforcement ones are interesting as well, isn't
it?
All these different regimes andSorry, not regimes, that's like
a political statement.
What I mean is legislativeregimes around the world with
different approaches andeverything.
It's certainly one thing thatSEPA does.
A lot is going around on behalfof its industry members trying
to make sure that we understandenforcement and that it's a
(15:57):
level playing field.
So again, I guess that's partof your work there, but I guess
I'm wondering are yourepresenting the US industry
when you do that?
Are you representing yourglobal membership?
How does it work?
Speaker 3 (16:07):
Global membership.
Absolutely, we very much wantto represent all of our members
equally, wherever they may be,and of course our members are
themselves global, you know.
So they may be headquartered inParis but of course protect
their IP in the US if they'remultinational companies.
So our members themselves areglobal and require us to respond
in that way as well.
And I think you touched onsomething really interesting
(16:33):
which we put under the label ofharmonization, and sometimes
harmonization instantly triggersthe notion of treaties, but for
us it really just means thatlevel playing field right.
The more laws and practices areconsistent around the world,
the easier and more seamless itis for businesses to do business
at a global level.
So that is a huge issue for usand I would say that that is one
of the underlying themes of allof our policy and advocacy work
(16:53):
is how do we encourageharmonization so that it is
easier for businesses to protectand use their valuable
intellectual property?
Speaker 2 (17:04):
I think Inter is obviously a huge name in the
trademark sphere in particular.
Is that what the T stands for?
Speaker 3 (17:10):
yes, it is that's clearly our roots.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
I was going to come to this.
Actually, we need to help youbrainstorm a new name you're not
the first to make thissuggestion.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Pinta Intap, pinta Pinta Intap.
I like.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Intap Int.
I can't say it.
Int Ta.
I can't say it Int-ta.
How do you do it?
Int-pa.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Don't you need a C for copyrights?
Work on that, yeah that's true.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Work on that as well.
Yeah, I've only got silly onesnow.
Yeah, go Click on.
All right, I was actuallyinterested in your.
You mentioned the corporatestories.
There's always interesting tohear about people's kind of
professional background, do youmy last company?
Speaker 3 (17:44):
I worked for a couple , but my most recent company
before joining INTA was in thehealthcare space.
It's called Elevance Health.
They do healthcare financing,healthcare data and also some
direct delivery of healthcare,and there I was a vice president
with responsibility forintellectual property but also
all of the vendor contractingrelationships, many of which
(18:05):
turned on the creation ofintellectual property.
So that was actually quite aserendipitous cycle to have.
And then also data privacy anddata protection, which was a hot
topic in healthcare, just tosay the least, yeah, yeah and
very interesting here IMTA has adata committee as well, and
even though that's nottechnically a specific IP right,
it is an intangible asset.
(18:25):
I mean they deal in intangibleassets.
So data rights, data issues,things that impact data
protection are all of interestto us.
So those areas from my priorstages of my career have all
been very useful here.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
And that's an area I don't know anything about at all
, but I know that it's reallyexercising a lot of people.
So coming in from thatbackground, actually having been
there and knowing both sides ofit that's useful.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Quick one.
So I'm now concerned that I'mnot saying INTA and I keep
saying inter.
Is INTA the preferred way tosay it?
Speaker 3 (19:01):
So I would say that I take my cues from our head of
communications who tells me Ishould say INTA.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Perfect.
Okay, I will now stop sayinginter and from now on, in.
That's going to be difficult.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
We answer to both yeah, Just like the dog is
probably going to answer to Fidoor my dog.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Can we talk a little bit about, because this is a big
old conference, isn't it?
There's a lot of work that goesinto it.
Do you have much involvement inthat, in the framing of the
conference?
Speaker 3 (19:29):
So our knowledge and development team is really the
primary group within the staffthat makes all of this possible.
But we do our part by helpingto secure speakers, session
topics lead some of the panelsdo some the the interviews that
with, for example, capsulekeynotes.
So we contribute, I would say,content and people to help make
(19:53):
the program vibrant how far outdo you start planning?
Speaker 1 (19:55):
when does?
When does planning start?
Honestly, years ahead of timeyeah yeah, really so you're
already planning for 2026.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
I know we can't talk about 2026 because it's all
embargoed and everything, butyou're already planning for 2026
.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Yeah, and have been for quite some time so, yeah,
we'll look forward to thatannouncement then and see where
we go with it.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Yeah, no, you're right to raise it.
The organization of this mustbe an astonishing operation.
I mean having organized pubquizzes and that nearly killed
me.
This is we've talked about pubquizzes already elsewhere, but
uh, this is like the biggest pubquiz ever until next year.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
What's what's big on the future policy radar?
What's coming over the hill foryou?
Speaker 3 (20:40):
well, I mentioned ai earlier and I would be remiss if
I didn't mention again now inanswer to that question, because
it is left and center in thework that we are doing in so
many different ways.
We just passed a boardresolution yesterday, which may
or may not mean much from aprocess perspective, but what it
really means for us is that weare starting to put a stake in
the ground if you will on whatwe believe the right position is
(21:05):
on certain foundational issuesrelating to the relationship of
people and AI and how, the roleof humans, if you will, in
oversight of AI outputs, andalso the importance of
transparency in the data that isused, both for input and output
(21:25):
purposes.
A lot depends on certain veryfoundational things and we're
very interested in thedevelopment and utilization and
success of AI.
Frankly, we really see thepotential of it, but we also
want to make sure that it isdeveloped thoughtfully and with
safety of consumers and humansin mind and with the fact that
(21:52):
it is not taking place inisolation right AI is being
developed in a system thatalready has a significant
ecosystem around rights owners,and what is an incentive to
innovation, what creates jobsand what is the right balance to
develop this new technologywithout undermining the benefits
of what exists already thatit's leveraging in order to be
(22:13):
developed?
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Within that.
So one of the big questionsthat we're asking ourselves.
We've asked it at CEPA recently, but I work across so a peer
group of two executives andother membership professional
bodies and they're all quiteconcerned at the moment about
data sovereignty.
So we're all getting down anddirty with AI now.
We're using it and then youremember where does your data
(22:36):
live?
Who owns it?
Is data sovereignty somethingthat's on the radar?
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Yes, absolutely.
I mean, I think from ourperspective, there's two
dimensions to it.
There's not only datasovereignty, which is very
similar to content ownership,right, do you need permission to
use this data to train anddevelop your AI and, you know,
should there be some mechanismsor system in place to ensure
that?
Does that slow down developmenttoo much?
Does it harm development not todo it?
Those dynamics but I would sayanother dynamic that we are very
(23:04):
interested in is trust.
Right, I think one of thechallenges with AI right now in
terms of its usability for manypeople it has so much potential
is whether you can trust theoutputs, which is why human
oversight is still required.
But one of the reasons that wedon't always trust AI outputs
besides the fact that ithallucinates and its algorithms
(23:25):
perhaps still need work but isthat the data it is trained on
brings with it things likeinherent bias, or it was
developed for a differentpurpose, for which it's used for
training, so it's not reallyfit for purpose, and that
undermines the trust in theoutputs.
So we're very interested intrust and transparency what data
(23:46):
was used to train this AI andto inform its outputs, and what
does that tell us about how muchyou can trust what the outputs
are.
Those are important issues.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I find it really, really reassuring that you're
coming from a position AI ishappening, it's coming.
Let's be responsible about howwe implement it, because I think
some of the lobbying not fromyou guys at all, some of the
lobbying I've seen elsewhere hasbeen let's try and stop ai or
let's, and it's inevitable.
But what's more, equally alsoalso worrying, is that if you
try and do that, then you won'thave the ability to control.
(24:19):
It'll still happen, but it'llbe developed underground or by
worse actors or with less goodregulation, as it were, which is
when it gets really risky.
So I think the approach youguys are saying makes so much
sense, doesn't it that we'reembracing?
It's going to happen.
Please can we do it responsibly?
Please can we involve trust anddeal with the issues.
Let's let's not deny it'scoming, though, because it's
coming right.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
The other thing that can happen if you don't sort of
deal with those underlyingissues of trust and transparency
and why the outputs aresometimes not reliable let's fix
that is that it leadsregulators to over regulate.
You know they have thepotential to say well then we
just have to put so manyconstraints on it to make sure
that it's safe that it slowsthings down dramatically.
(25:00):
So trying to get at those rootissues is important for more
than one way, for for more thanone purpose.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
I'm thinking about it .
I mean, we're always seeinglegislation for new innovation
and so on, certainly in thepatent world.
It then takes 40 years ofjurisprudence to actually get it
right.
But you know, you've got tostart somewhere.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
You've got to start somewhere.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
You've also got to stop somewhere.
We're coming to time, gwilym.
Very good, perhaps a finalquestion, yeah, I do like my
segue so smooth.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
I do like a segue so smooth.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Perhaps a final question.
Are you sat there thinking, ohphew, they didn't ask me that.
Or is there anything that youwanted to say that you've not
yet had the chance to say?
Speaker 3 (25:39):
I'm delighted to be surrounded by 10,000 people who
share an interest in thisamazing topic of intellectual
property.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yeah, it's a fair shout actually.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
You know and I didn't really get a chance to say how
incredibly exciting andinvigorating and energizing that
is for me personally, but Ithink you see it in all the
people around you and that'sjust a real privilege to
participate in.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Actually, you can't walk around San Diego without
tripping over an IP person ortripping over their lanyards
those lanyards.
I was in the gym when I bumpedinto two people with English
accents chatting away and Ithought, oh, maybe they're rock
stars, aren't they?
But yeah, they were here foreverybody in this city.
At the moment, it's likethey're here for the Padres game
.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
That's it.
Thank you so much for sharingyour time with us.
It's been an absolute pleasure,heather, and good luck with the
rest of INTA.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Thank you so much.
It's been a pleasure.
(27:02):
Outro Music Two-Eyed Pizza.
Two-eyed Pizza.
hey, grillam.
So I've been sending photoshome so the family can see where
I am, and I had a little walkaround I think it's called
seaport and took some pictureswhile I was going and after I
sent them I had already thoughtthis myself.
I thought looks a little bitlike portsmouth, and my oldest
daughter said dad.
She said you've kidded us,haven't you?
You've not really traveled,you've not really flown for 12
hours, uh, 7 000 miles.
You're actually in south sea.
(00:20):
There you go.
So I was describing it as realrecently.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Now you're actually in South Sea.
There you go.
So I was describing it as realrecently.
Now you're saying it'sPortsmouth, it's Portsmouth yeah
, I'll tell you what thataircraft carrier is astonishing.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Yeah, midway, yeah, it's got lots of aircraft on it.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Yeah, I don't think they're not working, as far as I
can remember I hadn't had youdown.
You surprised me, I hadn't hadyou down as an aircraft spotter
that when I was a kid lived inHong Kong.
The aircraft carriers used tocome and park around the back of
Hong Kong Island.
I could see it out my window,and that was in the early 80s,
and so they all had the PhantomF4s on them or something amazing
(00:52):
.
Did you ever go on?
Speaker 1 (00:54):
not on an aircraft carrier, because so in
Portsmouth we had this thing,and it just shows how the
world's changed, because theyone now, but the big american
carriers used to come in.
I remember the gordon canalcame in and portsmouth harbour
is deep enough for it to enter,and then american sailors would
ferry you over there in littleboats, so young teenagers, that
you could go and wander aroundthis big aircraft carrier, and
it just wouldn't happen.
Now I'm loving this booth.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Can you imagine if this booth was on the aircraft
carrier?
Speaker 1 (01:18):
oh, yeah, could only be better.
Couldn't if we were in aperspex box on an aircraft
carrier?
Speaker 2 (01:25):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
So, gwilym, great pleasure now to welcome to the
podcast Heather Steinmeier.
Heather, welcome, did I getyour name right?
Do I feel the air fantastic?
So can we start off by youperhaps giving us a little bit
of back history?
Can you tell us a wee bit aboutyou, how you came to do what
you do at Inter?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Sure, absolutely.
When I thought a little bitabout this I realized I somehow
have managed to spend my wholecareer in intellectual property
and didn't even know it forabout half of that time.
I started working in publishingin New York in the 80s and then
eventually moved down to lawschool and practiced law in both
a corporate practice and aprivate practice.
(02:31):
But when I look back I thinkabout that time in publishing
and the exposure it gave me tocontent creators and the
dynamics with authors and theirrights that so perfectly has
dovetailed with what I laterended up doing in the law.
So that part of my career Inever really considered to be IP
until I started to think aboutit more and realized how
(02:52):
influential it probably was inthat journey for me.
And then, after working in acorporate environment for quite
a long time again as apracticing lawyer, I eventually
made the transition two yearsago to working for INTA's chief
policy officer.
Throughout my time as apracticing lawyer I volunteered
at INTA so.
I was on various committees.
(03:12):
I served as one of its officersI was the president in 2010 and
so had that exposure throughoutand grew to love the work very
much, and so it was an excitingopportunity for me when the
chance came along to work forthe company directly so I've got
some questions going, if that'sall right I know, you've been
writing notes, so I know you'vegot well.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Actually I wrote them police officer and I had to
replace it with policy officer Igot it right in the end so a
couple of questions.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
What area of publishing were you in?
Legal and technical okay so,and so my other question was
it's quite unusual for someonein my experience, certainly in
membership bodies in the UK it'squite unusual for someone to
have held an office likepresident of an association and
then go to work for it.
How did you find that?
Because you know all thesecrets.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
You do know all the secrets, absolutely.
I think it's just ongoingengagement, meaning not only did
I serve as president, Icontinued to be on project teams
and task forces and, you know,I think, hopefully along the way
, demonstrated that I can bringsomething to the table in the
area of policy development, andso when the job opened up, it
was an opportunity for me.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Amazing.
And what areas of policy areyou focusing on?
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Gee, golly, that is.
There are just so many.
To be very honest, we have 21policy committees within the
advocacy space, focused on alldifferent forms of intellectual
property, not only trademarks,but copyrights, designs, trade
secrets,geographical-counterfeiting work
.
It can also mean enforcementbefore courts and administrative
bodies, filing amicus briefsand engaging directly in court
(04:49):
interventions.
We also have a huge interest inAI.
I think you can't have anyconversation in.
IP right now without that topiccoming up in some way.
And of our 21 committees, 18 ofthem are working on something
related to AI.
And of our 21 committees, 18 ofthem are working on something
related to AI.
There are so many issues wecould go on, but that maybe
gives you a flavor of some ofthe areas that we operate in.
(05:12):
We also focus, if I may add onemore thing, on, I would say,
threats to IP, not just from apeer enforcement standpoint.
But we have one committeefocused on what we refer to as
brand restrictions, which islegislation which is well
intended for perhaps anothertype of public policy purpose,
such as health or environmentalor linguistic and cultural
(05:33):
protections, but can have anunintended effect on the way
products can be branded andcommunicated to consumers, and
those two things sometimesrequire some education to
legislators about thoseunintended effects.
So, we also focus on, I wouldsay, legislative challenges to
IP rights.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
That's why we know all about unintended effects
from various trade agreements,because we'll have this little
claw to the back of theagreement that says, oh and by
the way, we don't do patentsanymore, or something.
It's like, ah, guys, guys, guys.
So that's interesting, sothere's threats.
Is it most on the branding side, or do you look at the kind of
the bigger anti-IP issues thatare around?
How far do you go with that?
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yeah, it's fair, I would say both.
So certainly, the committeethat is focused on brand
restrictions is looking at themore specific challenges and
issues that we encounter, but weare absolutely aware of what is
sometimes referred to as IPbacklash and the need to make
sure that, as we engage with theworld, backlash and the need to
make sure that, as we engagewith the world, you know it is
(06:30):
in a way that is that helpshelps demonstrate the value of
intellectual property to jobscreation, to consumer safety, to
not being a barrier toinnovation but, in fact, an
enabler of innovation.
With the subtext being, we wantto counter that narrative but I
guess I mean it was interesting.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
You had a huge organization.
You've got many, manycommittees looking at big issues
of policy.
You're going to get a lot ofdifferent voices within that,
but I guess you guys are quitewell represented between users,
the owners of IP and the peoplewho have to work their way
around IP and take it seriously.
So I guess doesn't that balancehelp in terms of getting policy
from both perspectives?
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Absolutely, and we consider our members to be an
extension of our policy team, ifyou will.
They often join us in thedialogues and the conversations.
Their voices are frequently themost persuasive ones when we're
speaking with legislators.
They want to hear directly frombusiness about the impact on
business of the laws andregulations and practices.
(07:24):
If it's an intellectualproperty office that they are
putting forward in practices, ifit's an intellectual property
office that they are puttingforward, they really want to
understand that and having thosevarious voices within our
communities enables us torespond to that need and help
shape where policy goes as aresult.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Those legislators you're talking to, the actual
implementers of policy, is thatmostly in the US global?
Who do you talk to?
Who listens to you?
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Global absolutely In the US.
Global who do you talk to?
Who listens to you?
Global absolutely so we haverepresentative offices in all
major regions around the world.
But we also specific, so weengage.
I'm mucking that one up.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Keep going.
We like it.
It makes it real.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Alright.
Well, it's highly real in thisinstance.
Let me try this again.
So we have our representativeoffices on a global basis and
they engage on a day-to-daybasis with legislators,
regulators, intellectualproperty offices in the regions
they represent.
But then we also do formalforms of engagement that we
refer to as delegations, wherewe take a specific set of people
(08:23):
with a specific set of issuesto usually a seat of government
in order to engage with thelegislators there and help
address some of the issues thatwe see as opportunities.
So, for example, maybe two weeksago, etienne Sanz de Acedo, our
CEO, elizabeth Bradley, ourpresident and myself and our
Brussels team were all inBrussels on the ground.
(08:44):
We met with members ofparliament, we met with DGs at
the commission, we met with IPattachés.
We met with members ofparliament, we met with DGs at
the commission, we met with IPattachés, we met with Business
Europe.
So we take our messages out ina very specific and deliberate
way in that May as well, and wedo that around the world.
We have lots of trips lined upfor this year.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
So, taking that one as an example, first of all,
that's a great group of peoplethat you were meeting there.
So, you just ticked the list ofall the people I think I know
about.
Um, did you have kind of a listof issues?
Did you have to have one, onekey issue that drives the visit,
or how did you play that?
Speaker 3 (09:14):
no, we do have a list , you know, because we meet with
a broad spectrum of people andso their interests are vary and
we we want to discuss with themwhat's relevant with them.
So, for example, with dg agri,we discussed geographical
indications, just to give oneexample, but no, we definitely
have a list.
A significant issue for us inthis last round is
anti-counterfeiting.
(09:35):
It's always probably the numberone topic for our membership Of
interest and concern.
It touches so many businessesand the companies that work with
those businesses from anenforcement standpoint, and
right now there is an impactpolicy cycle taking place in the
EU and we want to help ensurethat IP crime is included in
that policy cycle.
It is included in the currentpolicy cycle, which runs through
(09:58):
the end of this year, and it'sbeen very successful, but it was
iffy about whether it would beincluded in the policy cycle
beginning in 2026.
So that was an example of onetheme that we brought up over
and over again, if you will,with legislators to try to help
them understand the significanceof the issue, and it was very
fortunate that we had ourpresident, elizabeth Bradley,
(10:19):
with us, because she comes froman industry that is heavily
impacted by some of these issuesin the IP crime space and she
was able to give direct examplesof harm to consumers as a
result of fake products beingput into the market.
Legislators really listened tothat, so it was a very, I think,
effective opportunity to send amessage like that.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
We've definitely had some debates about that in the
UK and how far IP crimedefinitions go.
Obviously, there are veryclear-cut instances where it's
wrong, and counterfeiting isalways such an obvious problem.
I think we've seen it, though,going too far, I think, and in
particular, things like when youget to more registered rights,
like designs and so on,criminalising that kind of thing
(11:00):
.
It's just a really complex areaand things need to be done to
make sure that people don't makebad aeroplane parts and all
that kind of thing.
But that debate is always sonuanced, isn't it?
Speaker 3 (11:09):
It very much is.
There are people on all sidesof the issue, you know, with
viewpoints from every direction.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
But I think, from our point of view, keeping products
out of the hands of consumersthat can harm them is the North
Star.
Yeah, and I think that maybe,as again with all your different
interest groups, there's goingto be dispute or a different
point of view, but I suspecteverybody's going to agree.
It's nice to have a nice coremessage that you can all agree
on, and you mentioned variousrights there as well.
Obviously, there's increasinginterest in patents now at Inter
, which is fascinating.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Yes, absolutely.
I think, from an insideperspective, it's an extremely
logical next step in anevolution that's been taking
place for some time.
You know, obviously our namesignals our origins and our
roots in trademarks, but for along time, we have done more
than look at trademarks.
We've had committees focus, asI mentioned earlier, on
copyrights, trade secrets,designs, other forms of
(12:03):
intellectual property and howthey all work together.
In fact, there's probablyalmost no product in the market
that isn't actually potentiallyprotectable by more than one
form of intellectual property,and what we found was that
patents are effectively amissing link for us, and many of
the issues that we address nowfeel like there's a hole in our
ability to perhaps address theissue fully and holistically
(12:26):
because we have not yet adopteda point of view on the role of
patents with respect to thosetypes of issues.
I'll give one example Withtrade secrets, when there's a
new innovation, there's often afork in the road moment if
you're the innovation ownerabout how you're going to
protect it.
Are you going to try to patentit or are you going to try to
protect it with trade secrets?
(12:46):
So we have a trade secretscommittee which is capable and
working into advice and toolsand policy relating to the
protection through trade secrets, but we're not really able to
fully address that fork in theroad, so it's important that we
take that on.
We also, I think, are alwaysconscious of listening to our
members.
We take all of our cues fromthem as a member-driven trade
(13:08):
association, and a couple ofother things that tell us this
is the right direction to go inare that we hear from our
members that in the increasinglydo more with less environment
in which we all work and operate, practitioners need to be able
to take on more areas thanperhaps are part of their native
territory, and so helping themhave the tools to understand how
(13:32):
to be a leader of afull-fledged IP department, even
if your historic practiceorigins are in copyrights or
trademarks.
How to manage a patentportfolio and practice in order
to have the tools andcapabilities to continue to
develop and advance in theircareers is important.
The other thing we hear a lotabout from our members is the
importance of lookingholistically at their portfolios
(13:55):
, managing them holistically,their portfolios of intangible
assets.
I should say Managing themholistically, looking at all of
the forms of intangible assetsthat comprise those portfolios,
which clearly include patents.
For some of the biggestcompanies and for startups as
well, right, it's how theydemonstrate their value to
investors in many instances.
So we need to have the tools tosupport our members that also
(14:19):
look at IP holistically,including patents.
So there are many reasons whywe're heading in that direction.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
You know, certainly with any innovative company they
need to go through all therights and make sure they're
covered.
And the legislation side isquite interesting, isn't it?
Because, as you say, there'ssuch overlap.
A simple example in my world isthere's carve-outs in the
Patents Act for somecomputer-related stuff, because
at the time they were thinkingwell, copyright's got that and
you've got to look at both ofthem together because otherwise
(14:46):
either the overlap getscomplicated or they miss
something and something fallsbetween the soles Right.
So is there a lot of interestin the patent side of things?
This year?
Are people signing up to allthe sessions and everything
doing?
Speaker 3 (14:56):
that?
Yes, I think so.
You know there's goodattendance planned for the
patent series.
There are four sessions theretaking place on Tuesday One of
them addresses that very fork inthe road issue that I mentioned
, and we're also looking at IPdynamics and enforcement and
professional development.
You know the other sort ofdimension to this that I
mentioned.
So it's definitely geared forour current membership on their
(15:17):
journey to perhaps wanting tounderstand that space more, and
there's a reception for patentpractitioners as well and those
who just want to know more aboutpatents.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
I've already seen quite a few SEPA members here,
Willem.
Yes, it's good to have themhere, we're walking around so we
know there are a fair few UKpartners.
Have you said yes?
Speaker 2 (15:34):
The enforcement ones are interesting as well, isn't
it?
All these different regimes andSorry, not regimes, that's like
a political statement.
What I mean is legislativeregimes around the world with
different approaches andeverything.
It's certainly one thing thatSEPA does.
A lot is going around on behalfof its industry members trying
to make sure that we understandenforcement and that it's a
(15:57):
level playing field.
So again, I guess that's partof your work there, but I guess
I'm wondering are yourepresenting the US industry
when you do that?
Are you representing yourglobal membership?
How does it work?
Speaker 3 (16:07):
Global membership.
Absolutely, we very much wantto represent all of our members
equally, wherever they may be,and of course our members are
themselves global, you know.
So they may be headquartered inParis but of course protect
their IP in the US if they'remultinational companies.
So our members themselves areglobal and require us to respond
in that way as well.
And I think you touched onsomething really interesting
(16:33):
which we put under the label ofharmonization, and sometimes
harmonization instantly triggersthe notion of treaties, but for
us it really just means thatlevel playing field right.
The more laws and practices areconsistent around the world,
the easier and more seamless itis for businesses to do business
at a global level.
So that is a huge issue for usand I would say that that is one
of the underlying themes of allof our policy and advocacy work
(16:53):
is how do we encourageharmonization so that it is
easier for businesses to protectand use their valuable
intellectual property?
Speaker 2 (17:04):
I think Inter is obviously a huge name in the
trademark sphere in particular.
Is that what the T stands for?
Speaker 3 (17:10):
yes, it is that's clearly our roots.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
I was going to come to this.
Actually, we need to help youbrainstorm a new name you're not
the first to make thissuggestion.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Pinta Intap, pinta Pinta Intap.
I like.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Intap Int.
I can't say it.
Int Ta.
I can't say it Int-ta.
How do you do it?
Int-pa.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Don't you need a C for copyrights?
Work on that, yeah that's true.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Work on that as well.
Yeah, I've only got silly onesnow.
Yeah, go Click on.
All right, I was actuallyinterested in your.
You mentioned the corporatestories.
There's always interesting tohear about people's kind of
professional background, do youmy last company?
Speaker 3 (17:44):
I worked for a couple , but my most recent company
before joining INTA was in thehealthcare space.
It's called Elevance Health.
They do healthcare financing,healthcare data and also some
direct delivery of healthcare,and there I was a vice president
with responsibility forintellectual property but also
all of the vendor contractingrelationships, many of which
(18:05):
turned on the creation ofintellectual property.
So that was actually quite aserendipitous cycle to have.
And then also data privacy anddata protection, which was a hot
topic in healthcare, just tosay the least, yeah, yeah and
very interesting here IMTA has adata committee as well, and
even though that's nottechnically a specific IP right,
it is an intangible asset.
(18:25):
I mean they deal in intangibleassets.
So data rights, data issues,things that impact data
protection are all of interestto us.
So those areas from my priorstages of my career have all
been very useful here.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
And that's an area I don't know anything about at all
, but I know that it's reallyexercising a lot of people.
So coming in from thatbackground, actually having been
there and knowing both sides ofit that's useful.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Quick one.
So I'm now concerned that I'mnot saying INTA and I keep
saying inter.
Is INTA the preferred way tosay it?
Speaker 3 (19:01):
So I would say that I take my cues from our head of
communications who tells me Ishould say INTA.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Perfect.
Okay, I will now stop sayinginter and from now on, in.
That's going to be difficult.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
We answer to both yeah, Just like the dog is
probably going to answer to Fidoor my dog.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Can we talk a little bit about, because this is a big
old conference, isn't it?
There's a lot of work that goesinto it.
Do you have much involvement inthat, in the framing of the
conference?
Speaker 3 (19:29):
So our knowledge and development team is really the
primary group within the staffthat makes all of this possible.
But we do our part by helpingto secure speakers, session
topics lead some of the panelsdo some the the interviews that
with, for example, capsulekeynotes.
So we contribute, I would say,content and people to help make
(19:53):
the program vibrant how far outdo you start planning?
Speaker 1 (19:55):
when does?
When does planning start?
Honestly, years ahead of timeyeah yeah, really so you're
already planning for 2026.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
I know we can't talk about 2026 because it's all
embargoed and everything, butyou're already planning for 2026
.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Yeah, and have been for quite some time so, yeah,
we'll look forward to thatannouncement then and see where
we go with it.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Yeah, no, you're right to raise it.
The organization of this mustbe an astonishing operation.
I mean having organized pubquizzes and that nearly killed
me.
This is we've talked about pubquizzes already elsewhere, but
uh, this is like the biggest pubquiz ever until next year.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
What's what's big on the future policy radar?
What's coming over the hill foryou?
Speaker 3 (20:40):
well, I mentioned ai earlier and I would be remiss if
I didn't mention again now inanswer to that question, because
it is left and center in thework that we are doing in so
many different ways.
We just passed a boardresolution yesterday, which may
or may not mean much from aprocess perspective, but what it
really means for us is that weare starting to put a stake in
the ground if you will on whatwe believe the right position is
(21:05):
on certain foundational issuesrelating to the relationship of
people and AI and how, the roleof humans, if you will, in
oversight of AI outputs, andalso the importance of
transparency in the data that isused, both for input and output
(21:25):
purposes.
A lot depends on certain veryfoundational things and we're
very interested in thedevelopment and utilization and
success of AI.
Frankly, we really see thepotential of it, but we also
want to make sure that it isdeveloped thoughtfully and with
safety of consumers and humansin mind and with the fact that
(21:52):
it is not taking place inisolation right AI is being
developed in a system thatalready has a significant
ecosystem around rights owners,and what is an incentive to
innovation, what creates jobsand what is the right balance to
develop this new technologywithout undermining the benefits
of what exists already thatit's leveraging in order to be
(22:13):
developed?
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Within that.
So one of the big questionsthat we're asking ourselves.
We've asked it at CEPA recently, but I work across so a peer
group of two executives andother membership professional
bodies and they're all quiteconcerned at the moment about
data sovereignty.
So we're all getting down anddirty with AI now.
We're using it and then youremember where does your data
(22:36):
live?
Who owns it?
Is data sovereignty somethingthat's on the radar?
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Yes, absolutely.
I mean, I think from ourperspective, there's two
dimensions to it.
There's not only datasovereignty, which is very
similar to content ownership,right, do you need permission to
use this data to train anddevelop your AI and, you know,
should there be some mechanismsor system in place to ensure
that?
Does that slow down developmenttoo much?
Does it harm development not todo it?
Those dynamics but I would sayanother dynamic that we are very
(23:04):
interested in is trust.
Right, I think one of thechallenges with AI right now in
terms of its usability for manypeople it has so much potential
is whether you can trust theoutputs, which is why human
oversight is still required.
But one of the reasons that wedon't always trust AI outputs
besides the fact that ithallucinates and its algorithms
(23:25):
perhaps still need work but isthat the data it is trained on
brings with it things likeinherent bias, or it was
developed for a differentpurpose, for which it's used for
training, so it's not reallyfit for purpose, and that
undermines the trust in theoutputs.
So we're very interested intrust and transparency what data
(23:46):
was used to train this AI andto inform its outputs, and what
does that tell us about how muchyou can trust what the outputs
are.
Those are important issues.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I find it really, really reassuring that you're
coming from a position AI ishappening, it's coming.
Let's be responsible about howwe implement it, because I think
some of the lobbying not fromyou guys at all, some of the
lobbying I've seen elsewhere hasbeen let's try and stop ai or
let's, and it's inevitable.
But what's more, equally alsoalso worrying, is that if you
try and do that, then you won'thave the ability to control.
(24:19):
It'll still happen, but it'llbe developed underground or by
worse actors or with less goodregulation, as it were, which is
when it gets really risky.
So I think the approach youguys are saying makes so much
sense, doesn't it that we'reembracing?
It's going to happen.
Please can we do it responsibly?
Please can we involve trust anddeal with the issues.
Let's let's not deny it'scoming, though, because it's
coming right.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
The other thing that can happen if you don't sort of
deal with those underlyingissues of trust and transparency
and why the outputs aresometimes not reliable let's fix
that is that it leadsregulators to over regulate.
You know they have thepotential to say well then we
just have to put so manyconstraints on it to make sure
that it's safe that it slowsthings down dramatically.
(25:00):
So trying to get at those rootissues is important for more
than one way, for for more thanone purpose.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
I'm thinking about it .
I mean, we're always seeinglegislation for new innovation
and so on, certainly in thepatent world.
It then takes 40 years ofjurisprudence to actually get it
right.
But you know, you've got tostart somewhere.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
You've got to start somewhere.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
You've also got to stop somewhere.
We're coming to time, gwilym.
Very good, perhaps a finalquestion, yeah, I do like my
segue so smooth.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
I do like a segue so smooth.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Perhaps a final question.
Are you sat there thinking, ohphew, they didn't ask me that.
Or is there anything that youwanted to say that you've not
yet had the chance to say?
Speaker 3 (25:39):
I'm delighted to be surrounded by 10,000 people who
share an interest in thisamazing topic of intellectual
property.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yeah, it's a fair shout actually.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
You know and I didn't really get a chance to say how
incredibly exciting andinvigorating and energizing that
is for me personally, but Ithink you see it in all the
people around you and that'sjust a real privilege to
participate in.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Actually, you can't walk around San Diego without
tripping over an IP person ortripping over their lanyards
those lanyards.
I was in the gym when I bumpedinto two people with English
accents chatting away and Ithought, oh, maybe they're rock
stars, aren't they?
But yeah, they were here foreverybody in this city.
At the moment, it's likethey're here for the Padres game
.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
That's it.
Thank you so much for sharingyour time with us.
It's been an absolute pleasure,heather, and good luck with the
rest of INTA.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Thank you so much.
It's been a pleasure.
(27:02):
Outro Music Two-Eyed Pizza.
Two-eyed Pizza.
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