March 21, 2025 • 63 mins
The vital intersection between academia and real-world intellectual property practice takes center stage as Lee and Gwilym welcome Enrico Bonadio from City St George’s University of London. His unique journey from IP litigation in Milan to academic research and teaching offers powerful insights into how theoretical and practical perspectives on intellectual property complement each other.
Bonadio reveals how his litigation background enriches his teaching by providing strategic perspectives on how IP rights are actually deployed. This practical foundation allows him to break down complex legal concepts into real-world scenarios that engage students and demonstrate IP's pervasive impact on daily life. Whether you're an IP practitioner seeking fresh perspectives, a student considering this field, or simply curious about how intellectual property shapes our world, this episode offers valuable insights into the dynamic relationship between academic exploration and practical application.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
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.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Attorneys.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
So, gwilym, welcome to another podcast.
Good to see you again.
It must be at least what a weeksince I saw you in person.
I think it's a bit of a gap.
Bit of a gap.
Yeah.
So SEPA Council last weekAlways good to see you around.
That, were you there.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I was there.
I was there, I was there, yeah.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
It's a really exciting day for me because we
had SEPA council and then a fewof us disappeared to the pub.
The pub where we go to I don'tknow if I'm allowed to mention
on the podcast, but we go to theChristopher Hatton just
opposite the office.
And the trouble with theChristopher Hatton I don't know
if you noticed it, but it's gotno mobile signal and whilst we
were there I missed my sontrying to get hold of me to
(00:58):
announce the fact that I'dbecome a granddad for the
seventh time, seventh time?
Speaker 2 (01:02):
No, you sent me a photo of the baby Very.
We don't know his name now, butHudson, hudson.
Lovely looking little thing,very healthy looking thing.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Yeah, nice, I just kind of just knock them out now,
don't they?
It's just, I get used to it,they just keep arriving.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Love it.
Well, I had Beth's, mydaughter's, third birthday party
at the weekend.
Oh how can she be three already, I know.
So we quizzed her this time onparty games that she'd like and
she's beginning to know a littlebit about party games and her
choices were obviously musicalstatues, obviously, obviously,
pass the Parcel.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
And, slightly less obviously, musical tangerines.
Oh, is this one of your made-upgames.
It turned out it's not me.
She said I want to play musicaltangerines.
So yeah, we played musicaltangerines.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
I think it's going to take off have you got time
quickly to tell us the rules?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
well, I think it's going to be a very fluid uh, a
very fluid game, but it can beinterpreted in different ways.
But what we did was you gaveeach this is three year olds,
you gave each child a tangerineand then obviously they have to
name the tangerine, right?
I had a bunch of names.
One beth's was called beth.
Someone else had a tangerinecalled reemy.
Then you play some music andyou dance with your tangerine
(02:14):
and when the music stops, youfall to the floor and then check
your tangerines, okay, and thenyou feed it to your mum or your
dad.
That's a lovely's a lovely game.
It's actually a really, reallygood game.
It went down very well.
Kids enjoyed it, parentsenjoyed it, as long as they
weren't allergic to tangerine.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Is this a Robert's original or is this something
you've done before?
It is now.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
No, it's just Beth's idea.
I want to play musicaltangerines, so off we went.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
Oh cool.
I don't think of a better wayto start a podcast, can you
other than having an amazingguest?
And we've got a great guest ontoday, so I'm quite looking
forward to this one.
It's been a little while sincewe've had anybody from the world
of academia to talk to us about, um, what's happening there and
how that crosses over to ourworld of ip.
So so we've got Enrico with us.
Enrico, hi, how are you?
I'm fine, thanks.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Thanks for the invitation.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
It's lovely to have you on the podcast For our
listeners.
Would you care to tell us a?
Speaker 3 (03:14):
wee bit about yourself.
Yes, of course, my name isEnrico Bonadio and I am an
academic specialising inintellectual property law at
City St George's's University ofLondon, and so IP is my
occupation.
I teach, I conduct research inthe field of IP by looking at
all IP rights patents, copyright, trademarks.
(03:38):
I come from the privatepractice.
Before joining academia in 2009in the uk, I basically was in
private practice in in in italy,milan, as an ip litigator, so I
I I advise clients in severalareas again trademark law,
patent law and copyright law.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Yes, and what um?
What caused the move to theworld of academia?
What was the spur for you to dothat?
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Well, while working as a lawyer, I also completed my
PhD at the University ofFlorence, a PhD where I studied
in depth the TRIPS agreement andfrom an international trade
perspective, and especiallybiotech patents and especially
biotech patents.
So I always had this academicperspective profile and I found
(04:33):
then that studying, researchingand teaching, having contact
with students, was more my cupof tea.
I would say I like bothteaching and researching.
I like to make studentspassionate about IP.
That's my mission.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Is that an easy gig, or do you find that a bit of a
challenge?
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Well, I mean, I find it very pleasant.
So if you do things whileremaining happy, it means that
it's easier to do them right.
So I like this aspect of my jobto communicate and to transmit
(05:25):
my passion for this subject.
I must say this subject is verynice, so it helps me a lot in
communicating.
It's an area of law which Isuddenly fell in love with 25
years ago when I first did mymaster in IP was a WIPO master
in Turin and I must say that thethings we teach as IP scholars
(05:48):
are really appealing to students, because what I always tell my
students the very first day ofthe IP module IP surrounds us
From the minute you wake up inthe morning until the minute you
(06:09):
sleep at night.
In those 14, 15 hours you areexposed to IP.
When you go to the supermarketbrands, when you use your
computer, your laptop software,IP permeates our lives and I
think students appreciate thisbecause they realize really ip
is surrounding us and thereforestudying such subject, which is
(06:34):
very different ip nights, arevery different from themselves.
It's important, right, because,uh, it affects our daily lives
positively and sometimesnegatively.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
And, seeing as you're kind of one of your early
interests I think you said therewas trips Do you get trips?
Obviously cuts across trade andtrade's been a biggie for the
UK since it decided to cutitself free from the European
Union.
Have you kept yourself on topof trade agreements and stuff
like that?
Is that something you have anactive interest?
Speaker 3 (07:05):
in.
I mean I studied the withdrawalagreement, the post brexit
withdrawal agreement, the ipaspects of the withdrawal
agreement, uh and uh, yeah, I'minterested in that, even if
still I cannot see yet how uk isdiverging a lot from the EU.
Acquiesce, I would say, yes, itformally now can diverge, but I
(07:30):
don't think that this freedomto diverge will be fully
exploited, because I think it isin the British interest to
align as much as possible withEU rules on ip because it's the
biggest trading partner.
So for fully exploitingeconomies of scale, right does
(07:53):
not make sense to diverge toomuch right from from that set of
rules.
Um so, but yes, of course I aminterested in the trade related,
international trade relatedaspects of of ip because, again,
what I tell my students is thatyou know the lack of IP
protection is an obstacle totrade.
(08:14):
It's a non-tariff barrier totrade, right, yeah, that's what
I tell them all the time tellthem all the time yeah, um.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
So this is a good example actually of of that
crossover between academia andthe rest of ip.
Um, because, uh, it's everyone.
All these different areascontribute different things and
you've got the great experienceof being in private practice and
then going into academia.
But I think realistically, ifit weren't for academia, who
would be talking about trips andgross economic effects and
tariffs and not tariffs andthings?
So really that's a big role foracademia to do that blue sky
(08:52):
thinking for everyone else.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Absolutely, you're right, because it's the task of
academics to study the TRIPS andto understand and to interpret
TRIPS provisions.
To study the TRIPS and tounderstand it.
To interpret TRIPS provisions.
I mean lawyers are less exposedto TRIPS because they are more
interested in national laws,right?
Or EU law, which is a regionallaw.
But you know national laws.
They need to comply with.
(09:15):
Trips.
Trips has not been arevolutionary tool for
industrialized countries.
Actually, the TRIPS agreementhas been imposed by
industrialized countries ondeveloping and least developed
countries because, if you lookat the wording of many
provisions in the TRIPSagreement is borrowed from us
(09:35):
patent law or trademark, eutrademark law.
You know, it's the task ofacademics in general to study IP
law, also for the benefit ofpolicymakers, right?
So academia is really importantto inform policymakers, to
(10:00):
influence policymakers,influence policymakers because,
let's be honest, if we leave ipas a subject in the hands of
lawyer and patent attorneys,that, with all my respect, of
course, which of course is, is anecessary profession, but it's
just a part of the picture,right?
And we also need to look atacademic works, because
(10:27):
academics can, I think, see thisfair, 360 degrees, right, and
can also assess the impact oflegislations on society, right,
and that's why, regularly, theBritish government, the European
Commission and the USgovernment, what they do is to
(10:50):
launch consultations, right, oneof them is very recent, about
AI and IP, as you may be aware.
I mean, and these consultationsare, of course, are attended,
attended, are used by lawyers.
The point, the point of view oflawyers is important, of course
, because, at the end of the day, they work with the final rule
(11:12):
in front of judges and therefore, but of course, academics can
also play a role by analyzingthe impact of IP legislation on
society, on various aspects ofsociety, of course.
So I think that, yes, academiashould even more represent a
(11:34):
bridge right Towards, a bridgewhich connects the expertise,
the academic expertise, withpolicymaking, by making sure
that all voices are heard andrepresented Right.
And you know, sometimes, andunfortunately at EU level, also
(11:56):
at national level, sometimes thevoice of some stakeholders is
louder than the voice of otherstakeholders, right, consumers
vis-a-vis industry or platforms.
We need to make sure that allvoices are heard and academics
can help on that.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
Totally, I've got a score Go on then Can I just cut
in.
I don't cut across you often,mate Go on, I've got a score.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
I don't cut across you often mate, go on I've got
across often.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
So get on, don't lose track of where you were going
with this.
But I was really interested inrico in the points that you were
making there about the um, theintersection between academia
and policy making, and I meanI'm sure you had an eye on the
uk's accession to thecomprehensive and progressive
agreement for trans-PacificPartnership, the CPTPP.
Sepa was all over that in termsof concerns we had about how
(12:52):
the provisions in the CPTPP maynot align neatly with the EPC
European Patent Convention andour role in the EPA our role in
the EPA.
So we spent quite a lot of timeworking with and through
government to try and ensurethat in signing up to the CPTPP
we didn't injure any of ourexisting agreements and
relationships.
But it never crossed my mindfor one minute to reach out to
(13:14):
the academic world to see how wecould work together with
academia to do that.
So how do you influencepolicymaking?
How do academics involvethemselves in influencing policy
?
I'm really interested.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Well, for example, myself, I have been commissioned
several years ago by theEuropean Parliament, a report on
standard essential patents.
By the way, I also do researchin the field of standard
essential patents in the IT, inthe Internet of Things sector.
The IT in the Internet ofThings sector, and what
academics do are writing reportscommissioned by parliaments, by
(13:52):
the European Commission, and inthis way they can participate
right to the decision process,to the preparatory work which
then leads to, for example, aregulation proposal or a
directive proposal.
So increasingly, in bothamerica and europe, uk academics
(14:16):
are part of this process, andthat's fantastic insight.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
Yeah, right, yeah, I really appreciate that and, um,
I think my learning from this isthe next time we involve
ourselves in a big policy area,we need to reach out more to the
academic world, and that thathadn't really crossed my mind
previously.
Good to you.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Apologies for a little um interjection no,
actually just a quick comment onthat, pointly just, I think,
for good order.
Duncan matthews and queen marywere definitely there at the
beginning of those conversationsand gave me some good steers.
So so shout out to academics.
But you're right, I think thelevel of power they bring, kind
of an influence they bring, isreally important.
I had a great philosophicalquestion, so talking about
(14:54):
different entities commenting onmatters of policy, whatever it
might be.
And you've got private practicewe answer to our clients.
You've got in-house you answerto your employer practice we
answer to our clients.
You've got in-house you answerto your employer.
You've got the judiciary youanswer to the law.
And you've got the governmentyou answer to the electorate.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Who do you answer to?
Who does academia represent?
Well, we answer to students,first of all, when we teach
right and I integrate researchin my teaching right it's
important to to do so because wealso need to tell students that
we don't just teach right,because they, most of them,
think that you know, we go toclass, we prepare classes and
that's it.
Well, that's just a part of it,because many academics also do
(15:38):
research and I do not respond to, you know, to any, I mean in
terms of commitments, when I'mcommissioned to do a report, of
course I welcome the invitation,but then I keep my academic
freedom.
So what I think academics canbring to the table is
(16:01):
independent views right, exactlybecause we don't have clients
right To respond to.
We have the material we need tostudy.
We have the law.
We study the law.
We read a huge amount ofliterature right To be able to
form an opinion, and the more weread, the more solid our
(16:30):
opinion will be and the moresolid our report will be.
That's what, again, I tellstudents when they need to do
and write a dissertation right.
The more you read in terms ofliterature, the more aware you
will be of issues and more solidwill your dissertation be?
So, coming back to your, toyour question, we don't respond
to client.
We don't respond to, apart fromthe books we read and the laws
(16:54):
we we examine very clear.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Thank you, um, I'll keep going, lee.
Yeah, you keep going, you keepgoing, so I should just just
take it back.
Actually, this is more just outof curiosity.
Personally, I've always been inprivate practice.
I do quite a lot with QueenMary, actually, in terms of
lecturing and some other bitsand pieces like that and, as you
know, writing the old chapterwhich we'll come on to.
But what do you miss aboutprivate practice?
(17:19):
You never want to go back.
Do you miss anything aboutprivate practice?
Speaker 3 (17:24):
No, I don't, I don't miss private practice, but I do
recognize, acknowledge thatworking for 10 years, eight of
these years in Milan, in thesebig law firms, in the IP
department of these verywell-known law firms, has really
(17:45):
shaped my persona.
First of all because ip is aliving law, as I call it, is a
law which is applied.
I mean, and having worked inthese law firms as a litigator,
understanding the needs ofclients, understanding how you
(18:06):
really protect the IP asset as acompany asset, right Now, it
tells me a lot.
It tells you a lot intransmitting this practical
perspective to students.
If you don't practice, youdon't have this sensibility
right.
And therefore you may want toyou, you may want to read as
(18:29):
many books as possible, but youwill never have the, the
perspective, the practitionerperspective, which helps a lot
students.
For example, I cite many casesin my classes, very well-known
cases which have been covered bymedia, and these of course
(18:50):
creates interest, right.
But of course I'm also able totell students about the
plaintiff's strategy right, howthe plaintiff IP owner is
capable of strategizing the planto enforce one IP right instead
of the other IP right, becausethat's what IP lawyers do they
(19:13):
suggest IP owners.
You know there are many IPrights that you could enforce
here, but for these it may beconvenient to enforce trademarks
rather than copy it, becausethere are many IP interfaces
right, and therefore I am ableto explain students the
(19:33):
perspective, the strategy of thedefendant so plaintiff
defendant and how the judge thendecides.
I mean this experience you canget it just by spending many
hours daily in an office and youknow, writing in a hurry an
urgent complaint for obtaining apreliminary injunction.
(19:55):
I mean, I really like the ideaof having work there, but I
don't miss it.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
So, enrico, can I sorry I'm going to cut in again,
if that's all right?
Um, it's not often.
It's not often I get thisexcited on a podcast, is it?
And I'll share my backgroundwith enrico, probably towards
the end of the podcast.
But I've got a teachingbackground as well, enrico.
Um, so one of the things I wasquite interested in you saying
there is the is the why teachers, if we stick with that as a
term, can become distant frompractice.
So and I know that guillemdabbles does a bit teaching.
(20:31):
I know there's something that'squite he's quite passionate
about.
So how important is it for you,in the work that you do, to get
it, to get in voices of thecurrent practitioner, to get
people like guillem in to do alittle bit of teaching, to bring
the practice into the classroom?
Speaker 3 (20:43):
absolutely.
I regularly invite apractitioner to give guest
lectures in my modules, uh, andstudents like it so much because
, of course, now I am a bitdistant from the practice,
because I don't practice, uh,like I did years ago.
And bringing a practitionerwith fresh, you know, look at
(21:07):
cases, not just lawyers, even IPassessors, value assessor or
patent attorneys, and studentslove it and I think it's
important.
It's important to make themtouch with their hands and with
(21:27):
the real, the real practicalperspective.
And then and I did this withthe William and I edit the books
.
I like editing books and, ofcourse, inviting lawyers or
patent attorneys to writechapters In the context of a
(21:47):
book where there are mainlyacademics is important, right,
because the book will acquirealso a practitioner perspective.
It's important to do to do that.
Otherwise, you know, you havethese academics in the ivory
tower, not looking at thepractical side of things.
It's important, it's importantto to make these wars meet Right
(22:13):
and for the benefit of studentsin class and for the benefit of
readers that end up buying thebook and reading the chapters,
yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Before we go on to the research topic element,
which is really interesting, Iwant to just go back to that
backstory point that you've justmentioned and you may not know
you did this but what you weresaying about bringing your
perspective as a former IPlitigator into looking at claims
and analysing them For betteror worse.
(22:46):
I'm afraid you probably knowthat occasionally academia gets
picked up as being perhaps alittle unworldly.
But I think what you're sayingis academia can be as worldly as
you want to bring thatperspective, but it highlights
something that's alwaysinterested me is that another
area of the IP world that cansometimes be accused of being
unworldly is, of course, thejudiciary world.
That can sometimes be accusedof being about unworldly is, of
course, the judiciary, and Ithink, again, a lot of our
(23:06):
judges have said, yeah, we'renot necessarily the most bugged
in people to the day-to-day life, we're too busy judging.
So you see these judgmentscoming out, uh, and they'll in
my, in my world they'll beanalyzing the motives of the
applicant at the time of filing,about what they intended to
mean, and in in the biglitigations it'll all be the
focus and the cases about thelegal points.
(23:28):
But so often actually what'sgoing on is something you know.
In the case of somebodydrafting a patent application,
they're doing it under enormouspressure and they haven't got
time to get it right.
And the case of litigationthere's two CEOs who absolutely
hate each other and will doanything to destroy the other
people's company.
So I hate each other and willdo anything to destroy the other
people's company.
So it's.
I think it's so important tobring that inside out.
(23:48):
But doesn't it worry you thatso much of our law is actually
only analyzed from such aacademic, perfectionist
perspective and doesn'tnecessarily feed in some of the
very human things that aresitting underneath it?
Speaker 3 (24:01):
But you're specifically asking about the
judge's tasks of.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Well, just more broadly, do you think sometimes
it'd be more helpful to havethat backstory so well, yes, the
case went this way, but ofcourse the CEO had hated the
other CEO for 10 years.
We should factor that into ouranalysis of the importance of
the legal point, absolutely no.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
No, I agree, I agree with that.
I agree, I agree with that.
And also I am in support ofjudges to join academic
platforms and we know that thereare judges, not only in this
country but also in othercountries, that do that Right.
(24:41):
And you, sometimes you see thisin the literature, you see this
and the judge X or judge Y,writing extrajudicially,
believes that Right.
I love writing extrajudiciallybecause it's an academic opinion
of a judge writingextrajudicially Right.
Or when a judge goes to aconference and express an
(25:04):
opinion, of course he or sheexpresses his own opinion, which
should not have any bearing onthe current case law.
Should, because then it's stillan opinion of a very
influential IP person, right.
But I think that they shouldkeep on doing that.
Of course they have their jobs,of course they need to resolve
(25:27):
to write, to write rulings, but,um, getting their opinions on
laws, for example, would beimportant.
Of course it would.
It would be a non-bindingopinion because judges are
subject to the law.
They cannot really modify law,although in common law
(25:50):
jurisdictions we know that youknow started, the sizes and the
present that does have, doeshave, you know, a weight.
But getting the opinions ofjudges.
It would be also interestingfor a policy making perspective
right, because, at the end ofthe day, they need to apply that
law, they need to interpretthat law and they have.
Many of them have a lot ofexperience, decades of judging
(26:14):
cases and, together with lawyers, together with patent attorneys
, together with academics, theycan and they should play a role
right.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Good.
Thank you, agreed's.
I have to say that this podcasthas been great for talking to
just about everybody actuallyand hopefully, you know,
contributing a tiny bit tobuilding that, that community
and that cross-understanding and, um, lee seepers.
But we've we had the meet thejudges event, didn't we?
Last year?
That was a real success,actually fabulous, wasn't it?
(26:45):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So there's conversation cheeky.
Yeah, it's funny, I think.
I sometimes want.
I think the english judicialsystem, the english legal system
, almost requires the judge tobe unworldly, um, funnily enough
, which doesn't help.
You know, you've got to have ajury.
If you want to find out whathumans think, um, you know
you're gonna have an expert.
If you want to hear what thescientists think, all, all
you're allowed to learn.
(27:05):
It's an interesting setup andmaybe it creates its own
artificial problems.
But I was going to move on, ifthat's okay, just to.
You touched already on the bookabout research topics there.
Before we dive into that, let'shear about some of the areas
that you've researched.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
You mentioned standards, but I think you've
got quite a few areas ofinterest one of them is street
art, graffiti and copyright,which is an area, in each area,
I would say, where we see manycases coming set, a few cases
coming coming out, and my aim inthat specific regard is to
(27:42):
raise awareness of the legaltools available to artists in
this subculture, which is a very, you know, particular
subculture, because they maypaint illegally on the street
and therefore you have there theproblem of copywriting a work
which has been created illegallyand stuff.
(28:04):
But there are cases coming outin america, in israel recently,
a court of tel aviv and myresearch there has been very,
very interesting because notonly I did, I carried out legal
research, but also ethnographicresearch.
I interviewed many of thesepractitioners graffiti, street
artists because I was curious toget their opinions on this
(28:27):
world of copyright, and what Igot is a very interesting
picture which has ended up beinga monograph, monograph which I
published two years ago, whosetitle is Copyright in the Street
an oral history of creativeprocesses in the graffiti and
street art subcultures.
Right, and this has been agreat, a great research.
(28:49):
But then I continue.
I am in contact with visualartists.
I like talking to them, evenstudio artists, and I recently
published with other twocolleagues of mine, a paper on
whether it is possible to takelegal action, copyright
enforcement action, whileremaining anonymous, and that
(29:12):
would be very relevant for thosestreet artists to commit crime
while painting right?
Is it possible to stayanonymous at the same time,
enforce enforce cooperatingcourts without disclosing the
name, and it's an exciting areaI am in.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
That's fascinating.
I have a colleague who actuallywas representing, from a
trademark perspective, quite afew street artists.
Funnily enough, she was oftentalking about Brick Lane being a
hub for London street streetart and that really cool passage
by um waterloo station as well,and if you ever walk down there
, I mean the art is magnificent,it's genuinely magnificent.
(29:56):
So in terms of sheer creativecontribution, I think it
deserves protection, as any, youknow, any good innovation does,
um.
And yeah, I've never understoodhow you solve the problem of
great art by people doing dodgythings.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
That seems to be one of the main stories of great art
we have just a few decisions,because most of these cases are
centered out of court, yeah,which is I'm happy for the
artists because it meansprobably their rights are
recognized extra, extra out ofcourt.
But from an academicperspective, I would love more
(30:30):
you know decisions, judicialdecisions, because it would, you
know, clarify several, severalissues.
But I'm happy for artists.
I mean, I'm a bit biased in myresearch in favor of artists,
because I like the art, I likethe way they embellish our town,
which is usually gray, bleak,just with advertising messages.
(30:51):
But no, street art is goodbecause, especially unsanctioned
street art leaves freedom tothe artist.
There is no gallery, there isno editor.
You can express yourself asmuch as you can without any
instructions being received,right, and that's why I love it
and that's why my mission in thelatest years has been to try to
(31:14):
raise awareness on the legaltools which can be used by by
these artists, the majority ofwhich, you know, are not really
knowledgeable.
Sometimes they think thatspeaking with lawyers would not
be helpful because it would bejust a waste of time.
They don't want to beassociated with code, because
they want to spend more time ontheir project, right, they know
(31:35):
that lawyers may be quiteexpensive, and I published even
a short photographic book inlayman terms where I explain
these things with a non-legallanguage and narrative.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
Yeah, it's interesting because they create
the street art for free foreveryone to enjoy.
So I guess the frustrationcomes when it's leveraged by
third parties for money.
So it's funny they can say Ididn't want to make any money
from it, but I resent you makingmoney from something that I
created.
It's interesting isn't it.
(32:14):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Copyright is not a trigger to create.
They create in absence ofcopyright incentives, right, yes
, yes, yes, like many othercreators, by the way.
But then when someoneappropriates, especially the big
corporation, without askingpermission, without sharing
benefits, they get.
Most of them get annoyed andthey would like to take action,
right, yeah.
And one last thing about thistopic I read somewhere that
(32:42):
copyright would be useless tomany of them because it's an
anti-establishment form ofcreativity.
Right, that's a very weakargument.
It's a very weak point because,apart from the fact that there
are many fine artists that areanti-establishment and nobody
doubts about copyright, you know, for these forms of art, but
(33:02):
then copyright would be thelegal tool useful to keep the
message anti-establishment withan injunction.
If there is the big, big companyin the fashion industry which
appropriates your mural, well,artists are.
Many of them might not be happyabout being associated with the
(33:24):
consumeristic message.
The way to keep the messageanti-establishment is exactly by
relying on copyright law andask the judge for an injunction,
right?
So copyright is so neutral andso versatile.
Copyright is there.
If you want to make money, ofcourse, copyright is there to
help you, right, withmerchandising and stuff.
But copyright can also be thetool to keep it real, as they
(33:49):
say in the subculture.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
I can see that, and it's a bit like open source,
isn't it?
I mean, open source is allabout freedom, but it's
underpinned by IP law.
Without IP law, you have nosanction to keep it open source
and stop abuse.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
Copyright is allowed by copyright right.
There would not be copy leftwithout copyright.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
Yeah, yeah.
And you, before the call,before the podcast, you
mentioned a couple of a coupleof other interests, but I think
you said IP and food.
Yes, I heard that.
I heard that.
I knew they'd like that.
I knew they'd like that.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
I recently published a short monograph, together with
a friend of mine who is aphilosopher of food.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
We put together Aren't we all, enrico, aren't we
all.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
We put together a legal expert cases mainly cases,
case studies, 50 case studiesabout, for example, some
geographical indication cases,geographical indication for food
products, where the Court ofJustice of the European Union
has been quite too muchprotective, expanding the scope
(35:03):
of protection of certain GIs.
I just give you an example, acase where the Caso Manchego GI
has been protected very, verybroadly, even against cheese
producers that used on thepackaging not the name Caso
Manchego, which is the wordprotected PDO, but even just the
(35:24):
scenery of Castilla la manchawith the cervantes, donkey shot
characters which remindedconsumers about the castilla.
So we have criticized these,these cases.
Then we have looked at thetrademark related cases where,
or packaging-related cases where, you know, food companies have
(35:46):
tried to protect the lookalike,not the trade dress right of the
packaging.
Then we have looked at recipes,whether recipes can be
copyrighted or not.
We have looked at, of course,biotech case, in case of uh M, m
(36:06):
, g, m O's, and so we have endedup by concluding that you know,
food, uh products and processescan be protected by all IP
rights, different aspects,different assets.
Of course trade, but it'sproduct brands, brands um,
unfair competition in andpassing off protect the shape
(36:28):
and the patents can protect theprocess of manufacturing the
food, including biotechnologicalprocesses.
Then you have plant varietyrights, of course, protecting
new strain, new, new plants.
Then you have trade secrets,which has been used to protect
some you know iconic productlike the Coca-Cola formula or
(36:52):
the Nutella formula.
It's interesting to see how youknow.
And what is important is thatwe have merged the philosophical
and the legal perspectives.
Speaker 2 (37:05):
So I know Lee has a question, but I've got one more
question for you before I passback to Lee, because this is
really good fun.
You said to your students, youtold us that you tell them all
about the good bits of IP andalso the bad bits.
And you've only said good bitsso far.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
Yeah, the bad bits are evident for those who study
this subject.
First of all, we have gonethrough a terrible pandemic,
global pandemic, right, and youknow everybody interested in
these issues have seen that anoverprotection of patents
covering not only vaccines, likethe COVID-19 vaccine, but also
(37:40):
other important technologiessuch as respirators, ventilators
, refrigerators, where to keepthe vaccine.
Well, we have seen that IPrights have been also used in a
way which has inevitablyrestricted availability of this
technology, of this importantmedicine.
(38:01):
This is a bad bit.
I mean, if IP rights are usedand exploited in this way, of
course there are negativespillover effects in terms of
access to important technologiessuch as medicines right.
Then, of course, we have also apotential negative effect on
(38:27):
access to education.
When copyright is enforced in away which limits the
availability of culturalartifacts, right.
And again, during the COVIDpandemic, we have seen that many
students had to receive adigital, you know, training
material, teaching material andstuff.
(38:47):
Again, copyright could be thereto block or at least slow down
the dissemination of importanteducational content Right.
Then again, I have mentioned theGMOs debate.
You know patents protectingdebate.
You know patents protectingpotentially harmful GMOs or
(39:10):
potentially harmful biotechprocess, harmful for human
health, animal health and eventhe environment.
Well, that's a problem becausepatents are incentives, right.
So the big question here isshould the availability of
patents encourage innovators toinvest in potentially harmful
(39:34):
technologies or not?
This is an issue which iswell-radicated in Europe, where
we have a morality exception inpatent law right.
This is less relevant in otherareas, such as America and Japan
, where there is no moralityexception in patent law.
But we should really wonderabout the technology we want to
(39:56):
incentivize, right, because IPrights, especially patents,
incentivize innovation.
But probably the government, inmy opinion, needs to still be
in control and to try to steerinnovation towards socially
acceptable, environmentally laws.
Ip monopolies because we talkabout monopolies can really, you
(40:30):
know, lead us towards, you know, negative outcomes in terms of
access to important technologiesand encouragement in developing
socially valuable you know,valuable innovation.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
Yeah, we had a lot of chat about during lockdown
actually about the vaccine thingin particular and at the time
we pointed to some good bits, Ithink, because there was some
sharing and so on and so forth.
But it is notable that they'veall ended up suing each other
and now it's over.
There was a moment at leastwhere everyone was getting on
well, so yeah, so, lee Lee, overto you.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
Yeah, no, and I think this follows on, actually,
gwilym.
So, enrico, one of the otherpotential negative areas for IP.
I guess it's negative if youlook at it as being a sort of a
negative action that happens,but positive in terms of the
(41:33):
steps we can take to to mitigateand prevent.
Prevent it is criminal activityand it doesn't necessarily come
up in the sort of like thepatent world and perhaps not so
much in the trademark world.
But we know that there's likelyto be probably middle of this
year, towards the sort of latterhalf of this year, uh, a major
consultation on designs, um,particularly unregistered
designs.
There will be within that,voices that will be calling in
much the same way as they calledfor criminal sanctions when we
(41:53):
last did a big review of designs, which I think was about 2014.
Yeah, there will be voicescalling for criminal sanctions
in relation to unregistereddesigns.
Do you have a view and opinionon criminal sanctions and their
role, their place, in the IPworld?
Speaker 3 (42:09):
Well, article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement obliges
countries to make availablecriminal sanctions against
infringers who do infringe on acommercial scale right, and the
interpretation of commercialscale may vary from country to
(42:30):
country, as a WTO court said in2009 in the China-US case, but
of course, we know that thereare criminal organizations,
right, which exploitcounterfeiting and piracy, right
.
We know that, yeah, and probablyeverybody agrees that for such
(42:51):
kind of infringers, criminalsanctions are appropriate right.
Of course, they are lessappropriate when it comes to
non-criminal organization.
When it comes to non-criminalorganization, when it comes to
entrepreneurs, corporationswhich believe to be on the right
side of the law, right, andindeed, in criminal law, one of
(43:14):
the requirement, as we all know,is the mens rea right, the
subjective element, andtherefore criminal sanctions
should be avoided for lessserious cases of infringements
being just reserved for seriousactivities infringing activities
(43:36):
on a commercial scale,especially organized crime.
And indeed, if you look at thecase law, most case law is a
civil proceedings right.
We don't have many cases apartfrom, you know, street vendors,
who you know, who sell fakeLouis Vuitton bags right, but I
(43:59):
do believe that it should be thelast resort right, especially
limited in very serious cases ofcrime so I mean, let me play
that back to you.
Speaker 4 (44:11):
I think I think what I heard there is.
This is more sophisticated thangood against bad, right against
wrong.
Um, yeah, there are nuances inhere.
You can, you can.
You can infringe withoutintending to infringe, and
should that result in a criminalconviction, um, yeah, in in a.
So I'm taken back to a.
(44:32):
It was very early in my time,let's say.
I've been asleep since 2014 andmy background, enrico is in
sort of plumbing, civilengineering that that world and
I remember being at a superevent where the case was being
made for criminalising.
It wasn't SEPA making this case, but the case was being made
for criminalising designinfringement.
(44:52):
And the example of the designthat was given was a raw iron
candlestick.
And the barrister who wasmaking the case said look, this
was clearly designed by X, it'sbeen infringed by Y and it was a
multinational company.
There's clearly an infringementhere.
Effectively, the chief exec ofthis national company should go
(45:13):
to jail for this infringement.
And I remember I stood my handup and I said I'm a wee bit
confused here because you know,at that time I would have been
in my late 40s and I made thatcandlestick as a plumbing
apprentice when I was 17.
That's, you was 17.
That's you know that's not thatperson's design from 10 years
ago, that's been around forever,and that's that cuts to the
kind of nub of this, really,doesn't it?
(45:33):
It's demonstrating where thatoriginal thought, that original
design, came from and whetherthat infringement was um was
therefore valid or not.
Yeah, so have I got that right?
Speaker 3 (45:44):
yeah, but it was in a uak unregistered design, right,
yeah, yeah, yeah, which doesnot protect the ornamental
theaters.
It protects not a kind ofinternal characteristics, not
internal fear.
So in that case, how I mean,it's really difficult to prove
(46:05):
the subjective element right,the willingness to commit a
crime, right, especially if it'sa reseller or a retailer, right
, the last you know ring whichthe business to consumer, let's
(46:26):
say, because one thing is theproducer right, the producer
probably has more chances ofbeing condemned, criminally
condemned, because you know, ifyou produce a clearly infringing
product on a commercial scale,but different will be the
(46:46):
position of the retailer, yeah,yeah, I think one of the I know
that one of the concerns hasalways been yes, we can identify
the extremes of the behavior,but how do you?
Speaker 2 (46:58):
let's not let's not solve this now, but it's all
about how do you identify it insuch a way that you know that
you're clear of it If you are,if you want to call it a kind of
a civil infringer or a criminalinfringer.
And I know that one of theconcerns is you can't advise
your client to take a onepercent risk if the sanction is
criminal.
So I think this is always theproblem.
Let's not solve that now.
(47:19):
I remember that being part ofthe debate.
Um, I was going to quickly geta plug in for the book.
Yeah that's okay.
Probably because I wrote achapter of it, but mostly for
Enrico's benefit.
Speaker 3 (47:30):
Please tell us about your research topics book, I
mean together with my friend andnow I'm ashamed of we have been
asked by I got to to edit abook on the future research
paths in patent law.
So together we know and we haveidentified the several areas
(47:54):
Right when we think that couldbe development as far as well
let's put it this way whereresearch is basically needed
Right way, where research isbasically needed right, and
that's why we had, for example,we had the chapters covering the
(48:22):
access to medicine, the accessto medicines and patent
protection interface with, ofcourse, the, the trips waiver
and with all this debate aboutavailability of vaccines.
Then we have an entire sectiondedicated focusing on the ict,
the ict and the internet ofthings, with william writing
about interfaces right andprofessor jorge contraras
(48:45):
writing about interfaces rightand Professor Jorge Contreras
writing about the new researchpaths, the needed research paths
in standard essential patents.
Myself, together with myco-author, dr Magali Contardi,
we wrote about the landscape ofpatent tools pools in the
telecommunication sector andthen other chapters on gen
(49:12):
editing patents by ProfessorDuncan Matthews, and now I'm my
co-editor writing aboutpatentability of AI applications
, which is a very burning issuenow, in this moment, and, as I
(49:34):
said, the aim has been tohighlight future research paths,
because what we want to do isto spur, to encourage further
research.
So our aim has been to try toindicate, to show early career
researchers or late careerresearchers, it doesn't matter,
and indeed the book contributorsare both established academics
(49:56):
and early career researchers,which is important in my opinion
, to also give chances to youngresearchers right To, in this
case, to try to indicate thefuture of research.
So, and especially to try againto influence the policy making
debate.
Right, and we go back to the,not to the, to the topic which
(50:19):
with which we started this, thisconversation.
We want to, we wanted to offerour expertise to readers, and
our readership aims at beingquite, quite wide right lawyers,
patra turners, policymakers andstudents.
(50:40):
These are part of ourreadership, let's say.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
I enjoyed my chapter, especially when I realized that
it was a book on settingresearch topics.
I didn't have to have any ofthe answers, so the first time I
read it you sent it back andsaid what's that?
And so I realized I could justsay.
Another interesting thing Ihave no answer to is the
following it became reallyinteresting and, Lee, my chapter
is on interfaces and it becamethe realization that if you
control the gateway, youactually control everything
(51:10):
beyond the gateway.
The realization that if youcontrol the gateway, you
actually control everythingbeyond the gateway.
So actually owning the ip andinterface gives you
disproportionate control overstuff beyond that it's really
interesting.
So once I got into it I itrolled.
I mean it just became a seriesof questions and crossovers with
repair and spare parts and allthese other you know must fit
and must match.
All these other topics of IPcame in.
(51:31):
It was really interesting toget into.
I was grateful for the steerthat I got from Enrico.
Speaker 3 (51:35):
I know him actually on that and they are
under-researched, these topics.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
Yeah, some basic economic questions about should
you be able to repair stuff, andthere's some case law on that
and all kinds of stuff in the US.
Speaker 3 (51:51):
There's a right to repair movement in the States
now all kinds of things.
It's fascinating, I must say,that the circular economy and
the right to repair now, as theystarted researching it, I think
last year, two years ago but,for example, I haven't seen many
papers about the must fit andmust match exemption in design
law, for example.
Yeah, yeah, I haven't seen manypapers.
(52:12):
So that's that's our aim to to,to spur, to encourage further,
further research and we hope tohave shown the right paths.
Speaker 4 (52:23):
So, gwilym, I have a job on the podcast, don't I?
And that's to keep us to time,and I, and?
And I did say to Enrico rightat the start of this that we'll
aim for about 40 minutes, and Ifailed miserably because we're,
because we're just coming up tothe hour, which I think just
goes to show what an engagingguest you've been, enrico.
These podcasts always work best, but they just become a
(52:43):
conversation and it feels likeyou're in the pub having it,
having a kind of natter with oldfriends.
That that's.
That's exactly how this felt.
Um, so I I have the job ofclosing down the podcast, which
I'll try and do, but before I dothat, is there anything that
you've not talked about thatyou'd like to quickly reference?
Are there any things that youwanted to particularly come on
and get across, or do you thinkyou've, um, do you think you've
exhausted your repertoire?
Speaker 3 (53:05):
well, I mean, just let me conclude with the fact
that I, I, I, I, I really lovegiving classes, lectures, talks,
not just in this country, but Itravel a lot and crossing
borders.
Teaching classes of ip in sodiverse countries with so
(53:26):
different ethnic, religiousbackgrounds has been something
which has made me the person Iam and more solid, more
discerning of diversity andstuff, and it's incredible to
see how students, especiallystudents, young students, are so
happy to listen to me and I tryto integrate, let's say, the
(53:53):
global South perspective, thedeveloping countries perspective
, in all my teaching when I amin our countries, let's say in
the UK.
I think this is it's tiring,because traveling, of course, is
tiring.
I have a family and thereforeit's not easy, but I can still
do it because I am, I want to doit, because I am enthusiastic
and it never stops enriching meso I can understand why your
(54:16):
students are so engaged, becauseI could listen to you forever.
Speaker 4 (54:18):
Yeah, but we don't have that luxury, gwilym.
So what happens at the end,enrico, is that either Gwilym or
I try and close the podcastwith a question that's maybe a
little bit tangential.
It will be something aboutsomething we've talked about
that won't necessarily beentirely relevant.
(54:41):
So I've got one Gwilym, butit's sort of in two parts.
Can I do a two-part?
Speaker 3 (54:46):
close-up.
Speaker 4 (54:48):
So the way this works , enrica, is, I'm going to ask
Gwilym, I'll then ask you, andthen Gwilym will kind of bounce
it back on me.
So so here's my question, and Isort of indicated it earlier.
So I'm I'm a teacher, I'm anacademic by background, I've
taught in FE, I've taught inhigher education.
Gwilym's done a fair bit ofteaching.
We know that you are clearly,um, an expert teacher.
(55:10):
So, guillem, two part question,right, what's the oddest thing,
kind of perhaps most removedfrom your professional life that
you've ever taught anybody, andalso, who was your best teacher
?
Speaker 2 (55:26):
oh, I can thank you.
I can do both this.
So, um, the first one actuallyfor SIPA we saw a lot of
delegations from China and wehave one and I love is taking
the visitors for British publunch, because I think it's a
really cool traditional thing todo and they love it.
It turned out to be reallypopular, except once I realised
that the trick was to put thefood in the middle to show it
(55:48):
out, because it was really quitealien to somebody coming from
Chinese second city to a Londonpub.
So we've resolved all that.
But we went to one pub and theyhad got our order wrong.
So they said it's me 40 minutesfor the food to come and that
was embarrassing for us.
But actually that made itembarrassing for the guests,
because they don't want to seeus embarrassed.
So I had to pretend that it wason purpose so that I could
(56:10):
provide a lecture on the historyof the pub about which I knew
absolutely nothing.
So then I had to extemporise it.
I got to go at half an hour ofthe history of the pub.
It was on Fleet Street.
I mentioned Charles Dickensabout 15 times basically, but
otherwise pretty much made it up.
So I was quite proud of that.
Second question was my bestteacher, your best teacher?
(56:32):
Yeah, my favorite teacher, fairpoint.
Uh, it was, um, I did a levelhistory and my history teacher
was mr chris force, who made itto the semi-finals, or maybe
even the finals of masterminds afew years ago.
Because he's a he's just a hugecharacter and he's a force of
nature.
He's still with us.
He's just a huge character andhe's a force of nature.
He's brilliant.
And I remember he once did theoh, I forget the name the Yalta,
(56:55):
when Stalin, churchill andRoosevelt met in the late
mid-40s to kind of finish thewar.
But when he did it he wouldjump on the desk and do an
impression of each of the threeof them presenting their
position and it was absolutelymagnificent.
I mean he couldn't do any ofthe three of them presenting
their position and it wasabsolutely magnificent.
I mean you couldn't do any ofthe accents.
He did a decent WinstonChurchill, but his Russian and
(57:15):
American were really dodgy.
But he absolutely brought it tolife and it's captivating, it's
fantastic.
That was a good teacher thereyou go that's lovely.
Speaker 4 (57:24):
I really enjoyed listening to you that time.
Not always so.
Speaker 3 (57:29):
So, enrico, then the same two-part for you, perhaps
the strangest thing you foundyourself teaching, and maybe
your favorite teacher, theperson who influenced you the
most, whoever it might bemissions of the war,
(57:53):
intellectual property trainingmissions of the yp, the wipo, in
developing countries, africa,asia and one of these countries
recently, a few months ago, acolleague of mine collapsed
while while, while teaching,while training, probably because
the air conditioning was notworking.
Then we really got scared andthat was a very bad moment but
luckily luckily, she thenrecovered quite quickly.
(58:16):
In a few hours she was OK, butfor a few minutes I was really
scared.
You know, that's another.
That's maybe a negative aspectof, you know, teaching in, in,
in places where you know theit's very warm, the
infrastructure is not, as let'ssay, comfortable like our nice
offices in London and stuff, butit's part of the game, I would
(58:40):
say right, and therefore I takeit as a part of it.
And the second question I thinkthat the person who had more
influence in me, the teacher, ismy first IP mentor who actually
convinced me, I mean pushed me,to specialize in this sector,
(59:00):
in the IP, and it is.
He's a professor, marco Ricolfi, at the University of Turin.
He was.
He has been directing the firstWIPO master in Cure in Italy
for many years and it was himthat gave me the idea of
applying for this WIPO master in2025 ago, and it changed my
(59:21):
life, because now I'm talkingabout IP law with you and
probably I'm doing that becauseof that person who has shaped my
life.
Ah, lovely, lovely, oh that'stwo lovely answers.
Speaker 4 (59:34):
I've really enjoyed listening to both of you, so
we'll stop it there, shall we?
Speaker 2 (59:37):
no, let's hear what you've got to say.
Speaker 4 (59:39):
Lee, about a your most unlikely teaching
experience, and be your favoriteteacher you know, I didn't get
the first part of this questionmuch thought, william, it was
such a good question I didn'tactually think about it.
So I've been thinking about itand, yeah, I know I should have
um, so I've been, I've beenthinking about it as I've been
going along and it's, I think it.
(01:00:00):
I think the two are related forme, so that when I finished, so
I was a plumbing apprentice,enrico, so I did that and was
pretty good at it and fairlyearly on got offered the
opportunity to go on and do ahigher national diploma in
building civil engineering.
So started that, and so I findmyself doing this civil
(01:00:24):
engineering course and oneevening one of the lecturers
doesn't turn up, so similar sortof thing doesn't turn up, and
that evening the lecture isabout mechanical services, so
plumbing in gas, essentially.
And I remember the head of theum hnd department coming in,
coming over to me and sayingyou're a plumber, can you teach
the class this evening?
So it was so my, so the subjectwas familiar to me?
(01:00:48):
Yeah, but it was, it was morethe context.
So never, ever, sort of, have Istood up in front of a bunch of
people that were effectively mypeers and had to try and teach
them something without any prep,but it was.
It was that that encouraged meto then think about becoming a
teacher.
So that was a sort of like thespur then to.
(01:01:09):
And I never, ever did completethat HND because I went off to
do teacher training instead.
And then that person was also sothe head of that department,
guy called Malcolm Peake, wasalso probably the most so he.
He used to teach, um, so,building, uh, civil engineering,
surveying, and I was enthralled.
He was the most captivatingteacher.
He was really enthralling.
(01:01:30):
So he didn't just give me thatkind of first break in teaching
by chucking me in at the deepend, but also was a role model
for me.
And bizarrely, gwilym, I wastalking about him Saturday in
the pub because we had a bit ofa conversation about who our
favourite teachers were.
And then I go to and I've notseen him for over 20 years and
(01:01:52):
I'm in next looking for a niceshirt, jacket, combo for a meal
we've got tomorrow evening, um,and and I bump into him.
So quite, quite bizarrely,talking about the day before,
but bump into him, we have alittle shake hands combo and he
says to me he said this isreally weird.
He said I was only tellingsomeone in the pub yesterday
that story about when I droppedyou in on that, on that teaching
.
So how bizarre that we've bothbeen talking about one another
in a pub the day before and thenwe bumped into each other in
(01:02:14):
next.
So, um, yeah, that's that'smine.
I didn't, I didn't know I wasgonna say that until I started
telling that story.
Well, I'm glad you did, enrico,it's been absolutely gorgeous
having you on the podcast.
Speaker 3 (01:02:26):
Thank, thank you for coming on for me as well.
It's been a very pleasantconversation.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (01:02:30):
Really enjoyed it.
Yeah, you were quite tolerablethis time too, I do.
Speaker 2 (01:02:34):
I can you know?
You were great.
You were great, you were great.
Speaker 3 (01:02:38):
So you're going to, you're going to disseminate the
podcast some, some platform.
Speaker 4 (01:02:48):
I'll tell you all about that in a moment.
I'll tell you all about that ina moment, so let me just turn
the podcast off, as it were.
So thanks for coming on, enrico, see you on the next one.
And, listeners, if you'veenjoyed this podcast and there's
no reason why you shouldn'tbecause this has been so, so
good then leave a review on thepodcasting platform of your
choice and other people willfind us.
Thanks, both thank you.
Speaker 1 (01:03:29):
Other people will find us.
Thanks both.
Thank you.
We'll see you next time.
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.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Attorneys.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
So, gwilym, welcome to another podcast.
Good to see you again.
It must be at least what a weeksince I saw you in person.
I think it's a bit of a gap.
Bit of a gap.
Yeah.
So SEPA Council last weekAlways good to see you around.
That, were you there.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I was there.
I was there, I was there, yeah.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
It's a really exciting day for me because we
had SEPA council and then a fewof us disappeared to the pub.
The pub where we go to I don'tknow if I'm allowed to mention
on the podcast, but we go to theChristopher Hatton just
opposite the office.
And the trouble with theChristopher Hatton I don't know
if you noticed it, but it's gotno mobile signal and whilst we
were there I missed my sontrying to get hold of me to
(00:58):
announce the fact that I'dbecome a granddad for the
seventh time, seventh time?
Speaker 2 (01:02):
No, you sent me a photo of the baby Very.
We don't know his name now, butHudson, hudson.
Lovely looking little thing,very healthy looking thing.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Yeah, nice, I just kind of just knock them out now,
don't they?
It's just, I get used to it,they just keep arriving.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Love it.
Well, I had Beth's, mydaughter's, third birthday party
at the weekend.
Oh how can she be three already, I know.
So we quizzed her this time onparty games that she'd like and
she's beginning to know a littlebit about party games and her
choices were obviously musicalstatues, obviously, obviously,
pass the Parcel.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
And, slightly less obviously, musical tangerines.
Oh, is this one of your made-upgames.
It turned out it's not me.
She said I want to play musicaltangerines.
So yeah, we played musicaltangerines.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
I think it's going to take off have you got time
quickly to tell us the rules?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
well, I think it's going to be a very fluid uh, a
very fluid game, but it can beinterpreted in different ways.
But what we did was you gaveeach this is three year olds,
you gave each child a tangerineand then obviously they have to
name the tangerine, right?
I had a bunch of names.
One beth's was called beth.
Someone else had a tangerinecalled reemy.
Then you play some music andyou dance with your tangerine
(02:14):
and when the music stops, youfall to the floor and then check
your tangerines, okay, and thenyou feed it to your mum or your
dad.
That's a lovely's a lovely game.
It's actually a really, reallygood game.
It went down very well.
Kids enjoyed it, parentsenjoyed it, as long as they
weren't allergic to tangerine.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Is this a Robert's original or is this something
you've done before?
It is now.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
No, it's just Beth's idea.
I want to play musicaltangerines, so off we went.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
Oh cool.
I don't think of a better wayto start a podcast, can you
other than having an amazingguest?
And we've got a great guest ontoday, so I'm quite looking
forward to this one.
It's been a little while sincewe've had anybody from the world
of academia to talk to us about, um, what's happening there and
how that crosses over to ourworld of ip.
So so we've got Enrico with us.
Enrico, hi, how are you?
I'm fine, thanks.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Thanks for the invitation.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
It's lovely to have you on the podcast For our
listeners.
Would you care to tell us a?
Speaker 3 (03:14):
wee bit about yourself.
Yes, of course, my name isEnrico Bonadio and I am an
academic specialising inintellectual property law at
City St George's's University ofLondon, and so IP is my
occupation.
I teach, I conduct research inthe field of IP by looking at
all IP rights patents, copyright, trademarks.
(03:38):
I come from the privatepractice.
Before joining academia in 2009in the uk, I basically was in
private practice in in in italy,milan, as an ip litigator, so I
I I advise clients in severalareas again trademark law,
patent law and copyright law.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Yes, and what um?
What caused the move to theworld of academia?
What was the spur for you to dothat?
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Well, while working as a lawyer, I also completed my
PhD at the University ofFlorence, a PhD where I studied
in depth the TRIPS agreement andfrom an international trade
perspective, and especiallybiotech patents and especially
biotech patents.
So I always had this academicperspective profile and I found
(04:33):
then that studying, researchingand teaching, having contact
with students, was more my cupof tea.
I would say I like bothteaching and researching.
I like to make studentspassionate about IP.
That's my mission.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Is that an easy gig, or do you find that a bit of a
challenge?
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Well, I mean, I find it very pleasant.
So if you do things whileremaining happy, it means that
it's easier to do them right.
So I like this aspect of my jobto communicate and to transmit
(05:25):
my passion for this subject.
I must say this subject is verynice, so it helps me a lot in
communicating.
It's an area of law which Isuddenly fell in love with 25
years ago when I first did mymaster in IP was a WIPO master
in Turin and I must say that thethings we teach as IP scholars
(05:48):
are really appealing to students, because what I always tell my
students the very first day ofthe IP module IP surrounds us
From the minute you wake up inthe morning until the minute you
(06:09):
sleep at night.
In those 14, 15 hours you areexposed to IP.
When you go to the supermarketbrands, when you use your
computer, your laptop software,IP permeates our lives and I
think students appreciate thisbecause they realize really ip
is surrounding us and thereforestudying such subject, which is
(06:34):
very different ip nights, arevery different from themselves.
It's important, right, because,uh, it affects our daily lives
positively and sometimesnegatively.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
And, seeing as you're kind of one of your early
interests I think you said therewas trips Do you get trips?
Obviously cuts across trade andtrade's been a biggie for the
UK since it decided to cutitself free from the European
Union.
Have you kept yourself on topof trade agreements and stuff
like that?
Is that something you have anactive interest?
Speaker 3 (07:05):
in.
I mean I studied the withdrawalagreement, the post brexit
withdrawal agreement, the ipaspects of the withdrawal
agreement, uh and uh, yeah, I'minterested in that, even if
still I cannot see yet how uk isdiverging a lot from the EU.
Acquiesce, I would say, yes, itformally now can diverge, but I
(07:30):
don't think that this freedomto diverge will be fully
exploited, because I think it isin the British interest to
align as much as possible withEU rules on ip because it's the
biggest trading partner.
So for fully exploitingeconomies of scale, right does
(07:53):
not make sense to diverge toomuch right from from that set of
rules.
Um so, but yes, of course I aminterested in the trade related,
international trade relatedaspects of of ip because, again,
what I tell my students is thatyou know the lack of IP
protection is an obstacle totrade.
(08:14):
It's a non-tariff barrier totrade, right, yeah, that's what
I tell them all the time tellthem all the time yeah, um.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
So this is a good example actually of of that
crossover between academia andthe rest of ip.
Um, because, uh, it's everyone.
All these different areascontribute different things and
you've got the great experienceof being in private practice and
then going into academia.
But I think realistically, ifit weren't for academia, who
would be talking about trips andgross economic effects and
tariffs and not tariffs andthings?
So really that's a big role foracademia to do that blue sky
(08:52):
thinking for everyone else.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Absolutely, you're right, because it's the task of
academics to study the TRIPS andto understand and to interpret
TRIPS provisions.
To study the TRIPS and tounderstand it.
To interpret TRIPS provisions.
I mean lawyers are less exposedto TRIPS because they are more
interested in national laws,right?
Or EU law, which is a regionallaw.
But you know national laws.
They need to comply with.
(09:15):
Trips.
Trips has not been arevolutionary tool for
industrialized countries.
Actually, the TRIPS agreementhas been imposed by
industrialized countries ondeveloping and least developed
countries because, if you lookat the wording of many
provisions in the TRIPSagreement is borrowed from us
(09:35):
patent law or trademark, eutrademark law.
You know, it's the task ofacademics in general to study IP
law, also for the benefit ofpolicymakers, right?
So academia is really importantto inform policymakers, to
(10:00):
influence policymakers,influence policymakers because,
let's be honest, if we leave ipas a subject in the hands of
lawyer and patent attorneys,that, with all my respect, of
course, which of course is, is anecessary profession, but it's
just a part of the picture,right?
And we also need to look atacademic works, because
(10:27):
academics can, I think, see thisfair, 360 degrees, right, and
can also assess the impact oflegislations on society, right,
and that's why, regularly, theBritish government, the European
Commission and the USgovernment, what they do is to
(10:50):
launch consultations, right, oneof them is very recent, about
AI and IP, as you may be aware.
I mean, and these consultationsare, of course, are attended,
attended, are used by lawyers.
The point, the point of view oflawyers is important, of course
, because, at the end of the day, they work with the final rule
(11:12):
in front of judges and therefore, but of course, academics can
also play a role by analyzingthe impact of IP legislation on
society, on various aspects ofsociety, of course.
So I think that, yes, academiashould even more represent a
(11:34):
bridge right Towards, a bridgewhich connects the expertise,
the academic expertise, withpolicymaking, by making sure
that all voices are heard andrepresented Right.
And you know, sometimes, andunfortunately at EU level, also
(11:56):
at national level, sometimes thevoice of some stakeholders is
louder than the voice of otherstakeholders, right, consumers
vis-a-vis industry or platforms.
We need to make sure that allvoices are heard and academics
can help on that.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
Totally, I've got a score Go on then Can I just cut
in.
I don't cut across you often,mate Go on, I've got a score.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
I don't cut across you often mate, go on I've got
across often.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
So get on, don't lose track of where you were going
with this.
But I was really interested inrico in the points that you were
making there about the um, theintersection between academia
and policy making, and I meanI'm sure you had an eye on the
uk's accession to thecomprehensive and progressive
agreement for trans-PacificPartnership, the CPTPP.
Sepa was all over that in termsof concerns we had about how
(12:52):
the provisions in the CPTPP maynot align neatly with the EPC
European Patent Convention andour role in the EPA our role in
the EPA.
So we spent quite a lot of timeworking with and through
government to try and ensurethat in signing up to the CPTPP
we didn't injure any of ourexisting agreements and
relationships.
But it never crossed my mindfor one minute to reach out to
(13:14):
the academic world to see how wecould work together with
academia to do that.
So how do you influencepolicymaking?
How do academics involvethemselves in influencing policy
?
I'm really interested.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Well, for example, myself, I have been commissioned
several years ago by theEuropean Parliament, a report on
standard essential patents.
By the way, I also do researchin the field of standard
essential patents in the IT, inthe Internet of Things sector.
The IT in the Internet ofThings sector, and what
academics do are writing reportscommissioned by parliaments, by
(13:52):
the European Commission, and inthis way they can participate
right to the decision process,to the preparatory work which
then leads to, for example, aregulation proposal or a
directive proposal.
So increasingly, in bothamerica and europe, uk academics
(14:16):
are part of this process, andthat's fantastic insight.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
Yeah, right, yeah, I really appreciate that and, um,
I think my learning from this isthe next time we involve
ourselves in a big policy area,we need to reach out more to the
academic world, and that thathadn't really crossed my mind
previously.
Good to you.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Apologies for a little um interjection no,
actually just a quick comment onthat, pointly just, I think,
for good order.
Duncan matthews and queen marywere definitely there at the
beginning of those conversationsand gave me some good steers.
So so shout out to academics.
But you're right, I think thelevel of power they bring, kind
of an influence they bring, isreally important.
I had a great philosophicalquestion, so talking about
(14:54):
different entities commenting onmatters of policy, whatever it
might be.
And you've got private practicewe answer to our clients.
You've got in-house you answerto your employer practice we
answer to our clients.
You've got in-house you answerto your employer.
You've got the judiciary youanswer to the law.
And you've got the governmentyou answer to the electorate.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Who do you answer to?
Who does academia represent?
Well, we answer to students,first of all, when we teach
right and I integrate researchin my teaching right it's
important to to do so because wealso need to tell students that
we don't just teach right,because they, most of them,
think that you know, we go toclass, we prepare classes and
that's it.
Well, that's just a part of it,because many academics also do
(15:38):
research and I do not respond to, you know, to any, I mean in
terms of commitments, when I'mcommissioned to do a report, of
course I welcome the invitation,but then I keep my academic
freedom.
So what I think academics canbring to the table is
(16:01):
independent views right, exactlybecause we don't have clients
right To respond to.
We have the material we need tostudy.
We have the law.
We study the law.
We read a huge amount ofliterature right To be able to
form an opinion, and the more weread, the more solid our
(16:30):
opinion will be and the moresolid our report will be.
That's what, again, I tellstudents when they need to do
and write a dissertation right.
The more you read in terms ofliterature, the more aware you
will be of issues and more solidwill your dissertation be?
So, coming back to your, toyour question, we don't respond
to client.
We don't respond to, apart fromthe books we read and the laws
(16:54):
we we examine very clear.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Thank you, um, I'll keep going, lee.
Yeah, you keep going, you keepgoing, so I should just just
take it back.
Actually, this is more just outof curiosity.
Personally, I've always been inprivate practice.
I do quite a lot with QueenMary, actually, in terms of
lecturing and some other bitsand pieces like that and, as you
know, writing the old chapterwhich we'll come on to.
But what do you miss aboutprivate practice?
(17:19):
You never want to go back.
Do you miss anything aboutprivate practice?
Speaker 3 (17:24):
No, I don't, I don't miss private practice, but I do
recognize, acknowledge thatworking for 10 years, eight of
these years in Milan, in thesebig law firms, in the IP
department of these verywell-known law firms, has really
(17:45):
shaped my persona.
First of all because ip is aliving law, as I call it, is a
law which is applied.
I mean, and having worked inthese law firms as a litigator,
understanding the needs ofclients, understanding how you
(18:06):
really protect the IP asset as acompany asset, right Now, it
tells me a lot.
It tells you a lot intransmitting this practical
perspective to students.
If you don't practice, youdon't have this sensibility
right.
And therefore you may want toyou, you may want to read as
(18:29):
many books as possible, but youwill never have the, the
perspective, the practitionerperspective, which helps a lot
students.
For example, I cite many casesin my classes, very well-known
cases which have been covered bymedia, and these of course
(18:50):
creates interest, right.
But of course I'm also able totell students about the
plaintiff's strategy right, howthe plaintiff IP owner is
capable of strategizing the planto enforce one IP right instead
of the other IP right, becausethat's what IP lawyers do they
(19:13):
suggest IP owners.
You know there are many IPrights that you could enforce
here, but for these it may beconvenient to enforce trademarks
rather than copy it, becausethere are many IP interfaces
right, and therefore I am ableto explain students the
(19:33):
perspective, the strategy of thedefendant so plaintiff
defendant and how the judge thendecides.
I mean this experience you canget it just by spending many
hours daily in an office and youknow, writing in a hurry an
urgent complaint for obtaining apreliminary injunction.
(19:55):
I mean, I really like the ideaof having work there, but I
don't miss it.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
So, enrico, can I sorry I'm going to cut in again,
if that's all right?
Um, it's not often.
It's not often I get thisexcited on a podcast, is it?
And I'll share my backgroundwith enrico, probably towards
the end of the podcast.
But I've got a teachingbackground as well, enrico.
Um, so one of the things I wasquite interested in you saying
there is the is the why teachers, if we stick with that as a
term, can become distant frompractice.
So and I know that guillemdabbles does a bit teaching.
(20:31):
I know there's something that'squite he's quite passionate
about.
So how important is it for you,in the work that you do, to get
it, to get in voices of thecurrent practitioner, to get
people like guillem in to do alittle bit of teaching, to bring
the practice into the classroom?
Speaker 3 (20:43):
absolutely.
I regularly invite apractitioner to give guest
lectures in my modules, uh, andstudents like it so much because
, of course, now I am a bitdistant from the practice,
because I don't practice, uh,like I did years ago.
And bringing a practitionerwith fresh, you know, look at
(21:07):
cases, not just lawyers, even IPassessors, value assessor or
patent attorneys, and studentslove it and I think it's
important.
It's important to make themtouch with their hands and with
(21:27):
the real, the real practicalperspective.
And then and I did this withthe William and I edit the books
.
I like editing books and, ofcourse, inviting lawyers or
patent attorneys to writechapters In the context of a
(21:47):
book where there are mainlyacademics is important, right,
because the book will acquirealso a practitioner perspective.
It's important to do to do that.
Otherwise, you know, you havethese academics in the ivory
tower, not looking at thepractical side of things.
It's important, it's importantto to make these wars meet Right
(22:13):
and for the benefit of studentsin class and for the benefit of
readers that end up buying thebook and reading the chapters,
yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Before we go on to the research topic element,
which is really interesting, Iwant to just go back to that
backstory point that you've justmentioned and you may not know
you did this but what you weresaying about bringing your
perspective as a former IPlitigator into looking at claims
and analysing them For betteror worse.
(22:46):
I'm afraid you probably knowthat occasionally academia gets
picked up as being perhaps alittle unworldly.
But I think what you're sayingis academia can be as worldly as
you want to bring thatperspective, but it highlights
something that's alwaysinterested me is that another
area of the IP world that cansometimes be accused of being
unworldly is, of course, thejudiciary world.
That can sometimes be accusedof being about unworldly is, of
course, the judiciary, and Ithink, again, a lot of our
(23:06):
judges have said, yeah, we'renot necessarily the most bugged
in people to the day-to-day life, we're too busy judging.
So you see these judgmentscoming out, uh, and they'll in
my, in my world they'll beanalyzing the motives of the
applicant at the time of filing,about what they intended to
mean, and in in the biglitigations it'll all be the
focus and the cases about thelegal points.
(23:28):
But so often actually what'sgoing on is something you know.
In the case of somebodydrafting a patent application,
they're doing it under enormouspressure and they haven't got
time to get it right.
And the case of litigationthere's two CEOs who absolutely
hate each other and will doanything to destroy the other
people's company.
So I hate each other and willdo anything to destroy the other
people's company.
So it's.
I think it's so important tobring that inside out.
(23:48):
But doesn't it worry you thatso much of our law is actually
only analyzed from such aacademic, perfectionist
perspective and doesn'tnecessarily feed in some of the
very human things that aresitting underneath it?
Speaker 3 (24:01):
But you're specifically asking about the
judge's tasks of.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Well, just more broadly, do you think sometimes
it'd be more helpful to havethat backstory so well, yes, the
case went this way, but ofcourse the CEO had hated the
other CEO for 10 years.
We should factor that into ouranalysis of the importance of
the legal point, absolutely no.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
No, I agree, I agree with that.
I agree, I agree with that.
And also I am in support ofjudges to join academic
platforms and we know that thereare judges, not only in this
country but also in othercountries, that do that Right.
(24:41):
And you, sometimes you see thisin the literature, you see this
and the judge X or judge Y,writing extrajudicially,
believes that Right.
I love writing extrajudiciallybecause it's an academic opinion
of a judge writingextrajudicially Right.
Or when a judge goes to aconference and express an
(25:04):
opinion, of course he or sheexpresses his own opinion, which
should not have any bearing onthe current case law.
Should, because then it's stillan opinion of a very
influential IP person, right.
But I think that they shouldkeep on doing that.
Of course they have their jobs,of course they need to resolve
(25:27):
to write, to write rulings, but,um, getting their opinions on
laws, for example, would beimportant.
Of course it would.
It would be a non-bindingopinion because judges are
subject to the law.
They cannot really modify law,although in common law
(25:50):
jurisdictions we know that youknow started, the sizes and the
present that does have, doeshave, you know, a weight.
But getting the opinions ofjudges.
It would be also interestingfor a policy making perspective
right, because, at the end ofthe day, they need to apply that
law, they need to interpretthat law and they have.
Many of them have a lot ofexperience, decades of judging
(26:14):
cases and, together with lawyers, together with patent attorneys
, together with academics, theycan and they should play a role
right.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Good.
Thank you, agreed's.
I have to say that this podcasthas been great for talking to
just about everybody actuallyand hopefully, you know,
contributing a tiny bit tobuilding that, that community
and that cross-understanding and, um, lee seepers.
But we've we had the meet thejudges event, didn't we?
Last year?
That was a real success,actually fabulous, wasn't it?
(26:45):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So there's conversation cheeky.
Yeah, it's funny, I think.
I sometimes want.
I think the english judicialsystem, the english legal system
, almost requires the judge tobe unworldly, um, funnily enough
, which doesn't help.
You know, you've got to have ajury.
If you want to find out whathumans think, um, you know
you're gonna have an expert.
If you want to hear what thescientists think, all, all
you're allowed to learn.
(27:05):
It's an interesting setup andmaybe it creates its own
artificial problems.
But I was going to move on, ifthat's okay, just to.
You touched already on the bookabout research topics there.
Before we dive into that, let'shear about some of the areas
that you've researched.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
You mentioned standards, but I think you've
got quite a few areas ofinterest one of them is street
art, graffiti and copyright,which is an area, in each area,
I would say, where we see manycases coming set, a few cases
coming coming out, and my aim inthat specific regard is to
(27:42):
raise awareness of the legaltools available to artists in
this subculture, which is a very, you know, particular
subculture, because they maypaint illegally on the street
and therefore you have there theproblem of copywriting a work
which has been created illegallyand stuff.
(28:04):
But there are cases coming outin america, in israel recently,
a court of tel aviv and myresearch there has been very,
very interesting because notonly I did, I carried out legal
research, but also ethnographicresearch.
I interviewed many of thesepractitioners graffiti, street
artists because I was curious toget their opinions on this
(28:27):
world of copyright, and what Igot is a very interesting
picture which has ended up beinga monograph, monograph which I
published two years ago, whosetitle is Copyright in the Street
an oral history of creativeprocesses in the graffiti and
street art subcultures.
Right, and this has been agreat, a great research.
(28:49):
But then I continue.
I am in contact with visualartists.
I like talking to them, evenstudio artists, and I recently
published with other twocolleagues of mine, a paper on
whether it is possible to takelegal action, copyright
enforcement action, whileremaining anonymous, and that
(29:12):
would be very relevant for thosestreet artists to commit crime
while painting right?
Is it possible to stayanonymous at the same time,
enforce enforce cooperatingcourts without disclosing the
name, and it's an exciting areaI am in.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
That's fascinating.
I have a colleague who actuallywas representing, from a
trademark perspective, quite afew street artists.
Funnily enough, she was oftentalking about Brick Lane being a
hub for London street streetart and that really cool passage
by um waterloo station as well,and if you ever walk down there
, I mean the art is magnificent,it's genuinely magnificent.
(29:56):
So in terms of sheer creativecontribution, I think it
deserves protection, as any, youknow, any good innovation does,
um.
And yeah, I've never understoodhow you solve the problem of
great art by people doing dodgythings.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
That seems to be one of the main stories of great art
we have just a few decisions,because most of these cases are
centered out of court, yeah,which is I'm happy for the
artists because it meansprobably their rights are
recognized extra, extra out ofcourt.
But from an academicperspective, I would love more
(30:30):
you know decisions, judicialdecisions, because it would, you
know, clarify several, severalissues.
But I'm happy for artists.
I mean, I'm a bit biased in myresearch in favor of artists,
because I like the art, I likethe way they embellish our town,
which is usually gray, bleak,just with advertising messages.
(30:51):
But no, street art is goodbecause, especially unsanctioned
street art leaves freedom tothe artist.
There is no gallery, there isno editor.
You can express yourself asmuch as you can without any
instructions being received,right, and that's why I love it
and that's why my mission in thelatest years has been to try to
(31:14):
raise awareness on the legaltools which can be used by by
these artists, the majority ofwhich, you know, are not really
knowledgeable.
Sometimes they think thatspeaking with lawyers would not
be helpful because it would bejust a waste of time.
They don't want to beassociated with code, because
they want to spend more time ontheir project, right, they know
(31:35):
that lawyers may be quiteexpensive, and I published even
a short photographic book inlayman terms where I explain
these things with a non-legallanguage and narrative.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
Yeah, it's interesting because they create
the street art for free foreveryone to enjoy.
So I guess the frustrationcomes when it's leveraged by
third parties for money.
So it's funny they can say Ididn't want to make any money
from it, but I resent you makingmoney from something that I
created.
It's interesting isn't it.
(32:14):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Copyright is not a trigger to create.
They create in absence ofcopyright incentives, right, yes
, yes, yes, like many othercreators, by the way.
But then when someoneappropriates, especially the big
corporation, without askingpermission, without sharing
benefits, they get.
Most of them get annoyed andthey would like to take action,
right, yeah.
And one last thing about thistopic I read somewhere that
(32:42):
copyright would be useless tomany of them because it's an
anti-establishment form ofcreativity.
Right, that's a very weakargument.
It's a very weak point because,apart from the fact that there
are many fine artists that areanti-establishment and nobody
doubts about copyright, you know, for these forms of art, but
(33:02):
then copyright would be thelegal tool useful to keep the
message anti-establishment withan injunction.
If there is the big, big companyin the fashion industry which
appropriates your mural, well,artists are.
Many of them might not be happyabout being associated with the
(33:24):
consumeristic message.
The way to keep the messageanti-establishment is exactly by
relying on copyright law andask the judge for an injunction,
right?
So copyright is so neutral andso versatile.
Copyright is there.
If you want to make money, ofcourse, copyright is there to
help you, right, withmerchandising and stuff.
But copyright can also be thetool to keep it real, as they
(33:49):
say in the subculture.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
I can see that, and it's a bit like open source,
isn't it?
I mean, open source is allabout freedom, but it's
underpinned by IP law.
Without IP law, you have nosanction to keep it open source
and stop abuse.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
Copyright is allowed by copyright right.
There would not be copy leftwithout copyright.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
Yeah, yeah.
And you, before the call,before the podcast, you
mentioned a couple of a coupleof other interests, but I think
you said IP and food.
Yes, I heard that.
I heard that.
I knew they'd like that.
I knew they'd like that.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
I recently published a short monograph, together with
a friend of mine who is aphilosopher of food.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
We put together Aren't we all, enrico, aren't we
all.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
We put together a legal expert cases mainly cases,
case studies, 50 case studiesabout, for example, some
geographical indication cases,geographical indication for food
products, where the Court ofJustice of the European Union
has been quite too muchprotective, expanding the scope
(35:03):
of protection of certain GIs.
I just give you an example, acase where the Caso Manchego GI
has been protected very, verybroadly, even against cheese
producers that used on thepackaging not the name Caso
Manchego, which is the wordprotected PDO, but even just the
(35:24):
scenery of Castilla la manchawith the cervantes, donkey shot
characters which remindedconsumers about the castilla.
So we have criticized these,these cases.
Then we have looked at thetrademark related cases where,
or packaging-related cases where, you know, food companies have
(35:46):
tried to protect the lookalike,not the trade dress right of the
packaging.
Then we have looked at recipes,whether recipes can be
copyrighted or not.
We have looked at, of course,biotech case, in case of uh M, m
(36:06):
, g, m O's, and so we have endedup by concluding that you know,
food, uh products and processescan be protected by all IP
rights, different aspects,different assets.
Of course trade, but it'sproduct brands, brands um,
unfair competition in andpassing off protect the shape
(36:28):
and the patents can protect theprocess of manufacturing the
food, including biotechnologicalprocesses.
Then you have plant varietyrights, of course, protecting
new strain, new, new plants.
Then you have trade secrets,which has been used to protect
some you know iconic productlike the Coca-Cola formula or
(36:52):
the Nutella formula.
It's interesting to see how youknow.
And what is important is thatwe have merged the philosophical
and the legal perspectives.
Speaker 2 (37:05):
So I know Lee has a question, but I've got one more
question for you before I passback to Lee, because this is
really good fun.
You said to your students, youtold us that you tell them all
about the good bits of IP andalso the bad bits.
And you've only said good bitsso far.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
Yeah, the bad bits are evident for those who study
this subject.
First of all, we have gonethrough a terrible pandemic,
global pandemic, right, and youknow everybody interested in
these issues have seen that anoverprotection of patents
covering not only vaccines, likethe COVID-19 vaccine, but also
(37:40):
other important technologiessuch as respirators, ventilators
, refrigerators, where to keepthe vaccine.
Well, we have seen that IPrights have been also used in a
way which has inevitablyrestricted availability of this
technology, of this importantmedicine.
(38:01):
This is a bad bit.
I mean, if IP rights are usedand exploited in this way, of
course there are negativespillover effects in terms of
access to important technologiessuch as medicines right.
Then, of course, we have also apotential negative effect on
(38:27):
access to education.
When copyright is enforced in away which limits the
availability of culturalartifacts, right.
And again, during the COVIDpandemic, we have seen that many
students had to receive adigital, you know, training
material, teaching material andstuff.
(38:47):
Again, copyright could be thereto block or at least slow down
the dissemination of importanteducational content Right.
Then again, I have mentioned theGMOs debate.
You know patents protectingdebate.
You know patents protectingpotentially harmful GMOs or
(39:10):
potentially harmful biotechprocess, harmful for human
health, animal health and eventhe environment.
Well, that's a problem becausepatents are incentives, right.
So the big question here isshould the availability of
patents encourage innovators toinvest in potentially harmful
(39:34):
technologies or not?
This is an issue which iswell-radicated in Europe, where
we have a morality exception inpatent law right.
This is less relevant in otherareas, such as America and Japan
, where there is no moralityexception in patent law.
But we should really wonderabout the technology we want to
(39:56):
incentivize, right, because IPrights, especially patents,
incentivize innovation.
But probably the government, inmy opinion, needs to still be
in control and to try to steerinnovation towards socially
acceptable, environmentally laws.
Ip monopolies because we talkabout monopolies can really, you
(40:30):
know, lead us towards, you know, negative outcomes in terms of
access to important technologiesand encouragement in developing
socially valuable you know,valuable innovation.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
Yeah, we had a lot of chat about during lockdown
actually about the vaccine thingin particular and at the time
we pointed to some good bits, Ithink, because there was some
sharing and so on and so forth.
But it is notable that they'veall ended up suing each other
and now it's over.
There was a moment at leastwhere everyone was getting on
well, so yeah, so, lee Lee, overto you.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
Yeah, no, and I think this follows on, actually,
gwilym.
So, enrico, one of the otherpotential negative areas for IP.
I guess it's negative if youlook at it as being a sort of a
negative action that happens,but positive in terms of the
(41:33):
steps we can take to to mitigateand prevent.
Prevent it is criminal activityand it doesn't necessarily come
up in the sort of like thepatent world and perhaps not so
much in the trademark world.
But we know that there's likelyto be probably middle of this
year, towards the sort of latterhalf of this year, uh, a major
consultation on designs, um,particularly unregistered
designs.
There will be within that,voices that will be calling in
much the same way as they calledfor criminal sanctions when we
(41:53):
last did a big review of designs, which I think was about 2014.
Yeah, there will be voicescalling for criminal sanctions
in relation to unregistereddesigns.
Do you have a view and opinionon criminal sanctions and their
role, their place, in the IPworld?
Speaker 3 (42:09):
Well, article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement obliges
countries to make availablecriminal sanctions against
infringers who do infringe on acommercial scale right, and the
interpretation of commercialscale may vary from country to
(42:30):
country, as a WTO court said in2009 in the China-US case, but
of course, we know that thereare criminal organizations,
right, which exploitcounterfeiting and piracy, right
.
We know that, yeah, and probablyeverybody agrees that for such
(42:51):
kind of infringers, criminalsanctions are appropriate right.
Of course, they are lessappropriate when it comes to
non-criminal organization.
When it comes to non-criminalorganization, when it comes to
entrepreneurs, corporationswhich believe to be on the right
side of the law, right, andindeed, in criminal law, one of
(43:14):
the requirement, as we all know,is the mens rea right, the
subjective element, andtherefore criminal sanctions
should be avoided for lessserious cases of infringements
being just reserved for seriousactivities infringing activities
(43:36):
on a commercial scale,especially organized crime.
And indeed, if you look at thecase law, most case law is a
civil proceedings right.
We don't have many cases apartfrom, you know, street vendors,
who you know, who sell fakeLouis Vuitton bags right, but I
(43:59):
do believe that it should be thelast resort right, especially
limited in very serious cases ofcrime so I mean, let me play
that back to you.
Speaker 4 (44:11):
I think I think what I heard there is.
This is more sophisticated thangood against bad, right against
wrong.
Um, yeah, there are nuances inhere.
You can, you can.
You can infringe withoutintending to infringe, and
should that result in a criminalconviction, um, yeah, in in a.
So I'm taken back to a.
(44:32):
It was very early in my time,let's say.
I've been asleep since 2014 andmy background, enrico is in
sort of plumbing, civilengineering that that world and
I remember being at a superevent where the case was being
made for criminalising.
It wasn't SEPA making this case, but the case was being made
for criminalising designinfringement.
(44:52):
And the example of the designthat was given was a raw iron
candlestick.
And the barrister who wasmaking the case said look, this
was clearly designed by X, it'sbeen infringed by Y and it was a
multinational company.
There's clearly an infringementhere.
Effectively, the chief exec ofthis national company should go
(45:13):
to jail for this infringement.
And I remember I stood my handup and I said I'm a wee bit
confused here because you know,at that time I would have been
in my late 40s and I made thatcandlestick as a plumbing
apprentice when I was 17.
That's, you was 17.
That's you know that's not thatperson's design from 10 years
ago, that's been around forever,and that's that cuts to the
kind of nub of this, really,doesn't it?
(45:33):
It's demonstrating where thatoriginal thought, that original
design, came from and whetherthat infringement was um was
therefore valid or not.
Yeah, so have I got that right?
Speaker 3 (45:44):
yeah, but it was in a uak unregistered design, right,
yeah, yeah, yeah, which doesnot protect the ornamental
theaters.
It protects not a kind ofinternal characteristics, not
internal fear.
So in that case, how I mean,it's really difficult to prove
(46:05):
the subjective element right,the willingness to commit a
crime, right, especially if it'sa reseller or a retailer, right
, the last you know ring whichthe business to consumer, let's
(46:26):
say, because one thing is theproducer right, the producer
probably has more chances ofbeing condemned, criminally
condemned, because you know, ifyou produce a clearly infringing
product on a commercial scale,but different will be the
(46:46):
position of the retailer, yeah,yeah, I think one of the I know
that one of the concerns hasalways been yes, we can identify
the extremes of the behavior,but how do you?
Speaker 2 (46:58):
let's not let's not solve this now, but it's all
about how do you identify it insuch a way that you know that
you're clear of it If you are,if you want to call it a kind of
a civil infringer or a criminalinfringer.
And I know that one of theconcerns is you can't advise
your client to take a onepercent risk if the sanction is
criminal.
So I think this is always theproblem.
Let's not solve that now.
(47:19):
I remember that being part ofthe debate.
Um, I was going to quickly geta plug in for the book.
Yeah that's okay.
Probably because I wrote achapter of it, but mostly for
Enrico's benefit.
Speaker 3 (47:30):
Please tell us about your research topics book, I
mean together with my friend andnow I'm ashamed of we have been
asked by I got to to edit abook on the future research
paths in patent law.
So together we know and we haveidentified the several areas
(47:54):
Right when we think that couldbe development as far as well
let's put it this way whereresearch is basically needed
Right way, where research isbasically needed right, and
that's why we had, for example,we had the chapters covering the
(48:22):
access to medicine, the accessto medicines and patent
protection interface with, ofcourse, the, the trips waiver
and with all this debate aboutavailability of vaccines.
Then we have an entire sectiondedicated focusing on the ict,
the ict and the internet ofthings, with william writing
about interfaces right andprofessor jorge contraras
(48:45):
writing about interfaces rightand Professor Jorge Contreras
writing about the new researchpaths, the needed research paths
in standard essential patents.
Myself, together with myco-author, dr Magali Contardi,
we wrote about the landscape ofpatent tools pools in the
telecommunication sector andthen other chapters on gen
(49:12):
editing patents by ProfessorDuncan Matthews, and now I'm my
co-editor writing aboutpatentability of AI applications
, which is a very burning issuenow, in this moment, and, as I
(49:34):
said, the aim has been tohighlight future research paths,
because what we want to do isto spur, to encourage further
research.
So our aim has been to try toindicate, to show early career
researchers or late careerresearchers, it doesn't matter,
and indeed the book contributorsare both established academics
(49:56):
and early career researchers,which is important in my opinion
, to also give chances to youngresearchers right To, in this
case, to try to indicate thefuture of research.
So, and especially to try againto influence the policy making
debate.
Right, and we go back to the,not to the, to the topic which
(50:19):
with which we started this, thisconversation.
We want to, we wanted to offerour expertise to readers, and
our readership aims at beingquite, quite wide right lawyers,
patra turners, policymakers andstudents.
(50:40):
These are part of ourreadership, let's say.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
I enjoyed my chapter, especially when I realized that
it was a book on settingresearch topics.
I didn't have to have any ofthe answers, so the first time I
read it you sent it back andsaid what's that?
And so I realized I could justsay.
Another interesting thing Ihave no answer to is the
following it became reallyinteresting and, Lee, my chapter
is on interfaces and it becamethe realization that if you
control the gateway, youactually control everything
(51:10):
beyond the gateway.
The realization that if youcontrol the gateway, you
actually control everythingbeyond the gateway.
So actually owning the ip andinterface gives you
disproportionate control overstuff beyond that it's really
interesting.
So once I got into it I itrolled.
I mean it just became a seriesof questions and crossovers with
repair and spare parts and allthese other you know must fit
and must match.
All these other topics of IPcame in.
(51:31):
It was really interesting toget into.
I was grateful for the steerthat I got from Enrico.
Speaker 3 (51:35):
I know him actually on that and they are
under-researched, these topics.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
Yeah, some basic economic questions about should
you be able to repair stuff, andthere's some case law on that
and all kinds of stuff in the US.
Speaker 3 (51:51):
There's a right to repair movement in the States
now all kinds of things.
It's fascinating, I must say,that the circular economy and
the right to repair now, as theystarted researching it, I think
last year, two years ago but,for example, I haven't seen many
papers about the must fit andmust match exemption in design
law, for example.
Yeah, yeah, I haven't seen manypapers.
(52:12):
So that's that's our aim to to,to spur, to encourage further,
further research and we hope tohave shown the right paths.
Speaker 4 (52:23):
So, gwilym, I have a job on the podcast, don't I?
And that's to keep us to time,and I, and?
And I did say to Enrico rightat the start of this that we'll
aim for about 40 minutes, and Ifailed miserably because we're,
because we're just coming up tothe hour, which I think just
goes to show what an engagingguest you've been, enrico.
These podcasts always work best, but they just become a
(52:43):
conversation and it feels likeyou're in the pub having it,
having a kind of natter with oldfriends.
That that's.
That's exactly how this felt.
Um, so I I have the job ofclosing down the podcast, which
I'll try and do, but before I dothat, is there anything that
you've not talked about thatyou'd like to quickly reference?
Are there any things that youwanted to particularly come on
and get across, or do you thinkyou've, um, do you think you've
exhausted your repertoire?
Speaker 3 (53:05):
well, I mean, just let me conclude with the fact
that I, I, I, I, I really lovegiving classes, lectures, talks,
not just in this country, but Itravel a lot and crossing
borders.
Teaching classes of ip in sodiverse countries with so
(53:26):
different ethnic, religiousbackgrounds has been something
which has made me the person Iam and more solid, more
discerning of diversity andstuff, and it's incredible to
see how students, especiallystudents, young students, are so
happy to listen to me and I tryto integrate, let's say, the
(53:53):
global South perspective, thedeveloping countries perspective
, in all my teaching when I amin our countries, let's say in
the UK.
I think this is it's tiring,because traveling, of course, is
tiring.
I have a family and thereforeit's not easy, but I can still
do it because I am, I want to doit, because I am enthusiastic
and it never stops enriching meso I can understand why your
(54:16):
students are so engaged, becauseI could listen to you forever.
Speaker 4 (54:18):
Yeah, but we don't have that luxury, gwilym.
So what happens at the end,enrico, is that either Gwilym or
I try and close the podcastwith a question that's maybe a
little bit tangential.
It will be something aboutsomething we've talked about
that won't necessarily beentirely relevant.
(54:41):
So I've got one Gwilym, butit's sort of in two parts.
Can I do a two-part?
Speaker 3 (54:46):
close-up.
Speaker 4 (54:48):
So the way this works , enrica, is, I'm going to ask
Gwilym, I'll then ask you, andthen Gwilym will kind of bounce
it back on me.
So so here's my question, and Isort of indicated it earlier.
So I'm I'm a teacher, I'm anacademic by background, I've
taught in FE, I've taught inhigher education.
Gwilym's done a fair bit ofteaching.
We know that you are clearly,um, an expert teacher.
(55:10):
So, guillem, two part question,right, what's the oddest thing,
kind of perhaps most removedfrom your professional life that
you've ever taught anybody, andalso, who was your best teacher
?
Speaker 2 (55:26):
oh, I can thank you.
I can do both this.
So, um, the first one actuallyfor SIPA we saw a lot of
delegations from China and wehave one and I love is taking
the visitors for British publunch, because I think it's a
really cool traditional thing todo and they love it.
It turned out to be reallypopular, except once I realised
that the trick was to put thefood in the middle to show it
(55:48):
out, because it was really quitealien to somebody coming from
Chinese second city to a Londonpub.
So we've resolved all that.
But we went to one pub and theyhad got our order wrong.
So they said it's me 40 minutesfor the food to come and that
was embarrassing for us.
But actually that made itembarrassing for the guests,
because they don't want to seeus embarrassed.
So I had to pretend that it wason purpose so that I could
(56:10):
provide a lecture on the historyof the pub about which I knew
absolutely nothing.
So then I had to extemporise it.
I got to go at half an hour ofthe history of the pub.
It was on Fleet Street.
I mentioned Charles Dickensabout 15 times basically, but
otherwise pretty much made it up.
So I was quite proud of that.
Second question was my bestteacher, your best teacher?
(56:32):
Yeah, my favorite teacher, fairpoint.
Uh, it was, um, I did a levelhistory and my history teacher
was mr chris force, who made itto the semi-finals, or maybe
even the finals of masterminds afew years ago.
Because he's a he's just a hugecharacter and he's a force of
nature.
He's still with us.
He's just a huge character andhe's a force of nature.
He's brilliant.
And I remember he once did theoh, I forget the name the Yalta,
(56:55):
when Stalin, churchill andRoosevelt met in the late
mid-40s to kind of finish thewar.
But when he did it he wouldjump on the desk and do an
impression of each of the threeof them presenting their
position and it was absolutelymagnificent.
I mean he couldn't do any ofthe three of them presenting
their position and it wasabsolutely magnificent.
I mean you couldn't do any ofthe accents.
He did a decent WinstonChurchill, but his Russian and
(57:15):
American were really dodgy.
But he absolutely brought it tolife and it's captivating, it's
fantastic.
That was a good teacher thereyou go that's lovely.
Speaker 4 (57:24):
I really enjoyed listening to you that time.
Not always so.
Speaker 3 (57:29):
So, enrico, then the same two-part for you, perhaps
the strangest thing you foundyourself teaching, and maybe
your favorite teacher, theperson who influenced you the
most, whoever it might bemissions of the war,
(57:53):
intellectual property trainingmissions of the yp, the wipo, in
developing countries, africa,asia and one of these countries
recently, a few months ago, acolleague of mine collapsed
while while, while teaching,while training, probably because
the air conditioning was notworking.
Then we really got scared andthat was a very bad moment but
luckily luckily, she thenrecovered quite quickly.
(58:16):
In a few hours she was OK, butfor a few minutes I was really
scared.
You know, that's another.
That's maybe a negative aspectof, you know, teaching in, in,
in places where you know theit's very warm, the
infrastructure is not, as let'ssay, comfortable like our nice
offices in London and stuff, butit's part of the game, I would
(58:40):
say right, and therefore I takeit as a part of it.
And the second question I thinkthat the person who had more
influence in me, the teacher, ismy first IP mentor who actually
convinced me, I mean pushed me,to specialize in this sector,
(59:00):
in the IP, and it is.
He's a professor, marco Ricolfi, at the University of Turin.
He was.
He has been directing the firstWIPO master in Cure in Italy
for many years and it was himthat gave me the idea of
applying for this WIPO master in2025 ago, and it changed my
(59:21):
life, because now I'm talkingabout IP law with you and
probably I'm doing that becauseof that person who has shaped my
life.
Ah, lovely, lovely, oh that'stwo lovely answers.
Speaker 4 (59:34):
I've really enjoyed listening to both of you, so
we'll stop it there, shall we?
Speaker 2 (59:37):
no, let's hear what you've got to say.
Speaker 4 (59:39):
Lee, about a your most unlikely teaching
experience, and be your favoriteteacher you know, I didn't get
the first part of this questionmuch thought, william, it was
such a good question I didn'tactually think about it.
So I've been thinking about itand, yeah, I know I should have
um, so I've been, I've beenthinking about it as I've been
going along and it's, I think it.
(01:00:00):
I think the two are related forme, so that when I finished, so
I was a plumbing apprentice,enrico, so I did that and was
pretty good at it and fairlyearly on got offered the
opportunity to go on and do ahigher national diploma in
building civil engineering.
So started that, and so I findmyself doing this civil
(01:00:24):
engineering course and oneevening one of the lecturers
doesn't turn up, so similar sortof thing doesn't turn up, and
that evening the lecture isabout mechanical services, so
plumbing in gas, essentially.
And I remember the head of theum hnd department coming in,
coming over to me and sayingyou're a plumber, can you teach
the class this evening?
So it was so my, so the subjectwas familiar to me?
(01:00:48):
Yeah, but it was, it was morethe context.
So never, ever, sort of, have Istood up in front of a bunch of
people that were effectively mypeers and had to try and teach
them something without any prep,but it was.
It was that that encouraged meto then think about becoming a
teacher.
So that was a sort of like thespur then to.
(01:01:09):
And I never, ever did completethat HND because I went off to
do teacher training instead.
And then that person was also sothe head of that department,
guy called Malcolm Peake, wasalso probably the most so he.
He used to teach, um, so,building, uh, civil engineering,
surveying, and I was enthralled.
He was the most captivatingteacher.
He was really enthralling.
(01:01:30):
So he didn't just give me thatkind of first break in teaching
by chucking me in at the deepend, but also was a role model
for me.
And bizarrely, gwilym, I wastalking about him Saturday in
the pub because we had a bit ofa conversation about who our
favourite teachers were.
And then I go to and I've notseen him for over 20 years and
(01:01:52):
I'm in next looking for a niceshirt, jacket, combo for a meal
we've got tomorrow evening, um,and and I bump into him.
So quite, quite bizarrely,talking about the day before,
but bump into him, we have alittle shake hands combo and he
says to me he said this isreally weird.
He said I was only tellingsomeone in the pub yesterday
that story about when I droppedyou in on that, on that teaching
.
So how bizarre that we've bothbeen talking about one another
in a pub the day before and thenwe bumped into each other in
(01:02:14):
next.
So, um, yeah, that's that'smine.
I didn't, I didn't know I wasgonna say that until I started
telling that story.
Well, I'm glad you did, enrico,it's been absolutely gorgeous
having you on the podcast.
Speaker 3 (01:02:26):
Thank, thank you for coming on for me as well.
It's been a very pleasantconversation.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (01:02:30):
Really enjoyed it.
Yeah, you were quite tolerablethis time too, I do.
Speaker 2 (01:02:34):
I can you know?
You were great.
You were great, you were great.
Speaker 3 (01:02:38):
So you're going to, you're going to disseminate the
podcast some, some platform.
Speaker 4 (01:02:48):
I'll tell you all about that in a moment.
I'll tell you all about that ina moment, so let me just turn
the podcast off, as it were.
So thanks for coming on, enrico, see you on the next one.
And, listeners, if you'veenjoyed this podcast and there's
no reason why you shouldn'tbecause this has been so, so
good then leave a review on thepodcasting platform of your
choice and other people willfind us.
Thanks, both thank you.
Speaker 1 (01:03:29):
Other people will find us.
Thanks both.
Thank you.
We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.