August 16, 2024 • 44 mins
This week Lee and Gwilym are joined by another amazing IP Inclusive Community - IP Ability.
Guests Marianne Privett (AA Thornton), Chris Clark (Vectura) and George Lucas (eip) bring both a personal and professional perspective on disability inclusion and emphasize the crucial need for a more open and accessible environment within the IP profession.
From examination accommodations for neurodivergent individuals to the legislative milestones like the UK's Equality Act, the progress made is commendable, yet there is still a long way to go.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello Gwilym, I've not seen you since yesterday.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
No, and I don't think we're going to see each other
on podcast duty for a while now.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Yeah, I know we're going to have a little bit of a
break, aren't we?
I think probably it's thesummer, it's the summer, yeah
yeah yeah, I must say, your neckis looking a lot shorter this
morning.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
It was looking.
Look, I'm quite worried.
Obviously it's an audio podcast.
It's getting quite long.
Is that an age thing?
Does your neck get?
Speaker 1 (00:29):
longer when you get old?
No, mine's longer than yours.
You look a little bit likeColbert my tortoise.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Maybe you're just developing the ability to kind
of withdraw your head into yourbody, which is which would be
quite a cool talent, wouldn't itProbably ought to explain for
anyone to the podcast that meand grill I'm usually have a
little bit of kind of chat inthe sidebar going and yesterday
he did say to me does my neck?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
look long.
This is the problem with zoom.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
You spend your whole life looking at yourself and
then deciding, worrying aboutall the things wrong with you,
and I've decided my neck's amajor issue so and I've worked
out because I did, I did alittle bit of um, I did a little
bit of kind of testing thismorning that my appearance that
I've been on holiday is becausethe light is bouncing off of
this kind of mahogany table andit gives me sort of like a
mahogany glow If I move awayfrom the table I go to a normal
(01:13):
colour.
I quite like looking as thoughI've been on holiday.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
You look like an extra from Dallas.
It's a good look.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Is that the friendly bounce done?
I didn't expect that to be thefriendly bounce.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Anything else you want to talk about.
I was going to talk about umsummer plans, what's?
Speaker 1 (01:28):
your summer plans.
Well, we've done the holiday.
We popped down to cornwall acouple weeks ago, so so that's
done.
I've got a lot of work to do athome.
I want to, um, put new doors onthe garage and things like that
.
So it'd probably be a bit of adiy summer, I think, uh, and
desperately hoping that theweather might improve enough to
get a bit of fishing done,because every time I plan to go
fishing at the weekend it justrains do fish not like rain?
(01:49):
I don't like rain.
Okay, the fish are fine with it, but I don't they're quite
waterproof, aren't they?
Yeah, they are.
Are you?
Is it Spanish summer for youthis year?
Speaker 2 (01:58):
no, no, I'm kind of again been away a little bit.
Either side of this.
I have a theory that summer'snice in in the uk.
It's a theory, um, but yes, somost, mostly it's um
blackberries, because I lovegrowing, I love letting all the
blackberries grow in the gardenand we've got kilograms of the
things.
So it's just, I'm just makingjam all summer.
If you want any jam, anybodywant any jam on the podcast,
(02:19):
anyone want any jam.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
I've got a lot of jam coming, a lot of jam yeah, I
keen on jam, so I'd be veryhappy to take a tank off you.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Well, we're catching up.
I'll bring you some jam, yeahwe are.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Yeah, we are catching up in person, aren't we?
Fairly soon Shall we crack onwith the show.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
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
Determination.
Do?
Speaker 1 (02:52):
you like that.
I've become a bit show-busy onthe podcast.
I call it the show now.
Yeah yeah, like it's all kindof proper now.
So we've been doing a run ofIP-inclusive podcasts recently
and this is another of those.
So we're going to talk to theteam from IP Ability about all
the things that's been happeningthere since we had them on last
, because this is a return visitto the podcast, certainly for
(03:14):
the topic, if not all of thepeople.
So let's get the guests on.
Marianne, let's start with you.
Hello, hello, hi.
So do you fancy giving yourselfa little introduction so people
know who you are and what?
Speaker 4 (03:25):
you do.
Yeah, so I'm Ariane Privett.
I'm a patent attorney andpartner at AA Thornton.
My interest in disability?
I'm an ally.
I don't have a disability of myown that I'm aware of, but I've
got personal experience, havinggrown up with disabled siblings
, so they were both learningdisabled.
And then also my husbandsuffered quite severe back
problems some years ago, whichmade me very aware of caring
(03:49):
responsibilities and theirimpact on on myself as a
professional um and as a parentat the time as well.
So that made things extracomplicated um.
And then also my husband waslater diagnosed with adhd.
So again, a kind of an extraawareness of um neurodivergence
as well.
So, yeah, yeah and also I thinkit comes back to my awareness as
someone who has grown up withum disability as being something
(04:12):
at the forefront of my mind,that it's just not, and a lot of
disability is not visible.
I fully appreciate that, butI've I've, until recently I've
been to the EPO plenty of times.
I've only seen someone using avisible aid once, um, I don't
know if Gwilym can rememberthink about that, but I've
noticed one person with awalking stick in all the many,
many years of visiting the EPO.
Never seen anyone use awheelchair, never seen anyone
(04:33):
use like a white cane oranything like that.
So I just thought actually ourprofession is far too closed off
to a large proportion ofpopulation who could do this job
just as well as I could.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
That's fabulous to have you on, marianne George.
Let's come to you next.
Welcome to the podcast, yourfirst time.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Yes, no, I don't think I've ever done a podcast
before, actually.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
First time podcasting full stop.
Well, we'll be very gentle withyou, okay, thank, you.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Thank you.
Who are you and what do you do?
I'm also a patent attorney.
Unsurprisingly, I'm anassociate at eip.
I have asperger's syndrome,although it's not really called
that anymore.
I was diagnosed when I was 11,uh, by nhs, a psychologist.
In brief, like asperger's is aform of autism.
Um it, probably the mostdominant feature for me is that,
(05:19):
especially when I was a child,I found it quite difficult to
socialize and understand, likenon-verbal non-verbal
communication, which thankfully,a podcast is mostly verbal
communication, so that makes ita bit easier.
Um, but yeah, I've recentlyjoined ip ability.
But, uh, I've been interestedin sort of accessibility and
neurodiversity in the ipprofession for quite a long time
, so I'm hoping to make apositive impact in that it's
(05:42):
really cool to have you on, uh.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
And so my world's changed since the last time we
did a podcast on sort ofdisability issues.
Uh, I have a.
I have a number ofgrandchildren, I've got number
six on the way, but number four,who is just turned four, has
just been diagnosed, uh, withautism I think it was.
It was fairly obvious to us forthe last couple of years that
that was probably going tohappen.
So I'm learning all about itand it's actually, you know,
(06:06):
it's, it's quite an excitingworld to learn about.
But it's been fascinating for meto um, to, to learn how to um.
So theory's name is it's uh.
It's been fascinating to learnhow to communicate with him, um,
because he, he strugglesverbally.
He doesn't have much um kind ofability on ability with
language at the moment, but wecommunicate by blinking eyes to
(06:27):
one another, which I foundreally early on.
If I just wink at him and stufflike that, he winks back.
We then kind of can play gamesand things.
So, yeah, it's been fascinatingfor me to discover that stuff.
And so podcast veteran now,chris, and actually SEPA veteran
, because Chris does a hugeamount for SEPA, not least
regularly trains the staff whenwe have new staff come in on
(06:47):
very, very simple patentingtechniques.
Thank you, chris.
You do it with flying fish andstuff like that.
It's an amazing session we dowith the staff.
Great to have you back, but youstill need to introduce
yourself, I'm afraid.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Yeah, so Chris Clark, patent attorney in-house with
Vectura, based in Cambridge.
My interest in IP ability isbecause, a bit like Marianne, I
have a son with a learningdisability, so, as a carer, he's
now 17 years old, soapproaching adulthood.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Well, you're all really welcome.
As I say, this is part of aseries that we're doing just
catching up on IP Inclusive andits various streams.
So where would be good to start?
It's your podcast, what wouldbe good to start?
It's your podcast, what wouldbe good to talk about first.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
Well, I listened to the previous episode this
morning, which was fromSeptember 2024, so about four
years ago, and I was just struckby the fact that we've done a
lot essentially in that time.
We've done a lot of awarenessraising.
One of the webinars that wasmentioned in that was Kerry
Russell was going to present oninvisible disabilities and she
really created this format wherewe had some kind of legal
(07:46):
advice, as it were.
So we had a, an employmentlawyer, and then also an HR
professional and then somepersonal experience, and that's
worked quite well with us acrossa number of issues where we've
tried to explain to employers.
So I think it's helpful to forHR professionals within the IP
profession as a whole to betterunderstand issues related to
disability, but also, obviously,for the people who are directly
(08:07):
affected, for them tounderstand their rights, and one
of those was the Carers LeaveAct webinar, which Chris
recently organised, whichrelates basically to the fact
that we now, thankfully, havelegislation in the UK that
allows carers to take leave atno notice.
I think Chris is that correct.
They can just say sorry, can'tcome, come in today, I've got to
look after someone yes, withinsome restrictions, but yes,
(08:28):
basically yeah, within sensiblerestrictions, but yeah, and
that's that's well.
I'm sure you can talk about whatdifference that would have made
to you.
Well, as a parent, you alwayshad some rights, but still going
forward, being able to takeleave as and when you need to,
to be able to look after someone, it's going to make a huge
difference yeah.
Speaker 5 (08:45):
So what we found when my son was younger was there
was a maybe you'll get thisleave with your grandson.
There was a um, a constantstream of appointments with
various professionals, you know,with doctors, with um sort of
behavioral specialists, withwith all with nutritionists, you
know all sorts of people.
Um that we went through um,because my son's disability had
(09:07):
various facets, um, one of whichwas he eats a lot.
Another one, which is a veryshort attention span.
So we had, we had a whole bunchof interventions, particularly
in the early stages, and thattook a lot of time just taking
him to appointments.
It might be, I suppose, alittle bit easier these days
because these things mighthappen online to some extent,
but we were endlessly going offto hospitals and clinics and
(09:27):
things, and there was a timewhen both my wife well,
essentially there was a periodof time when either my wife or
myself were working part timefor a number of years in order
to be able to accommodate thatkind of stuff.
So having the right as a, as acarer, to take leave for these
things might have enabled us to,you know, not to have to go um
part-time.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Yeah, I mean available then but we've also
covered a range of other topicsas well.
We've talked about sort of thestigma associated with
disability, in a sense that it'sum, I always think, when you
look at the different strands ofdiversity and inclusion, that
there are some things which arejust visible.
Um, not not always, but most.
Most of the time you can tell,um, if someone's a woman.
Most of the time you can tellif someone belongs to a certain
(10:09):
ethnic group.
But disability is kind of this,this kind of straddles it's.
I think in some ways it it ismore akin to sexuality, where
you wouldn't know somethingabout someone unless they told
someone about it.
Certainly, when it comes toneurodivergence, you don't know
something about that person'sneurotype until they tell you
about it, and so I think, yeah,then there's a stigma associated
with anything that's hidden.
Essentially, you know, if youdon't have to disclose, if it's
(10:33):
not visible, it's not somethingthat you can see immediately
upon meeting someone.
Then sometimes there's a stigmaassociated with that.
And disability is unfortunately, I think, partly just by the
nature of the word.
It seems to relate to a lack ofability or not having ability,
and that's not certainly the waythat I see it.
I ascribe to the social model ofdisability.
I'm just going to explain whatthat means a little bit.
(10:56):
So social model essentiallymeans that it's society that
disables a person, not whateverthing it is that is inherent to
their health or their way ofworking, their way of brain
working.
So the reason that I believethat the term disabled is
appropriate for neurodivergentpeople is because society is not
accommodating to them.
So it's not that there'ssomething inherently, there's
something different.
There's not inherently wrongwith anybody, whether that be
(11:17):
because of some kind of issuewith, I don't know, mobility
they use a wheelchair or to dowith their neurotype, that they
benefit from certain adjustments, that the disability is not
their own as such.
The disability results from theway that society treats them,
and so my kind of passion istrying to ensure that I can do
what I can do to make ourprofession more accommodating of
(11:39):
people, so that they're able toperform to the best of their
ability and contribute in theway that they're able to perform
to the best of their abilityand contribute in the way.
As I said at the beginning, Idon't see any reason why someone
who is blind, deaf,neurodivergent, in a wheelchair,
whatever, why those peoplecan't do their job just as well
as I can.
So it's just trying to make ourprofession as accommodating as
possible and trying to encouragepeople to enter the profession
from as wide a range ofbackgrounds as possible I said
(12:03):
mean the social model isinteresting.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
I used to do a lot of work when I was in further
education around inclusivity.
Inclusive learning kind of cameout of further education
colleges and it was a real keeninterest for me.
So I was quite an early adopter, I guess, of the social model.
And actually, because you'vetalked about the other, well,
really the other areas IPinclusive is active in, uh, so
(12:26):
there are other areas wherepeople kind of will experience
barriers and by by making thethe disability side of things
the social model, it also alignsit much more closely with the
other areas of um exclusion, Ithink, because by and large they
tend to be cultural, societalreasons why people are excluded.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
I haven't thought in those terms.
That's a really interestingpoint.
Thank you, Lee.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
And it means I think it means that it's possibly
easier to be an ally then aswell, because you're not.
You are trying to help peopleovercome barriers that society
is presenting to them.
You're not there as a healthadvocate.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Yes, that's true, I'm not a medical professional and
so, yeah, I can't help someonein any way in the medical sense.
But it's interesting that.
So one of the webinars we heldwas about language and we've
leaned within IP ability.
We've leaned quite a lot onlawyers within the law society.
They have a disabled solicitorsnetwork and we've leaned quite
a lot on them for panellists.
(13:25):
You know, as you, as you know,ip profession is relatively
small.
Law profession as a whole isbigger.
So when we want someone to talkabout a particular topic, then
we go, hey, do you know anyonewho'd be willing to contribute
to this discussion?
So, yeah, so we had a couple oflawyers who both actually
prefer not to be called disabledX.
You know, they prefer to be Xwith this particular disability.
(13:46):
So one of them had a visualimpairment.
I can't remember the other lady, but yeah.
So they basically, both of them, said, although the social
model they understand where thesocial model comes from they
prefer not to be labelled asdisabled.
And so, yeah, because if youhave a disabled person, you are
saying that this is the personthat is disabled.
They prefer to be justthemselves.
Who happens to be someone withI don't know, visual impairment?
(14:09):
In one case, and I've just comeback from the States, and that
very much is the language theyprefer in the States, and you'll
see that you would be assumedto have misspoken.
If you say disabled person inthe States, you have to say
person with disability.
So there's definitely all sortsof cultural issues there around
the way that these preferred,preferred language has evolved,
um, in different culturesseparated by a common language.
(14:31):
Isn't that the phrase for theus and the uk?
But actually, yeah, I thinkyour point is a very valid one,
that it's, and I want to be anactive ally.
Then it makes much more senseto me to be an active ally
within a societal kind ofimpairment or societal
restriction than it does to tryand be an active ally within
something medical.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
So, yeah, Can I bring George in here?
Because in terms of the way Italk about Theo and I don't know
whether I'm getting it right Ihope I'm getting it right, but I
always talk about him.
So he's been diagnosed withautism and that's the way I talk
about it.
I don't apply a label to himbecause he's a cracking little
boy and he's going to have anamazing life and he lights up my
life and he just happens to bediagnosed with autism and kind
(15:11):
of together as a family, we workour way through that.
Is that how it was for you,george?
I mean, you were diagnosed at11, did you say?
Is that quite late?
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Maybe slightly.
I think you know I'm'm 32 now,so we're talking 20 years ago.
Like so things have moved on interms of the general public's
understanding of theseconditions, and like so my
parents thought I might haveadhd when I was sort of younger
was sort of seven, eight, thatkind of thing and a doctor sort
of proposed that I might haveasperger's, as it was called
then, and it took a quite a longtime to be processed through
(15:45):
the system and it wasn't until Iwas 11 that I received the bit
of paper that explained me, Ithink, in terms.
Go back to your point about, um, your grandson.
I think you know it's perfectlyfine to say you've been
diagnosed with autism.
It's a statement of fact.
I mean, it's that's what thecondition's called, that's
what's happened.
Uh, I think some people get abit funny when you start saying
oh, he's autistic I've neversaid that and I would be
(16:05):
uncomfortable saying that yeah,exactly because I think it's the
same reason like marianne wastalking about.
It's about labels and it's aboutencompassing someone in a box.
You know it's.
It's no, no more specific thanthat.
It's not tied into thecondition itself.
I think it's, but it'sparticularly problematic for
autism, because autism autism issuch a variable condition, like
(16:27):
people always talk about theautism spectrum, but I don't
think people recognize that it'snot just like a gradient from
low functioning to highfunctioning.
It's a collection of traitswhich some people express and
some don't so like, for example,there's perception issues or
perception differences.
More accurately, so like it's.
I often see it said that peoplewith autism have a more raw
(16:48):
perception of the world, so it'slike they don't have their
brain doing a bunch ofprocessing on their sensory
input before it reaches, youknow, your conscious brain, and
as a result, it's you have todeal with the more raw input and
that might mean, oh, I'm morelikely to notice like
differences in things because mybrain isn't just filtering out.
But it might also mean there istoo much visual stimulus.
(17:10):
I can't see a pattern.
So it's just, it's justdifferent in that respect and
it's not necessarily adisability, it's just.
It may just be a difference inability, but depending on how
those things personally affectyou, it may result in you being
less effective at tasks, whichmight be a societal thing, as
Marianne says, but it's justeveryone's different in that
(17:30):
regard.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
It was interesting.
So I don't want to kind of makethis about Theo, but just maybe
just finish off my experiencethere.
So from about the age of two,we were thinking there was
probably something going onbecause he wasn't starting to
talk.
He's got two older brother andolder sister.
He didn't really have arelationship with them or
anything like that.
And then maybe two and a halfcoming on to three and we were
(17:52):
at a family wedding.
So my elder son's wedding, lotsof children, and they've spent
the whole of the time like thatno one just knew what I did on
the podcast.
I stuck my fingers in my earsfor the listening audience he
spent the whole of the weddingwalking around with his fingers
in his ears because he couldn'tprocess the noise, the sound.
I spoke to his mum and dadafter that and it was yeah,
(18:18):
we've been aware for some timethat he struggles with some kind
of sensory overload, thingshappening to him and um and
we're we'll see if we can findout what it is.
And that's where we started onthe the journey and it's so.
It's yeah, he was onlydiagnosed, um, a couple of
months back are you aware of the?
Speaker 4 (18:34):
um, the sunflower lanyard?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, becauseI mentioned it someone the
other day and they said they hadno idea what it was.
So, yeah, yeah, for those whoaren't aware, the sunflower
lanyard is a.
It's bright green with brightyellow sunflowers on it.
It's eye-catching.
It doesn't have to be a lanyard, but the idea is that it's an
outward sign that someone has aninvisible disability.
It's often used for children whoare neurodivergent, just
(18:55):
because for extra understanding.
I think it started off I thinkit was Gatwick Airport,
definitely started at an airportand the idea was that people
who might need extra assistancethere was a outwards visible
sign to people working at theairport that this person might
need a bit of help.
But it gets used in all sortsof environments now.
So it's an outward sign and forenvironments where children
feel overwhelmed, then they'reable to just signify to get
(19:18):
better understanding.
And certainly, growing up withmy brother and sister although
they well, my, it's complicatedas to what who knows exactly
what was in the mix there, sowhether their sensory overload
was resulting from learningdifficulties or potentially some
form of neurodivergence, butcertainly there were times when
my brother would haveessentially a meltdown in public
and I think if he'd been ableto wear ear defenders, if he'd
(19:40):
been able to wear a sunflowerlanyard, you'd have hoped that
people would respond with a bitmore understanding and kindness,
and sometimes they did yeah,yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
So we've all been quite open about our own
experiences, either, george,directly or, in our cases, um,
living with family, familymembers who are, who experience
these issues on a day-to-daybasis.
How does that translate intothe sorts of things that you do
with IP Inclusive?
So I mean, clearly it's what'smade the three of you kind of
(20:11):
activists, if that's the rightword in this space.
What does that mean in realterms?
What are you doing?
What are the kind of reallyinteresting things that you're
doing?
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Well, one of the things that we've done is
contribute to feedback aroundthe exam.
So, as a lot of the members ofthe profession will know
certainly the younger memberswill know that there's changes
proposed for the EQEs.
We'll not just propose any more.
There's going to be bringing inchanges to the way the exams
are working, and the EPO put outa sort of expression of a
(20:39):
request for feedback on theirproposals and IP Inclusive.
We submitted a joint submission, but one of the primary areas
that we focused on wasdisability and the potential for
it to impact disabledcandidates, and I think the way
that the systems work at themoment is they have an existing
system in place and then if acandidate has particular needs,
(21:02):
then they will try and adapt thesystem to suit that candidate,
whereas the ideal system is thatyou create something that has
accessibility built in it fromthe very beginning, so you don't
have to adapt something.
There's no potential unfairnessin having to adapt something
that was made for someone whohad no visual impairment, who
had no dyslexia, had whatever.
So yeah, and I have to give hima name.
(21:24):
Check Abhishek Dhol is acandidate, so he's never going
to be a candidate for the patentexams.
He has no intention to do thepatent exams at all, but he is a
law student at Queen Mary and Imet him at a Law Society event
and I mentioned.
One of my concerns was aroundthe portal they were proposing
using and if we could getsomeone who was actually
visually impaired to test it.
And he went, oh, I'll do it.
(21:44):
And I went are you sure?
Because, like you know this,you're never going to benefit
from this.
He's like no, no, it's fine,I've got nothing to do this
summer, I'll play around with it.
So Abhishek very kindly didexactly that and he confirmed
that, although the portalallowed you to, to use it, to
kind of use a screen reader, toto look around screen, as it
were, and to choose your answers, you can then read it back and
(22:05):
if you think how important it isthat when you do an exam, that
you go back and go oh, did Imean to say that, or is that
what I wanted?
So, yeah, we submitted that aspart of the feedback and the EPO
specifically referred to it andthey're going to make changes
to make sure that that's goingto be possible for candidates in
the future.
So that was a definite win.
I'm really pleased that they,the epo, are really going to
make efforts to design their newsystem with accessibility from
(22:27):
the very beginning, at the heartof it all.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
So, um, yeah, that that's, that's a definite win on
behalf of all the people takingexams who might be sitting
there thinking, gosh, the examsare going to change.
I'm not going to be able to dothem because of all these
changes, but basically it's notgoing to be.
It's not going to make anydifference to the substance as
such.
It's to do with kind ofpresentation, delivery, that
kind of thing.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
Yes, yeah.
Yeah, it's all about makingsure the portal they use, and
the thing is that I can'tremember the name of the portal,
but they weren't using all ofit.
As with lots of softwaresystems, you don't necessarily
pay for the full package, soit's partly that the EPO didn't
think they needed certainfunctionality.
So they're not.
This doesn't risk screwinganything up and it doesn't risk
making it more complicated forall the candidates Not at all.
(23:09):
It should make it a betterexperience for everybody.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
I mean you mentioned that since we last podcasted
four years ago, you've seen lotsof change and you mentioned,
obviously, some of the kind ofbiggest statutory changes.
Are you seeing a change inattitude?
That's a really good example ofa change in attitude from the
patent office.
Well, maybe that's pejorativeto say it's a change but a an
exciting demonstration of apositive attitude from patent
(23:32):
office.
How's that for diplomacy?
But um, are you seeing otherkind of increases of awareness
within our, within our world,within our profession?
Speaker 4 (23:41):
what I don't?
What do you think, chris?
You've been around doing thisfor as long as I have um yeah I
don't know I, I think a bit, Ithink it's.
Speaker 5 (23:50):
It's a bit more talked about than than it was.
It's hard to remember exactlywhat things were like five years
and four or five years ago.
But my impression is, yeah, Ithink I think, just because of
partly all the stuff that umandrea's done expanding sort of
ip, inclusives, you know, addingnew communities and so on there
just seems to be a bit more ofa perhaps more, more more kind
(24:13):
of edi stuff being talked aboutgenerally.
Um, it's become a bit morenormal to talk about it, but
perhaps it was a bit of anexception before.
Maybe that's what I'm trying tosay I'd like to think that.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
So celia mentioned in the previous episode that, um,
she thought that there weredyslexic ip professionals who
weren't open about beingdyslexic.
Um, I'm aware of a few who havecome out, as it were, as as
being dyslexic since thatrecording and I'd hope people
would feel more comfortable atleast within maybe not kind of
outwardly with amongst theprofession as a whole, but at
(24:45):
least within their own, theirown firm or within their own
team.
So, yeah, I agree, I think it'stalked about more openly.
I think there's we're I hopewe're in a position where if
anyone were to experience, itwere to experience negatives
from from their team or from apotential employer in relation
to any form of disability orneurodivergence that they would,
it would be clear to everybody,as it were, that they were in
(25:06):
the wrong and that the candidateor the employee was in the
right.
I'd like to think we've atleast got to that stage.
But yeah, I think it's stilltentative.
I still think there's a lot ofwork to do.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
This actually is an interesting one, isn't it?
And I'm sure it's absolutelyfine for me to say what I'm
about to say.
If not, I'll think about itafterwards and maybe take it out
.
But I've had a number ofinstances where um people with
dyslexia trainees have come tosee her to for help not not
generally with the peb exams,although I know that we could be
doing better there but I thinkin the past generally we've
(25:40):
tried to be as supportive ofpeople as we can.
But but with the, with the EQEs, and there seems to me to be,
uh, there's this thing, isn'tthere with Europe, and that's
that not.
Not everybody sees EDI the sameway yes and in one particular
instance where I went to the EQEsecretariat around dyslexia, a
person had been giving givenadditional time one year and
(26:03):
then the next year they had toprove again that they still
needed that time and theresponse I got.
The response I got was but theymight have got better and
that's and I know it's just acultural thing, it's a kind of
perspective thing, isn't it?
And, and you know, we perhapsin the UK we've been more open
and we've discussed these thingsmore, but but, yeah, the sense
(26:24):
that they should have recoveredby now.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
I had.
So I'm a member of theexamination committee for paper
C, which will no longer existsoon, but the opposition paper
for the moment and I went to acelebration in Munich, which is
the one place I did see someonewith a walking aid, a mobility
aid, at the EPO.
But I was there and it was yeah, it was a review of kind of the
history of the EQEs and howthings have evolved and looking
(26:48):
forward and they did have apresentation on adjustments and
on disabled candidates theysupported and the secretariat.
They were perfectly nice aboutit.
But then afterwards, becauseI'd spoken up so I was clear
that I was invested in it, Iguess two German guys behind me,
who were both examiners, turnedaround to me and went.
(27:09):
Why were they had been put, asit's all online now, they'd been
put in a assigned a group ofcandidates who all had dyslexia
and I guess it makes sense toput everyone together because
they'd rather have someoneleaving early, other person
leaving late, anyway.
So, yes, they put all thecandidates with dyslexia
together and they went.
Why were they all British?
And I went.
Well, maybe we diagnose itbetter than you do.
I don't believe that Britishpeople are more likely to be
(27:30):
dyslexic.
I think we are more supportiveof our candidates, more
supportive.
I said don't you have peoplewho have dyslexia at school?
Don't you have people who havedyslexia at university year at
school?
Don't you have people havedyslexia at university?
And they went, they kind of youknow, kind of went and thought
about it for a moment.
You're like, seriously, likeyou know, we I think, yeah, we
have a long way to go in thiscountry, but they're
unfortunately, I think, umcandidates who benefit from this
(27:52):
even more in other countries,um, within the epo.
So, um, yeah, it's, it's, it'sa big issue to deal with.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
I'll I'll restrain myself to dealing with the uk
mostly for now, but I think theother thing that we do and we
were talking about kind ofpraising governments earlier I
think this probably goes backprobably goes back to brown, um,
kind of end of blair brown thatwas carried on into cameron,
and that's we legislate yesqualities.
Yes, we, you know we.
(28:20):
We take the time to think aboutthe law and the way the law can
support people, and I justthink we do that better than
other countries.
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Yeah, I mean I don't.
I don't have a law degree, butI will say that I love the
Equality Act.
I love the way, having read it,the fact that it makes it clear
.
You read it, it's written inplain English.
It makes it clear that it'sintended to support people, that
these are people who itdefinitely kind of ties in with
a social model disability.
The way it talks essentiallyabout, about being able to
remove barriers, essentiallythat if the if there's something
(28:48):
that's preventing someone frombeing able to access something,
whether that be employment or asocial activity or whatever it
is, that, yeah, that there is anobligation to remove that
barrier to help that personparticipate I I am.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
I just wanted to add something about the reasonable
adjustments quick, because I hadthem and did use them.
So I'd sat the exam with theEQEs in 2019, the full EQEs and
requesting them was relativelystraightforward, but I
definitely got the impressionthat was because I had a bit of
paper that I could point to.
I had my official diagnosispaperwork that I could scan an
email over to the secretariat tosay I need this, and I got the
(29:26):
impression that, you know, theygave me what I wanted.
Like there wasn't like one ofthe things I had at university.
There was very much.
I'm like you have this condition.
This means we'll give you this,and whereas the secretary I was
like, no, I'd like use of acomputer an extra time, please.
Very much is yeah, 2019.
Before that was common and theysaid, yeah, the only thing is
you've got to come to munich, um, which actually, given that I
(29:48):
live, uh, you know, inhertfordshire, was actually
easier than me going to warsawin, uh, near birmingham, because
I'd have to go all the way downon the train and back out again
.
So flying from luton airport tomunich was actually more
favorable for me to know how tostick in a in a hotel on my own
rather than with my candidates.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
It wasn't that year in Warsaw that we had the Beast
from the East as well.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
It was cold.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I was surprised it went completely smoothly in the
end, apart from I had to.
The only thing was it was thesame venue that I think a lot of
the Germans just use for theexams in general and we were
just like the people with extrawho need extra help in a room
and like there was.
It was interesting because yousaid that it's all Marion, that
you said it was OC Britishpeople.
I guess maybe that's just fordyslexia, but because I had
(30:31):
people from who German people,who are Dutch, and we had a nice
conversation about how ournational exams all differed from
each other.
But yeah, but it was, yeah, I'dsay, like a sort of pretty even
spread, I guess.
But I think one thing that hasimproved is the fact that you
know we're doing these thingsonline and I think, going back
(30:52):
to the original point of how hasthe profession improved, like
in working with at least from aneurodiversity point, is I think
at least ADHD is kind of morerecognized, like I think you
know we're still doing a lot ofwork to kind of push that.
Like I think you know we'restill doing a lot of work to
kind of push that.
But I think I know a fewattorneys who are who are ADHD,
and I definitely got theimpression like, as we've moved
forward, that they've gottenmore help or that their
conditions were more recognizedor they're more.
People are more willing to sortof work with them, to work the
(31:14):
way they want to and to maintaintheir effectiveness, whereas
when I was a trainee sort of youknow seven, eight years ago I
kind of felt like it was just amaybe it's just because they
were trainees and it's just likea trainee just get on with it.
But maybe, whereas now it's,the people are more
understanding and more willingto adapt work to make get the
most out of people we've talkedto us with a key kind of
(31:36):
constituents in our world.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
We've talked about our employers and we've talked
about the patent officers andyou know, I think there's
improved awareness, is good andpeople are really trying to make
changes.
I know we're not there yet atall, but it's it's.
It's nice to hear, I think,there is change since four years
ago.
The other one, at least for theprivate practice element of
this group, is, of course, theclient.
Yes, and is it okay to ask howone manages that side of it and
(32:02):
how it's gone?
Speaker 4 (32:04):
are you referring to whether I'm aware of clients who
are disabled or whether you'retalking about kind of how we
yeah, well, maybe, maybe, george, you've got I've done.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
I hope I'm not prying , I'm just interested, you know,
do you kind of mention to theclient, or does it not their
business, or how does it playout?
Speaker 3 (32:19):
um, I wouldn't say I think I've ever actively
disclosed to a client that Ihave, like autism, mass
pressures, what have you likeit's?
It hasn't come up.
I guess it's the simple point,like we normally focused on them
and what their needs are, andlike I'm there to help them
ultimately, not the other wayaround, and so it's not been as
necessary.
I think the only time I thinkI've ever had a disability
(32:42):
conversation with the client wasI'm also red, green colorblind
and I said is there any chanceyou can send me this graph
different?
Because the jpeg you've sent meI can't edit the colors myself.
You know I can try and run itthrough a color filter, but I
mean you've sent me 30 figures.
This will take a while to do.
If you just change your colorschema on excel, this will save
me two hours of work and youknow, in that way I disclose the
(33:05):
disability.
But obviously colorblindnessdoesn't have any kind of stigma
attached to it compared to theneurodiversity.
So, but I think in the contextwhere I had to make it clear
that I needed help from them tomake my, my and their life
easier, because it was, you know, effective making the bill
cheaper, um, it made sense, butI think I wouldn't be opposed to
(33:26):
it because you know, obviouslyI'm publicly disclosing, happy
to publicly disclose of mycondition, but until it becomes
relevant it's kind of Ipersonally wouldn't see a need
to.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Thank you, that's that's.
That's really helpful.
I hope I wasn't prying, I'mjust genuinely interested.
If it ever comes up, you know.
Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
So it's interesting.
I keep talking about stuff thatI know about.
So it's interesting.
Uh, I keep talking about stuffthat I know about I don't know
the colorblindness thing and howit can impact and you do have
to tell people.
So grill and we'll know thisbecause we had him on the
podcast a few weeks back, futureson-in-law, probably kyle
football shirt collector man ashas two forms of colorblindness,
so you'll know this better thanme, george, but he has, if I
get this right, he has proprotein opiate and triton opiate
(34:09):
.
So he's red, red, green andblue yellow, I think.
I think this is the way Iunderstand it.
So he, he has to tell people upfront that he's got color
blindness because he just mightbe putting the wrong titles up
yeah, it's a problem like so I'mdeuteranopic, which is like the
classic red greencolorblindness that most people
are familiar with.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
Uh, I inherited from my mom.
It's an x-linked recessive uhtrade yeah, I know all about
that yeah, um, whereas, like my,it's funny because actually my
brother and my dad have adifferent form of colorblind, as
you say.
So they've got the one set andwe've got different sets, so
it's like we're speakingdifferent languages when we're
talking about colors.
It doesn't, it doesn't workwell, especially since you know
color has no inherent quality,it's a qualia, it only exists in
(34:51):
the brain.
It's like so what is red?
Um, yeah, but yeah, I thinkactually I'm quite interested in
the color stuff in ourprofession because we often use
like color coding systems.
I can remember when I was atmarx and clark, colors
corresponded to countries andyou know that was back when we
had physical files and that wasvery much present thing.
But you know, europe was greenand rest of the world besides,
(35:12):
like japan, us, was orange.
I really couldn't tell thedifference at first glance.
I would very much have to look,and I think one of the things
marianne was talking about howsoftware needs to be designed
with accessibility first in theforefront of the developers
minds, and I'm really big onthat, you know, for
colorblindness, forneurodiversity, for everything
(35:34):
so what?
Speaker 1 (35:34):
what can we expect next from ip ability?
What's, what's, what's on thehorizon?
Speaker 4 (35:39):
well, we had one um coffee morning.
That was really popular and itwas really nice to get
engagement from people who werenot our regular crowd, as it
were, were in attending ourwebinars.
So we'll definitely be runningmore of those and you're
planning a webinar, chris,you're planning.
Speaker 5 (35:54):
Well, what we're trying to do.
We've done a couple of thingson.
We did a webinar on the CarersLeave Act this year and we did
one, a similar one, a few yearsago, about carers rights, and
those have both been run by ipability.
But obviously care, there arepeople in with caring
responsibilities in othercommunities and and you know
across the ip profession as awhole.
(36:14):
So just people parents caringfor young children, for example,
or or people caring for elderlyparents, and so on.
Um, so we we'd like to dosomething around caring, but not
just within the context ofdisability, something, something
broader across the whole of ipinclusive.
So I haven't quite worked outwhat the format of that's going
to be yet.
I probably need anotherconversation with andrea about
(36:35):
it.
But yeah, hopefully something,um, something around caring in a
more general sense that's great, and we've also got um an
in-person event coming up.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
Um.
So loretta I'm not going to sayher surname, wrong, sorry, but
yeah, I think this is lorettadimek menkitelli.
She's a new member of ourcommittee and she's keen to do,
uh, something around women'shealth issues, so she should be
running that.
I think it's going to be in theautumn.
I think they're still figuringout dates, but that should be in
the autumn cool.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Well, it feels like.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Oh no, gwen was about to say something no, I was
actually just going to umreflect you extended your neck
in that kind of positive way.
I was just reflecting on the.
You talked there, chris, aboutcaring, and I was actually
reflecting on caring in aslightly different sense
possibly, which is that we had avery interesting podcast which
will be going out, um, with,with, um, the, the iPause team,
(37:25):
um, and I think, again, you know, as an ally and one of the
lovely things about this podcast, by the way, is the amount of
allyship that I've discovered Ihave.
That I didn't know until Istarted talking to all these
different groups, but as an allythere I was asking, basically,
what is the right to say?
How is the, how is the rightway to um, to raise it, how to
be supportive without beingoffensive, which I think often
(37:47):
is we might, you might call theally dilemma.
I really want to help, but Imight offend you by offering it.
So what do I do?
Which had a lovely response, Ithought, which was be kind.
It was an incredibly usefulpiece of advice, actually really
simple, but actually the rightone.
I mean, would you, would youkind of echo that as a, as a
good starting point for theallies to to?
Speaker 5 (38:07):
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I think I certainlywould, if anything's
well-intentioned, even if it'sperhaps a bit clumsy.
I wouldn't be offended by thatthe first time anyway.
Possibly the second or thirdtime.
Speaker 4 (38:21):
Taking people at their word as well, rather than
I found it upsetting if I wasquizzed about stuff.
So if you say I need thisbecause of that, and someone
then turned around and went, oh,but couldn't you do this?
Instead, it'd be like no, I'vethought about this.
I've reached this decision forthe.
In this case, I'm thinkingabout my caring responsibilities
.
I've reached this decision onthe basis of what's best for my
family.
I don't want to have to furtherjustify it.
(38:45):
So it's yeah, take people attheir word.
If they say they need something, then say okay, how can we help
you with that?
Rather than are you sure orhave you thought about doing
this?
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Right, I'm going to try and do what I was going to
try and do earlier, gwilym, andbring us to a close, because I'm
just conscious that you know Ihave to do this.
It's just a horrible bit ofpodcast.
I'm the that we kind of need tokeep it to a length that people
will actually listen to, whichis important.
So either if you've listened tothe podcast or if you've been
(39:15):
on before, you know that we tryand end up with a closer.
I'm going to recycle a closerbecause it just feels the right
thing to do, but I'm going totry and frame it differently.
So I think the last time wetalked about issues around
ability, we ended up with like asuperpower question what would,
what would you want yoursuperpower to be?
I'm not going to do, not goingto do that one.
So what?
I'm going to ask you, william,and then you three need to get
ready for this because it'scoming your way what ordinary
(39:37):
ability that most people havegot that you don't have, would
you love to have?
Speaker 2 (39:42):
well, it is actually just to have a normal
conversation without trying towork out um, I don't know if
might be an indicator, somethingI should be looking at and have
a normal conversation withouttrying to be really really funny
and exciting every time,because I'm not a and b.
I think it exhausts everybodyelse.
I'd love to just talk aboutstuff like normal people.
(40:04):
I don't know how to do it I can.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
I can empathize with that because I think I do the
same, don't I?
I have exactly the same traitto just try and make things
funny when they don't need to befunny I'm often getting it
completely wrong or not beingfunny to my um specialists
straight.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Those don't know.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Those are superpowers so let's, let's do george.
But if that's okay, george, doyour next.
But what one thing would youlove to be able to do?
Speaker 3 (40:26):
odd.
That's a long list.
Um, I I don't know.
I think probably for me, like,as I get older I get better at
conversation and I think, youknow, as a child I was very
incapable of having normalconversation and like, I think
it's mostly just experience andbecause I'm a learning focused
person, that I just get betterat it, and you know we all do.
It's just experience.
(40:47):
But I think the difference isfor someone like me, I have less
of an intuitive grasp of it.
So I guess for me it would belet's just give you more of an
intuitive grasp of how toactually talk to people, rather
than having to figure out,offend a bunch of people by
saying the wrong thing and thengoing hmm, I feel like a normal
person would have maybe not madeas big of a mistake on this
(41:08):
good one, chris oh, I'm reallystruggling.
Speaker 1 (41:12):
Lay um you don't have to answer, it's just a fun
thing to do in the end of thebook.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
Perfect as you are, chris.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
Well I'm then I hesitate to say it, but perhaps
I am, I don't know maybe, maybeyou might want to be more humble
yeah, maybe chris is veryhumble.
Speaker 4 (41:29):
Chris and I have worked together for a couple of
years and it's been so easy.
It's really lovely.
It's really nice.
You're very pleasant to workwith.
Speaker 1 (41:37):
God, I spoke over you .
Then, chris, you were going tosay something.
Speaker 5 (41:40):
I'd forgotten what I was going to say, lee, sorry.
Speaker 2 (41:42):
I can say something for you, Chris.
Speaker 5 (41:50):
Welcome to welcome to my life.
I've had to do this 150 timesnow.
It's exhausting, absolutely.
I'll tell you what I am goingto say and it's got nothing to
do with the podcast, but it's avery exciting day for me today
and maybe there's some way youcan work it in.
The third edition of my book onthe science of ice cream is
being published today, so I'vegot to get out of that third
edition.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
If you had said it earlier on, we could have an ice
cream themed closer.
Speaker 5 (42:08):
That would have been the way to go.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
We'll definitely get it in.
We'll have a link to it, chris.
We'll do that.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
I've got Chris's one, then.
Which is why can't I just enjoyice cream for itself, like
normal people?
Speaker 4 (42:24):
I didn't know this book existed.
Chris, I'm going to have to geta copy.
Speaker 5 (42:30):
Oh yeah, it's a throwback to my my former life
as an ice cream scientist beforeI became a patent attorney.
So first edition came out 20years ago.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
We are going to have to have a podcast on the science
of ice cream.
I think you should.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
I'm a colleague whose dad does chocolate science and
he does all the fancy chocolatesyou get.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
Oh yeah, do food science.
We've got a podcast, marian.
We've got a podcast, marianne.
You've had lots of thinkingtime.
Speaker 4 (42:51):
I wish I wasn't so clumsy.
So yeah, I wish I was a normallevel of non-clumsiness.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
And mine is a bit like that because I was reminded
last Friday when I playedfootball why I stopped playing
football.
So you know, I'm quite sporty,I love a run, I play squash and
I think I'm reasonably good atit.
I'm quite coordinated, kind of.
My arm goes, but my feet, myfeet and my legs seem to be
unable to take commands from mybrain, because I watch people
playing football and I wasplaying with them and they're
(43:20):
doing all these things wherethey move their foot over the
ball and all this sort of stuff.
If I tell my feet to doanything, generally I do
anything.
Generally I fall over when I'mplaying football.
That's why so so yeah, I lovethe legs to be less clumsy and
I'd like to be able to enjoyfootball and I don't more.
Heads to foot coordination yeah,yeah, and you know I'm not a
tall bloke.
It's not because my feet are along way away from the control.
(43:40):
Is it separate brain in yourass?
Speaker 2 (43:42):
no, none of that oh, thank you.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
Thank you all for coming on.
It's been, it's been lovelyhaving you on this bit.
It's been great to talk about atopic that is so important for
people in such an kind ofauthoritative, kind of confident
way, but also with a bit of funso that.
So that's been really good.
So thank you all for coming on.
Lovely to see you again, gwilym.
It'd be nice to not see you fora beer in a week or two's time,
aren't we Beer and jam?
(44:08):
And just to say, if you'velistened to the podcast and
you've enjoyed it, then leave usa little review somewhere,
because that really helps peoplefind us and we want people to
find the podcast, that's it,we're done guys, thank you,
that's a
Speaker 2 (44:20):
wrap Thank you.
Hello Gwilym, I've not seen you since yesterday.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
No, and I don't think we're going to see each other
on podcast duty for a while now.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Yeah, I know we're going to have a little bit of a
break, aren't we?
I think probably it's thesummer, it's the summer, yeah
yeah yeah, I must say, your neckis looking a lot shorter this
morning.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
It was looking.
Look, I'm quite worried.
Obviously it's an audio podcast.
It's getting quite long.
Is that an age thing?
Does your neck get?
Speaker 1 (00:29):
longer when you get old?
No, mine's longer than yours.
You look a little bit likeColbert my tortoise.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Maybe you're just developing the ability to kind
of withdraw your head into yourbody, which is which would be
quite a cool talent, wouldn't itProbably ought to explain for
anyone to the podcast that meand grill I'm usually have a
little bit of kind of chat inthe sidebar going and yesterday
he did say to me does my neck?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
look long.
This is the problem with zoom.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
You spend your whole life looking at yourself and
then deciding, worrying aboutall the things wrong with you,
and I've decided my neck's amajor issue so and I've worked
out because I did, I did alittle bit of um, I did a little
bit of kind of testing thismorning that my appearance that
I've been on holiday is becausethe light is bouncing off of
this kind of mahogany table andit gives me sort of like a
mahogany glow If I move awayfrom the table I go to a normal
(01:13):
colour.
I quite like looking as thoughI've been on holiday.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
You look like an extra from Dallas.
It's a good look.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Is that the friendly bounce done?
I didn't expect that to be thefriendly bounce.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Anything else you want to talk about.
I was going to talk about umsummer plans, what's?
Speaker 1 (01:28):
your summer plans.
Well, we've done the holiday.
We popped down to cornwall acouple weeks ago, so so that's
done.
I've got a lot of work to do athome.
I want to, um, put new doors onthe garage and things like that
.
So it'd probably be a bit of adiy summer, I think, uh, and
desperately hoping that theweather might improve enough to
get a bit of fishing done,because every time I plan to go
fishing at the weekend it justrains do fish not like rain?
(01:49):
I don't like rain.
Okay, the fish are fine with it, but I don't they're quite
waterproof, aren't they?
Yeah, they are.
Are you?
Is it Spanish summer for youthis year?
Speaker 2 (01:58):
no, no, I'm kind of again been away a little bit.
Either side of this.
I have a theory that summer'snice in in the uk.
It's a theory, um, but yes, somost, mostly it's um
blackberries, because I lovegrowing, I love letting all the
blackberries grow in the gardenand we've got kilograms of the
things.
So it's just, I'm just makingjam all summer.
If you want any jam, anybodywant any jam on the podcast,
(02:19):
anyone want any jam.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
I've got a lot of jam coming, a lot of jam yeah, I
keen on jam, so I'd be veryhappy to take a tank off you.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Well, we're catching up.
I'll bring you some jam, yeahwe are.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Yeah, we are catching up in person, aren't we?
Fairly soon Shall we crack onwith the show.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
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
Determination.
Do?
Speaker 1 (02:52):
you like that.
I've become a bit show-busy onthe podcast.
I call it the show now.
Yeah yeah, like it's all kindof proper now.
So we've been doing a run ofIP-inclusive podcasts recently
and this is another of those.
So we're going to talk to theteam from IP Ability about all
the things that's been happeningthere since we had them on last
, because this is a return visitto the podcast, certainly for
(03:14):
the topic, if not all of thepeople.
So let's get the guests on.
Marianne, let's start with you.
Hello, hello, hi.
So do you fancy giving yourselfa little introduction so people
know who you are and what?
Speaker 4 (03:25):
you do.
Yeah, so I'm Ariane Privett.
I'm a patent attorney andpartner at AA Thornton.
My interest in disability?
I'm an ally.
I don't have a disability of myown that I'm aware of, but I've
got personal experience, havinggrown up with disabled siblings
, so they were both learningdisabled.
And then also my husbandsuffered quite severe back
problems some years ago, whichmade me very aware of caring
(03:49):
responsibilities and theirimpact on on myself as a
professional um and as a parentat the time as well.
So that made things extracomplicated um.
And then also my husband waslater diagnosed with adhd.
So again, a kind of an extraawareness of um neurodivergence
as well.
So, yeah, yeah and also I thinkit comes back to my awareness as
someone who has grown up withum disability as being something
(04:12):
at the forefront of my mind,that it's just not, and a lot of
disability is not visible.
I fully appreciate that, butI've I've, until recently I've
been to the EPO plenty of times.
I've only seen someone using avisible aid once, um, I don't
know if Gwilym can rememberthink about that, but I've
noticed one person with awalking stick in all the many,
many years of visiting the EPO.
Never seen anyone use awheelchair, never seen anyone
(04:33):
use like a white cane oranything like that.
So I just thought actually ourprofession is far too closed off
to a large proportion ofpopulation who could do this job
just as well as I could.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
That's fabulous to have you on, marianne George.
Let's come to you next.
Welcome to the podcast, yourfirst time.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Yes, no, I don't think I've ever done a podcast
before, actually.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
First time podcasting full stop.
Well, we'll be very gentle withyou, okay, thank, you.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Thank you.
Who are you and what do you do?
I'm also a patent attorney.
Unsurprisingly, I'm anassociate at eip.
I have asperger's syndrome,although it's not really called
that anymore.
I was diagnosed when I was 11,uh, by nhs, a psychologist.
In brief, like asperger's is aform of autism.
Um it, probably the mostdominant feature for me is that,
(05:19):
especially when I was a child,I found it quite difficult to
socialize and understand, likenon-verbal non-verbal
communication, which thankfully,a podcast is mostly verbal
communication, so that makes ita bit easier.
Um, but yeah, I've recentlyjoined ip ability.
But, uh, I've been interestedin sort of accessibility and
neurodiversity in the ipprofession for quite a long time
, so I'm hoping to make apositive impact in that it's
(05:42):
really cool to have you on, uh.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
And so my world's changed since the last time we
did a podcast on sort ofdisability issues.
Uh, I have a.
I have a number ofgrandchildren, I've got number
six on the way, but number four,who is just turned four, has
just been diagnosed, uh, withautism I think it was.
It was fairly obvious to us forthe last couple of years that
that was probably going tohappen.
So I'm learning all about itand it's actually, you know,
(06:06):
it's, it's quite an excitingworld to learn about.
But it's been fascinating for meto um, to, to learn how to um.
So theory's name is it's uh.
It's been fascinating to learnhow to communicate with him, um,
because he, he strugglesverbally.
He doesn't have much um kind ofability on ability with
language at the moment, but wecommunicate by blinking eyes to
(06:27):
one another, which I foundreally early on.
If I just wink at him and stufflike that, he winks back.
We then kind of can play gamesand things.
So, yeah, it's been fascinatingfor me to discover that stuff.
And so podcast veteran now,chris, and actually SEPA veteran
, because Chris does a hugeamount for SEPA, not least
regularly trains the staff whenwe have new staff come in on
(06:47):
very, very simple patentingtechniques.
Thank you, chris.
You do it with flying fish andstuff like that.
It's an amazing session we dowith the staff.
Great to have you back, but youstill need to introduce
yourself, I'm afraid.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Yeah, so Chris Clark, patent attorney in-house with
Vectura, based in Cambridge.
My interest in IP ability isbecause, a bit like Marianne, I
have a son with a learningdisability, so, as a carer, he's
now 17 years old, soapproaching adulthood.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Well, you're all really welcome.
As I say, this is part of aseries that we're doing just
catching up on IP Inclusive andits various streams.
So where would be good to start?
It's your podcast, what wouldbe good to start?
It's your podcast, what wouldbe good to talk about first.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
Well, I listened to the previous episode this
morning, which was fromSeptember 2024, so about four
years ago, and I was just struckby the fact that we've done a
lot essentially in that time.
We've done a lot of awarenessraising.
One of the webinars that wasmentioned in that was Kerry
Russell was going to present oninvisible disabilities and she
really created this format wherewe had some kind of legal
(07:46):
advice, as it were.
So we had a, an employmentlawyer, and then also an HR
professional and then somepersonal experience, and that's
worked quite well with us acrossa number of issues where we've
tried to explain to employers.
So I think it's helpful to forHR professionals within the IP
profession as a whole to betterunderstand issues related to
disability, but also, obviously,for the people who are directly
(08:07):
affected, for them tounderstand their rights, and one
of those was the Carers LeaveAct webinar, which Chris
recently organised, whichrelates basically to the fact
that we now, thankfully, havelegislation in the UK that
allows carers to take leave atno notice.
I think Chris is that correct.
They can just say sorry, can'tcome, come in today, I've got to
look after someone yes, withinsome restrictions, but yes,
(08:28):
basically yeah, within sensiblerestrictions, but yeah, and
that's that's well.
I'm sure you can talk about whatdifference that would have made
to you.
Well, as a parent, you alwayshad some rights, but still going
forward, being able to takeleave as and when you need to,
to be able to look after someone, it's going to make a huge
difference yeah.
Speaker 5 (08:45):
So what we found when my son was younger was there
was a maybe you'll get thisleave with your grandson.
There was a um, a constantstream of appointments with
various professionals, you know,with doctors, with um sort of
behavioral specialists, withwith all with nutritionists, you
know all sorts of people.
Um that we went through um,because my son's disability had
(09:07):
various facets, um, one of whichwas he eats a lot.
Another one, which is a veryshort attention span.
So we had, we had a whole bunchof interventions, particularly
in the early stages, and thattook a lot of time just taking
him to appointments.
It might be, I suppose, alittle bit easier these days
because these things mighthappen online to some extent,
but we were endlessly going offto hospitals and clinics and
(09:27):
things, and there was a timewhen both my wife well,
essentially there was a periodof time when either my wife or
myself were working part timefor a number of years in order
to be able to accommodate thatkind of stuff.
So having the right as a, as acarer, to take leave for these
things might have enabled us to,you know, not to have to go um
part-time.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Yeah, I mean available then but we've also
covered a range of other topicsas well.
We've talked about sort of thestigma associated with
disability, in a sense that it'sum, I always think, when you
look at the different strands ofdiversity and inclusion, that
there are some things which arejust visible.
Um, not not always, but most.
Most of the time you can tell,um, if someone's a woman.
Most of the time you can tellif someone belongs to a certain
(10:09):
ethnic group.
But disability is kind of this,this kind of straddles it's.
I think in some ways it it ismore akin to sexuality, where
you wouldn't know somethingabout someone unless they told
someone about it.
Certainly, when it comes toneurodivergence, you don't know
something about that person'sneurotype until they tell you
about it, and so I think, yeah,then there's a stigma associated
with anything that's hidden.
Essentially, you know, if youdon't have to disclose, if it's
(10:33):
not visible, it's not somethingthat you can see immediately
upon meeting someone.
Then sometimes there's a stigmaassociated with that.
And disability is unfortunately, I think, partly just by the
nature of the word.
It seems to relate to a lack ofability or not having ability,
and that's not certainly the waythat I see it.
I ascribe to the social model ofdisability.
I'm just going to explain whatthat means a little bit.
(10:56):
So social model essentiallymeans that it's society that
disables a person, not whateverthing it is that is inherent to
their health or their way ofworking, their way of brain
working.
So the reason that I believethat the term disabled is
appropriate for neurodivergentpeople is because society is not
accommodating to them.
So it's not that there'ssomething inherently, there's
something different.
There's not inherently wrongwith anybody, whether that be
(11:17):
because of some kind of issuewith, I don't know, mobility
they use a wheelchair or to dowith their neurotype, that they
benefit from certain adjustments, that the disability is not
their own as such.
The disability results from theway that society treats them,
and so my kind of passion istrying to ensure that I can do
what I can do to make ourprofession more accommodating of
(11:39):
people, so that they're able toperform to the best of their
ability and contribute in theway that they're able to perform
to the best of their abilityand contribute in the way.
As I said at the beginning, Idon't see any reason why someone
who is blind, deaf,neurodivergent, in a wheelchair,
whatever, why those peoplecan't do their job just as well
as I can.
So it's just trying to make ourprofession as accommodating as
possible and trying to encouragepeople to enter the profession
from as wide a range ofbackgrounds as possible I said
(12:03):
mean the social model isinteresting.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
I used to do a lot of work when I was in further
education around inclusivity.
Inclusive learning kind of cameout of further education
colleges and it was a real keeninterest for me.
So I was quite an early adopter, I guess, of the social model.
And actually, because you'vetalked about the other, well,
really the other areas IPinclusive is active in, uh, so
(12:26):
there are other areas wherepeople kind of will experience
barriers and by by making thethe disability side of things
the social model, it also alignsit much more closely with the
other areas of um exclusion, Ithink, because by and large they
tend to be cultural, societalreasons why people are excluded.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
I haven't thought in those terms.
That's a really interestingpoint.
Thank you, Lee.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
And it means I think it means that it's possibly
easier to be an ally then aswell, because you're not.
You are trying to help peopleovercome barriers that society
is presenting to them.
You're not there as a healthadvocate.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Yes, that's true, I'm not a medical professional and
so, yeah, I can't help someonein any way in the medical sense.
But it's interesting that.
So one of the webinars we heldwas about language and we've
leaned within IP ability.
We've leaned quite a lot onlawyers within the law society.
They have a disabled solicitorsnetwork and we've leaned quite
a lot on them for panellists.
(13:25):
You know, as you, as you know,ip profession is relatively
small.
Law profession as a whole isbigger.
So when we want someone to talkabout a particular topic, then
we go, hey, do you know anyonewho'd be willing to contribute
to this discussion?
So, yeah, so we had a couple oflawyers who both actually
prefer not to be called disabledX.
You know, they prefer to be Xwith this particular disability.
(13:46):
So one of them had a visualimpairment.
I can't remember the other lady, but yeah.
So they basically, both of them, said, although the social
model they understand where thesocial model comes from they
prefer not to be labelled asdisabled.
And so, yeah, because if youhave a disabled person, you are
saying that this is the personthat is disabled.
They prefer to be justthemselves.
Who happens to be someone withI don't know, visual impairment?
(14:09):
In one case, and I've just comeback from the States, and that
very much is the language theyprefer in the States, and you'll
see that you would be assumedto have misspoken.
If you say disabled person inthe States, you have to say
person with disability.
So there's definitely all sortsof cultural issues there around
the way that these preferred,preferred language has evolved,
um, in different culturesseparated by a common language.
(14:31):
Isn't that the phrase for theus and the uk?
But actually, yeah, I thinkyour point is a very valid one,
that it's, and I want to be anactive ally.
Then it makes much more senseto me to be an active ally
within a societal kind ofimpairment or societal
restriction than it does to tryand be an active ally within
something medical.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
So, yeah, Can I bring George in here?
Because in terms of the way Italk about Theo and I don't know
whether I'm getting it right Ihope I'm getting it right, but I
always talk about him.
So he's been diagnosed withautism and that's the way I talk
about it.
I don't apply a label to himbecause he's a cracking little
boy and he's going to have anamazing life and he lights up my
life and he just happens to bediagnosed with autism and kind
(15:11):
of together as a family, we workour way through that.
Is that how it was for you,george?
I mean, you were diagnosed at11, did you say?
Is that quite late?
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Maybe slightly.
I think you know I'm'm 32 now,so we're talking 20 years ago.
Like so things have moved on interms of the general public's
understanding of theseconditions, and like so my
parents thought I might haveadhd when I was sort of younger
was sort of seven, eight, thatkind of thing and a doctor sort
of proposed that I might haveasperger's, as it was called
then, and it took a quite a longtime to be processed through
(15:45):
the system and it wasn't until Iwas 11 that I received the bit
of paper that explained me, Ithink, in terms.
Go back to your point about, um, your grandson.
I think you know it's perfectlyfine to say you've been
diagnosed with autism.
It's a statement of fact.
I mean, it's that's what thecondition's called, that's
what's happened.
Uh, I think some people get abit funny when you start saying
oh, he's autistic I've neversaid that and I would be
(16:05):
uncomfortable saying that yeah,exactly because I think it's the
same reason like marianne wastalking about.
It's about labels and it's aboutencompassing someone in a box.
You know it's.
It's no, no more specific thanthat.
It's not tied into thecondition itself.
I think it's, but it'sparticularly problematic for
autism, because autism autism issuch a variable condition, like
(16:27):
people always talk about theautism spectrum, but I don't
think people recognize that it'snot just like a gradient from
low functioning to highfunctioning.
It's a collection of traitswhich some people express and
some don't so like, for example,there's perception issues or
perception differences.
More accurately, so like it's.
I often see it said that peoplewith autism have a more raw
(16:48):
perception of the world, so it'slike they don't have their
brain doing a bunch ofprocessing on their sensory
input before it reaches, youknow, your conscious brain, and
as a result, it's you have todeal with the more raw input and
that might mean, oh, I'm morelikely to notice like
differences in things because mybrain isn't just filtering out.
But it might also mean there istoo much visual stimulus.
(17:10):
I can't see a pattern.
So it's just, it's justdifferent in that respect and
it's not necessarily adisability, it's just.
It may just be a difference inability, but depending on how
those things personally affectyou, it may result in you being
less effective at tasks, whichmight be a societal thing, as
Marianne says, but it's justeveryone's different in that
(17:30):
regard.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
It was interesting.
So I don't want to kind of makethis about Theo, but just maybe
just finish off my experiencethere.
So from about the age of two,we were thinking there was
probably something going onbecause he wasn't starting to
talk.
He's got two older brother andolder sister.
He didn't really have arelationship with them or
anything like that.
And then maybe two and a halfcoming on to three and we were
(17:52):
at a family wedding.
So my elder son's wedding, lotsof children, and they've spent
the whole of the time like thatno one just knew what I did on
the podcast.
I stuck my fingers in my earsfor the listening audience he
spent the whole of the weddingwalking around with his fingers
in his ears because he couldn'tprocess the noise, the sound.
I spoke to his mum and dadafter that and it was yeah,
(18:18):
we've been aware for some timethat he struggles with some kind
of sensory overload, thingshappening to him and um and
we're we'll see if we can findout what it is.
And that's where we started onthe the journey and it's so.
It's yeah, he was onlydiagnosed, um, a couple of
months back are you aware of the?
Speaker 4 (18:34):
um, the sunflower lanyard?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, becauseI mentioned it someone the
other day and they said they hadno idea what it was.
So, yeah, yeah, for those whoaren't aware, the sunflower
lanyard is a.
It's bright green with brightyellow sunflowers on it.
It's eye-catching.
It doesn't have to be a lanyard, but the idea is that it's an
outward sign that someone has aninvisible disability.
It's often used for children whoare neurodivergent, just
(18:55):
because for extra understanding.
I think it started off I thinkit was Gatwick Airport,
definitely started at an airportand the idea was that people
who might need extra assistancethere was a outwards visible
sign to people working at theairport that this person might
need a bit of help.
But it gets used in all sortsof environments now.
So it's an outward sign and forenvironments where children
feel overwhelmed, then they'reable to just signify to get
(19:18):
better understanding.
And certainly, growing up withmy brother and sister although
they well, my, it's complicatedas to what who knows exactly
what was in the mix there, sowhether their sensory overload
was resulting from learningdifficulties or potentially some
form of neurodivergence, butcertainly there were times when
my brother would haveessentially a meltdown in public
and I think if he'd been ableto wear ear defenders, if he'd
(19:40):
been able to wear a sunflowerlanyard, you'd have hoped that
people would respond with a bitmore understanding and kindness,
and sometimes they did yeah,yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
So we've all been quite open about our own
experiences, either, george,directly or, in our cases, um,
living with family, familymembers who are, who experience
these issues on a day-to-daybasis.
How does that translate intothe sorts of things that you do
with IP Inclusive?
So I mean, clearly it's what'smade the three of you kind of
(20:11):
activists, if that's the rightword in this space.
What does that mean in realterms?
What are you doing?
What are the kind of reallyinteresting things that you're
doing?
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Well, one of the things that we've done is
contribute to feedback aroundthe exam.
So, as a lot of the members ofthe profession will know
certainly the younger memberswill know that there's changes
proposed for the EQEs.
We'll not just propose any more.
There's going to be bringing inchanges to the way the exams
are working, and the EPO put outa sort of expression of a
(20:39):
request for feedback on theirproposals and IP Inclusive.
We submitted a joint submission, but one of the primary areas
that we focused on wasdisability and the potential for
it to impact disabledcandidates, and I think the way
that the systems work at themoment is they have an existing
system in place and then if acandidate has particular needs,
(21:02):
then they will try and adapt thesystem to suit that candidate,
whereas the ideal system is thatyou create something that has
accessibility built in it fromthe very beginning, so you don't
have to adapt something.
There's no potential unfairnessin having to adapt something
that was made for someone whohad no visual impairment, who
had no dyslexia, had whatever.
So yeah, and I have to give hima name.
(21:24):
Check Abhishek Dhol is acandidate, so he's never going
to be a candidate for the patentexams.
He has no intention to do thepatent exams at all, but he is a
law student at Queen Mary and Imet him at a Law Society event
and I mentioned.
One of my concerns was aroundthe portal they were proposing
using and if we could getsomeone who was actually
visually impaired to test it.
And he went, oh, I'll do it.
(21:44):
And I went are you sure?
Because, like you know this,you're never going to benefit
from this.
He's like no, no, it's fine,I've got nothing to do this
summer, I'll play around with it.
So Abhishek very kindly didexactly that and he confirmed
that, although the portalallowed you to, to use it, to
kind of use a screen reader, toto look around screen, as it
were, and to choose your answers, you can then read it back and
(22:05):
if you think how important it isthat when you do an exam, that
you go back and go oh, did Imean to say that, or is that
what I wanted?
So, yeah, we submitted that aspart of the feedback and the EPO
specifically referred to it andthey're going to make changes
to make sure that that's goingto be possible for candidates in
the future.
So that was a definite win.
I'm really pleased that they,the epo, are really going to
make efforts to design their newsystem with accessibility from
(22:27):
the very beginning, at the heartof it all.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
So, um, yeah, that that's, that's a definite win on
behalf of all the people takingexams who might be sitting
there thinking, gosh, the examsare going to change.
I'm not going to be able to dothem because of all these
changes, but basically it's notgoing to be.
It's not going to make anydifference to the substance as
such.
It's to do with kind ofpresentation, delivery, that
kind of thing.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
Yes, yeah.
Yeah, it's all about makingsure the portal they use, and
the thing is that I can'tremember the name of the portal,
but they weren't using all ofit.
As with lots of softwaresystems, you don't necessarily
pay for the full package, soit's partly that the EPO didn't
think they needed certainfunctionality.
So they're not.
This doesn't risk screwinganything up and it doesn't risk
making it more complicated forall the candidates Not at all.
(23:09):
It should make it a betterexperience for everybody.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
I mean you mentioned that since we last podcasted
four years ago, you've seen lotsof change and you mentioned,
obviously, some of the kind ofbiggest statutory changes.
Are you seeing a change inattitude?
That's a really good example ofa change in attitude from the
patent office.
Well, maybe that's pejorativeto say it's a change but a an
exciting demonstration of apositive attitude from patent
(23:32):
office.
How's that for diplomacy?
But um, are you seeing otherkind of increases of awareness
within our, within our world,within our profession?
Speaker 4 (23:41):
what I don't?
What do you think, chris?
You've been around doing thisfor as long as I have um yeah I
don't know I, I think a bit, Ithink it's.
Speaker 5 (23:50):
It's a bit more talked about than than it was.
It's hard to remember exactlywhat things were like five years
and four or five years ago.
But my impression is, yeah, Ithink I think, just because of
partly all the stuff that umandrea's done expanding sort of
ip, inclusives, you know, addingnew communities and so on there
just seems to be a bit more ofa perhaps more, more more kind
(24:13):
of edi stuff being talked aboutgenerally.
Um, it's become a bit morenormal to talk about it, but
perhaps it was a bit of anexception before.
Maybe that's what I'm trying tosay I'd like to think that.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
So celia mentioned in the previous episode that, um,
she thought that there weredyslexic ip professionals who
weren't open about beingdyslexic.
Um, I'm aware of a few who havecome out, as it were, as as
being dyslexic since thatrecording and I'd hope people
would feel more comfortable atleast within maybe not kind of
outwardly with amongst theprofession as a whole, but at
(24:45):
least within their own, theirown firm or within their own
team.
So, yeah, I agree, I think it'stalked about more openly.
I think there's we're I hopewe're in a position where if
anyone were to experience, itwere to experience negatives
from from their team or from apotential employer in relation
to any form of disability orneurodivergence that they would,
it would be clear to everybody,as it were, that they were in
(25:06):
the wrong and that the candidateor the employee was in the
right.
I'd like to think we've atleast got to that stage.
But yeah, I think it's stilltentative.
I still think there's a lot ofwork to do.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
This actually is an interesting one, isn't it?
And I'm sure it's absolutelyfine for me to say what I'm
about to say.
If not, I'll think about itafterwards and maybe take it out
.
But I've had a number ofinstances where um people with
dyslexia trainees have come tosee her to for help not not
generally with the peb exams,although I know that we could be
doing better there but I thinkin the past generally we've
(25:40):
tried to be as supportive ofpeople as we can.
But but with the, with the EQEs, and there seems to me to be,
uh, there's this thing, isn'tthere with Europe, and that's
that not.
Not everybody sees EDI the sameway yes and in one particular
instance where I went to the EQEsecretariat around dyslexia, a
person had been giving givenadditional time one year and
(26:03):
then the next year they had toprove again that they still
needed that time and theresponse I got.
The response I got was but theymight have got better and
that's and I know it's just acultural thing, it's a kind of
perspective thing, isn't it?
And, and you know, we perhapsin the UK we've been more open
and we've discussed these thingsmore, but but, yeah, the sense
(26:24):
that they should have recoveredby now.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
I had.
So I'm a member of theexamination committee for paper
C, which will no longer existsoon, but the opposition paper
for the moment and I went to acelebration in Munich, which is
the one place I did see someonewith a walking aid, a mobility
aid, at the EPO.
But I was there and it was yeah, it was a review of kind of the
history of the EQEs and howthings have evolved and looking
(26:48):
forward and they did have apresentation on adjustments and
on disabled candidates theysupported and the secretariat.
They were perfectly nice aboutit.
But then afterwards, becauseI'd spoken up so I was clear
that I was invested in it, Iguess two German guys behind me,
who were both examiners, turnedaround to me and went.
(27:09):
Why were they had been put, asit's all online now, they'd been
put in a assigned a group ofcandidates who all had dyslexia
and I guess it makes sense toput everyone together because
they'd rather have someoneleaving early, other person
leaving late, anyway.
So, yes, they put all thecandidates with dyslexia
together and they went.
Why were they all British?
And I went.
Well, maybe we diagnose itbetter than you do.
I don't believe that Britishpeople are more likely to be
(27:30):
dyslexic.
I think we are more supportiveof our candidates, more
supportive.
I said don't you have peoplewho have dyslexia at school?
Don't you have people who havedyslexia at university year at
school?
Don't you have people havedyslexia at university?
And they went, they kind of youknow, kind of went and thought
about it for a moment.
You're like, seriously, likeyou know, we I think, yeah, we
have a long way to go in thiscountry, but they're
unfortunately, I think, umcandidates who benefit from this
(27:52):
even more in other countries,um, within the epo.
So, um, yeah, it's, it's, it'sa big issue to deal with.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
I'll I'll restrain myself to dealing with the uk
mostly for now, but I think theother thing that we do and we
were talking about kind ofpraising governments earlier I
think this probably goes backprobably goes back to brown, um,
kind of end of blair brown thatwas carried on into cameron,
and that's we legislate yesqualities.
Yes, we, you know we.
(28:20):
We take the time to think aboutthe law and the way the law can
support people, and I justthink we do that better than
other countries.
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Yeah, I mean I don't.
I don't have a law degree, butI will say that I love the
Equality Act.
I love the way, having read it,the fact that it makes it clear
.
You read it, it's written inplain English.
It makes it clear that it'sintended to support people, that
these are people who itdefinitely kind of ties in with
a social model disability.
The way it talks essentiallyabout, about being able to
remove barriers, essentiallythat if the if there's something
(28:48):
that's preventing someone frombeing able to access something,
whether that be employment or asocial activity or whatever it
is, that, yeah, that there is anobligation to remove that
barrier to help that personparticipate I I am.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
I just wanted to add something about the reasonable
adjustments quick, because I hadthem and did use them.
So I'd sat the exam with theEQEs in 2019, the full EQEs and
requesting them was relativelystraightforward, but I
definitely got the impressionthat was because I had a bit of
paper that I could point to.
I had my official diagnosispaperwork that I could scan an
email over to the secretariat tosay I need this, and I got the
(29:26):
impression that, you know, theygave me what I wanted.
Like there wasn't like one ofthe things I had at university.
There was very much.
I'm like you have this condition.
This means we'll give you this,and whereas the secretary I was
like, no, I'd like use of acomputer an extra time, please.
Very much is yeah, 2019.
Before that was common and theysaid, yeah, the only thing is
you've got to come to munich, um, which actually, given that I
(29:48):
live, uh, you know, inhertfordshire, was actually
easier than me going to warsawin, uh, near birmingham, because
I'd have to go all the way downon the train and back out again
.
So flying from luton airport tomunich was actually more
favorable for me to know how tostick in a in a hotel on my own
rather than with my candidates.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
It wasn't that year in Warsaw that we had the Beast
from the East as well.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
It was cold.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I was surprised it went completely smoothly in the
end, apart from I had to.
The only thing was it was thesame venue that I think a lot of
the Germans just use for theexams in general and we were
just like the people with extrawho need extra help in a room
and like there was.
It was interesting because yousaid that it's all Marion, that
you said it was OC Britishpeople.
I guess maybe that's just fordyslexia, but because I had
(30:31):
people from who German people,who are Dutch, and we had a nice
conversation about how ournational exams all differed from
each other.
But yeah, but it was, yeah, I'dsay, like a sort of pretty even
spread, I guess.
But I think one thing that hasimproved is the fact that you
know we're doing these thingsonline and I think, going back
(30:52):
to the original point of how hasthe profession improved, like
in working with at least from aneurodiversity point, is I think
at least ADHD is kind of morerecognized, like I think you
know we're still doing a lot ofwork to kind of push that.
Like I think you know we'restill doing a lot of work to
kind of push that.
But I think I know a fewattorneys who are who are ADHD,
and I definitely got theimpression like, as we've moved
forward, that they've gottenmore help or that their
conditions were more recognizedor they're more.
People are more willing to sortof work with them, to work the
(31:14):
way they want to and to maintaintheir effectiveness, whereas
when I was a trainee sort of youknow seven, eight years ago I
kind of felt like it was just amaybe it's just because they
were trainees and it's just likea trainee just get on with it.
But maybe, whereas now it's,the people are more
understanding and more willingto adapt work to make get the
most out of people we've talkedto us with a key kind of
(31:36):
constituents in our world.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
We've talked about our employers and we've talked
about the patent officers andyou know, I think there's
improved awareness, is good andpeople are really trying to make
changes.
I know we're not there yet atall, but it's it's.
It's nice to hear, I think,there is change since four years
ago.
The other one, at least for theprivate practice element of
this group, is, of course, theclient.
Yes, and is it okay to ask howone manages that side of it and
(32:02):
how it's gone?
Speaker 4 (32:04):
are you referring to whether I'm aware of clients who
are disabled or whether you'retalking about kind of how we
yeah, well, maybe, maybe, george, you've got I've done.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
I hope I'm not prying , I'm just interested, you know,
do you kind of mention to theclient, or does it not their
business, or how does it playout?
Speaker 3 (32:19):
um, I wouldn't say I think I've ever actively
disclosed to a client that Ihave, like autism, mass
pressures, what have you likeit's?
It hasn't come up.
I guess it's the simple point,like we normally focused on them
and what their needs are, andlike I'm there to help them
ultimately, not the other wayaround, and so it's not been as
necessary.
I think the only time I thinkI've ever had a disability
(32:42):
conversation with the client wasI'm also red, green colorblind
and I said is there any chanceyou can send me this graph
different?
Because the jpeg you've sent meI can't edit the colors myself.
You know I can try and run itthrough a color filter, but I
mean you've sent me 30 figures.
This will take a while to do.
If you just change your colorschema on excel, this will save
me two hours of work and youknow, in that way I disclose the
(33:05):
disability.
But obviously colorblindnessdoesn't have any kind of stigma
attached to it compared to theneurodiversity.
So, but I think in the contextwhere I had to make it clear
that I needed help from them tomake my, my and their life
easier, because it was, you know, effective making the bill
cheaper, um, it made sense, butI think I wouldn't be opposed to
(33:26):
it because you know, obviouslyI'm publicly disclosing, happy
to publicly disclose of mycondition, but until it becomes
relevant it's kind of Ipersonally wouldn't see a need
to.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Thank you, that's that's.
That's really helpful.
I hope I wasn't prying, I'mjust genuinely interested.
If it ever comes up, you know.
Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
So it's interesting.
I keep talking about stuff thatI know about.
So it's interesting.
Uh, I keep talking about stuffthat I know about I don't know
the colorblindness thing and howit can impact and you do have
to tell people.
So grill and we'll know thisbecause we had him on the
podcast a few weeks back, futureson-in-law, probably kyle
football shirt collector man ashas two forms of colorblindness,
so you'll know this better thanme, george, but he has, if I
get this right, he has proprotein opiate and triton opiate
(34:09):
.
So he's red, red, green andblue yellow, I think.
I think this is the way Iunderstand it.
So he, he has to tell people upfront that he's got color
blindness because he just mightbe putting the wrong titles up
yeah, it's a problem like so I'mdeuteranopic, which is like the
classic red greencolorblindness that most people
are familiar with.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
Uh, I inherited from my mom.
It's an x-linked recessive uhtrade yeah, I know all about
that yeah, um, whereas, like my,it's funny because actually my
brother and my dad have adifferent form of colorblind, as
you say.
So they've got the one set andwe've got different sets, so
it's like we're speakingdifferent languages when we're
talking about colors.
It doesn't, it doesn't workwell, especially since you know
color has no inherent quality,it's a qualia, it only exists in
(34:51):
the brain.
It's like so what is red?
Um, yeah, but yeah, I thinkactually I'm quite interested in
the color stuff in ourprofession because we often use
like color coding systems.
I can remember when I was atmarx and clark, colors
corresponded to countries andyou know that was back when we
had physical files and that wasvery much present thing.
But you know, europe was greenand rest of the world besides,
(35:12):
like japan, us, was orange.
I really couldn't tell thedifference at first glance.
I would very much have to look,and I think one of the things
marianne was talking about howsoftware needs to be designed
with accessibility first in theforefront of the developers
minds, and I'm really big onthat, you know, for
colorblindness, forneurodiversity, for everything
(35:34):
so what?
Speaker 1 (35:34):
what can we expect next from ip ability?
What's, what's, what's on thehorizon?
Speaker 4 (35:39):
well, we had one um coffee morning.
That was really popular and itwas really nice to get
engagement from people who werenot our regular crowd, as it
were, were in attending ourwebinars.
So we'll definitely be runningmore of those and you're
planning a webinar, chris,you're planning.
Speaker 5 (35:54):
Well, what we're trying to do.
We've done a couple of thingson.
We did a webinar on the CarersLeave Act this year and we did
one, a similar one, a few yearsago, about carers rights, and
those have both been run by ipability.
But obviously care, there arepeople in with caring
responsibilities in othercommunities and and you know
across the ip profession as awhole.
(36:14):
So just people parents caringfor young children, for example,
or or people caring for elderlyparents, and so on.
Um, so we we'd like to dosomething around caring, but not
just within the context ofdisability, something, something
broader across the whole of ipinclusive.
So I haven't quite worked outwhat the format of that's going
to be yet.
I probably need anotherconversation with andrea about
(36:35):
it.
But yeah, hopefully something,um, something around caring in a
more general sense that's great, and we've also got um an
in-person event coming up.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
Um.
So loretta I'm not going to sayher surname, wrong, sorry, but
yeah, I think this is lorettadimek menkitelli.
She's a new member of ourcommittee and she's keen to do,
uh, something around women'shealth issues, so she should be
running that.
I think it's going to be in theautumn.
I think they're still figuringout dates, but that should be in
the autumn cool.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Well, it feels like.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Oh no, gwen was about to say something no, I was
actually just going to umreflect you extended your neck
in that kind of positive way.
I was just reflecting on the.
You talked there, chris, aboutcaring, and I was actually
reflecting on caring in aslightly different sense
possibly, which is that we had avery interesting podcast which
will be going out, um, with,with, um, the, the iPause team,
(37:25):
um, and I think, again, you know, as an ally and one of the
lovely things about this podcast, by the way, is the amount of
allyship that I've discovered Ihave.
That I didn't know until Istarted talking to all these
different groups, but as an allythere I was asking, basically,
what is the right to say?
How is the, how is the rightway to um, to raise it, how to
be supportive without beingoffensive, which I think often
(37:47):
is we might, you might call theally dilemma.
I really want to help, but Imight offend you by offering it.
So what do I do?
Which had a lovely response, Ithought, which was be kind.
It was an incredibly usefulpiece of advice, actually really
simple, but actually the rightone.
I mean, would you, would youkind of echo that as a, as a
good starting point for theallies to to?
Speaker 5 (38:07):
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I think I certainlywould, if anything's
well-intentioned, even if it'sperhaps a bit clumsy.
I wouldn't be offended by thatthe first time anyway.
Possibly the second or thirdtime.
Speaker 4 (38:21):
Taking people at their word as well, rather than
I found it upsetting if I wasquizzed about stuff.
So if you say I need thisbecause of that, and someone
then turned around and went, oh,but couldn't you do this?
Instead, it'd be like no, I'vethought about this.
I've reached this decision forthe.
In this case, I'm thinkingabout my caring responsibilities
.
I've reached this decision onthe basis of what's best for my
family.
I don't want to have to furtherjustify it.
(38:45):
So it's yeah, take people attheir word.
If they say they need something, then say okay, how can we help
you with that?
Rather than are you sure orhave you thought about doing
this?
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Right, I'm going to try and do what I was going to
try and do earlier, gwilym, andbring us to a close, because I'm
just conscious that you know Ihave to do this.
It's just a horrible bit ofpodcast.
I'm the that we kind of need tokeep it to a length that people
will actually listen to, whichis important.
So either if you've listened tothe podcast or if you've been
(39:15):
on before, you know that we tryand end up with a closer.
I'm going to recycle a closerbecause it just feels the right
thing to do, but I'm going totry and frame it differently.
So I think the last time wetalked about issues around
ability, we ended up with like asuperpower question what would,
what would you want yoursuperpower to be?
I'm not going to do, not goingto do that one.
So what?
I'm going to ask you, william,and then you three need to get
ready for this because it'scoming your way what ordinary
(39:37):
ability that most people havegot that you don't have, would
you love to have?
Speaker 2 (39:42):
well, it is actually just to have a normal
conversation without trying towork out um, I don't know if
might be an indicator, somethingI should be looking at and have
a normal conversation withouttrying to be really really funny
and exciting every time,because I'm not a and b.
I think it exhausts everybodyelse.
I'd love to just talk aboutstuff like normal people.
(40:04):
I don't know how to do it I can.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
I can empathize with that because I think I do the
same, don't I?
I have exactly the same traitto just try and make things
funny when they don't need to befunny I'm often getting it
completely wrong or not beingfunny to my um specialists
straight.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Those don't know.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Those are superpowers so let's, let's do george.
But if that's okay, george, doyour next.
But what one thing would youlove to be able to do?
Speaker 3 (40:26):
odd.
That's a long list.
Um, I I don't know.
I think probably for me, like,as I get older I get better at
conversation and I think, youknow, as a child I was very
incapable of having normalconversation and like, I think
it's mostly just experience andbecause I'm a learning focused
person, that I just get betterat it, and you know we all do.
It's just experience.
(40:47):
But I think the difference isfor someone like me, I have less
of an intuitive grasp of it.
So I guess for me it would belet's just give you more of an
intuitive grasp of how toactually talk to people, rather
than having to figure out,offend a bunch of people by
saying the wrong thing and thengoing hmm, I feel like a normal
person would have maybe not madeas big of a mistake on this
(41:08):
good one, chris oh, I'm reallystruggling.
Speaker 1 (41:12):
Lay um you don't have to answer, it's just a fun
thing to do in the end of thebook.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
Perfect as you are, chris.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
Well I'm then I hesitate to say it, but perhaps
I am, I don't know maybe, maybeyou might want to be more humble
yeah, maybe chris is veryhumble.
Speaker 4 (41:29):
Chris and I have worked together for a couple of
years and it's been so easy.
It's really lovely.
It's really nice.
You're very pleasant to workwith.
Speaker 1 (41:37):
God, I spoke over you .
Then, chris, you were going tosay something.
Speaker 5 (41:40):
I'd forgotten what I was going to say, lee, sorry.
Speaker 2 (41:42):
I can say something for you, Chris.
Speaker 5 (41:50):
Welcome to welcome to my life.
I've had to do this 150 timesnow.
It's exhausting, absolutely.
I'll tell you what I am goingto say and it's got nothing to
do with the podcast, but it's avery exciting day for me today
and maybe there's some way youcan work it in.
The third edition of my book onthe science of ice cream is
being published today, so I'vegot to get out of that third
edition.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
If you had said it earlier on, we could have an ice
cream themed closer.
Speaker 5 (42:08):
That would have been the way to go.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
We'll definitely get it in.
We'll have a link to it, chris.
We'll do that.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
I've got Chris's one, then.
Which is why can't I just enjoyice cream for itself, like
normal people?
Speaker 4 (42:24):
I didn't know this book existed.
Chris, I'm going to have to geta copy.
Speaker 5 (42:30):
Oh yeah, it's a throwback to my my former life
as an ice cream scientist beforeI became a patent attorney.
So first edition came out 20years ago.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
We are going to have to have a podcast on the science
of ice cream.
I think you should.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
I'm a colleague whose dad does chocolate science and
he does all the fancy chocolatesyou get.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
Oh yeah, do food science.
We've got a podcast, marian.
We've got a podcast, marianne.
You've had lots of thinkingtime.
Speaker 4 (42:51):
I wish I wasn't so clumsy.
So yeah, I wish I was a normallevel of non-clumsiness.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
And mine is a bit like that because I was reminded
last Friday when I playedfootball why I stopped playing
football.
So you know, I'm quite sporty,I love a run, I play squash and
I think I'm reasonably good atit.
I'm quite coordinated, kind of.
My arm goes, but my feet, myfeet and my legs seem to be
unable to take commands from mybrain, because I watch people
playing football and I wasplaying with them and they're
(43:20):
doing all these things wherethey move their foot over the
ball and all this sort of stuff.
If I tell my feet to doanything, generally I do
anything.
Generally I fall over when I'mplaying football.
That's why so so yeah, I lovethe legs to be less clumsy and
I'd like to be able to enjoyfootball and I don't more.
Heads to foot coordination yeah,yeah, and you know I'm not a
tall bloke.
It's not because my feet are along way away from the control.
(43:40):
Is it separate brain in yourass?
Speaker 2 (43:42):
no, none of that oh, thank you.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
Thank you all for coming on.
It's been, it's been lovelyhaving you on this bit.
It's been great to talk about atopic that is so important for
people in such an kind ofauthoritative, kind of confident
way, but also with a bit of funso that.
So that's been really good.
So thank you all for coming on.
Lovely to see you again, gwilym.
It'd be nice to not see you fora beer in a week or two's time,
aren't we Beer and jam?
(44:08):
And just to say, if you'velistened to the podcast and
you've enjoyed it, then leave usa little review somewhere,
because that really helps peoplefind us and we want people to
find the podcast, that's it,we're done guys, thank you,
that's a
Speaker 2 (44:20):
wrap Thank you.
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.