 Fe'r cefnodi ar y gwheifio cwpio ar gyfer Seefer a ddiolch yn ôl gyffiziadau cyrrafffod hyn. Mae'r cefnodi ar ddi, yn dod o'r meddwl rhagor, ac mae'r mewn ffordd gan amlwg inhabitiol yn cael eu gwirio gyda ni. Mae yw'r amlwg bethau'r mewn meddwl ei gwirio yn hynny o ddesidogol, a'r tuannol. Mae ydy'r meddwl yma ymlaen yw'r cyrraedd a ffawr, ac of course, y gweld ffawr ymlaen nhw, ond, yn ymddi'r cyflaen, ac yn ymddi'r cyflaen nhw, yn ymddi'r cyflaen nhw. Mae'r cyflaen nhw yn cyflaen nhw. A dyna yw hwnnw sy'n cyflaen nhw'n mynd i'r cyflaen nhw'n cymryd, so to his intellectual property and that's why we all now confront a situation which is very different from the one that we had 20 years ago when nobody had heard of intellectual property really at all where we see it on an almost daily basis in our newspapers. So that's the context and let's have a discussion. I want to know is there really any intellectual property for coding or any such computer programs that actually fuel all this technology that is going to soon take us over. Yes there is. So the first intellectual property application would be that coding is treated as text and therefore as copyrightable. So it's like a book or another publication. That's the sort of conventional approach that all computer programs coding are text and therefore subject to copyright. But copyright has its limitations and increasingly over the last 20 years people have developed patent protection or applied patent protection for what they call computer implemented inventions. So you can't theoretically get a patent on a mathematical model or mathematical equation or anything which doesn't have an application which is a theoretical. But you can have an invention that is implemented by a computer program and that's how they get protection for the computer program. It's a subject that's not without controversy because the most liberal if I can say jurisdiction approaching this is the United States. We're broadly speaking and again I'm generalising everything under the sun to use the words of the Supreme Court made by humans is patentable. That's the broadest approach. Now in Europe again is a very generalising big generalisation they tend to say it must have a technical function to be patentable and so it's a little bit more restrictive. But yes there is intellectual property protection for computer programs or coding of those two varieties in particular. It's not without controversy because a lot of people in the computer world will open source or copy left or whatever it might be but it is there. Do you think that the world should coordinate intellectual property at an international level rather than just national and could you tell us how and why? Yes. Well look I think intellectual property ideas let's say to put it as broadest and knowledge are highly mobile. So there's very little that happens in one country that isn't capable of application in another country. And indeed this organisation, World Intellectual Property Organisation has two foundation treaties and they both were concluded in the 1880s when there was a wave of globalization because if you go back to that period it was the period of the steamship, the railways, the telegraph. So increased communication and transportation and movement and increased trade as a consequence of steamships and railways. And in that time they used to have as they still have we'd call now expoes but they used to have international exhibitions and there was an international exhibition being organised in Paris, the international exhibition in Paris. And inventor said but if we put our new inventions there anyone can just come along and copy them. So we need some protection and that was the foundation of the Paris Convention which is one of the foundation treaties of this organisation that if you displayed an invention at an international convention you had protection for a certain period. And the other foundation convention was the burn convention and that came out of Victor Hugo and other authors who because of the globalization that was occurring at that stage their works were being pirated let's say in different countries. And their copyright law in France applied only to France so it couldn't stop someone reproducing the book in England or Germany or wherever else it might be. So they said we need an international approach to this and the international approach of the burn convention is if you publish a book in any burn convention country it's automatically protected in all other burn convention countries. So I think from a very early stage there has been a recognition on the part of the international community that intellectual property needs an international approach. And interestingly if you look in terms of the international organisations what were the first ones? The very first one was the postal union, the universal postal union because you obviously if you post a letter in Geneva for Turkey it has to be recognised, the stamp has to be recognised. So that was a very fundamental thing and then the second one was the telecommunications because of the telegraph. And then the third one was WIPR or its predecessor. So it was very early recognition. Now I think the stage we're at now is what needs to be internationalised. There's no doubt there has to be some international but what needs to be internationalised and what needs to stay local. And that's a controversial question. What was your understanding of intellectual property when you were a teenager and how has your sense on intellectual property changed through the years? I'd say my understanding of intellectual property as a teenager was zero. It was like zero, zero. And that's partly because I was born in the Stone Age and I think it's different if you're born now or in recent let's say in the last 10 or 20 years. It's different because you're growing up in the knowledge economy and it's everywhere. So I confess zero knowledge and then over time I think I've been very fortunate to live through this period in which it's become, to happen to a stumbled into intellectual property at a time when it's become increasingly central and increasingly important. And I think what's happened during that time seems to me is two things in particular. Complexity has become more complex. It's no longer Edison making a light bulb. The accumulation of technology introduces enormous complexity I think. So that's one thing and then I think the other thing is probably balance. Where do you strike the right balance? Because around innovation there are a whole series of interests which are not necessarily compatible. They're conflicting. So the inventor's interest is obviously very different from the consumer's interest. So the company is producing or the university is producing new inventions. They want to see them protected so they can exploit them commercially and get some return. But then consumers have a very different approach and that's the same with the difference between the interests of a musician, a performer or a composer of music and a consumer. So the consumer of immediate interests might be like the music free. But the performer has to find a way to have a sustainable economic existence. So there are, I think, inevitably tensions in intellectual property which are never going to be fully resolved. The only thing you can do is find a balance at some stage between the various interests. It's so much for them, so much for them. So looking forward, are there any changes that you think intellectual property and the intellectual property system are going to have to go through the changes they're going to have to go through to accommodate the evolving world going forward? Yeah. Well, look, my hope is always that things are not cast as black or white. The biggest challenge is trying to get us away from an ideological approach to these questions to a more pragmatic approach in which we can assess good and come up with good solutions that are going to take into account the complexity of interests that are involved. And I think that's a big challenge. Look, I think there are a multitude of other challenges and you can probably group them in various ways. And I would say two things in particular there. The access question is always going to be a major question, whether it's music or pharmaceutical new drugs. Access is always going to be a challenge for us. And then I think the whole question of what can you have a property right on is going to be a challenge. Can you have a property right on traditionally we make in the intellectual property system a distinction between a discovery on the one hand and an invention on the other hand? So a discovery is when a scientist uncovers what actually exists already in nature. So they actually describe something that already exists. An invention is some human intervention on what already exists to make something new. But that's fairly clear when we say it like that, that when you start to apply it to the isolation of gene sequences or other particular elements, it becomes much more difficult to say, should you have a property right on that or not. So that's another big challenge. What can be the subject of a property right? If you had to name the three biggest inventions that changed the world in the last 30 years, what would they be? And were they protected by intellectual property law? Well, I suppose you'd have to count the internet as one. But then it's a little bit difficult to say what was the invention there. Was it the internet protocol which was Vint Cerf and Bob Khan? Or was it the World Wide Web a bit later which really made it accessible to everyone? Or was it some of the platforms and other things that have been built on it? So it's rather difficult to say what it was. But there is no doubt that the internet has completely transformed our existence, completely transformed our existence. And there is not really an intellectual property protection. And if you were to propose it, you would be shouted down, I think. So decisions were taken by those involved not to claim property rights on it. And let's remember, property, you can do what you like with your property. If you want to give it away, you can. And some people find it convenient to give it away. So that's one. Then I think, and it's a big field, but molecular biology must be the whole. And anyway, we're talking about a huge range. And this must be huge in terms of the impact that that is having on our lives and will have on our lives in the future. And you did ask for three, but I've only got two. So I'll stop at that point.