Turning to brands [not a topic this Kat has heard him speak on before during his tenure at the USPTO], David fastened on to the meeting point of content, brand and invention, which he described as "a key differentiator for the twenty-first century". This convergence demanded joined-up thinking and policy-making. Convergence requires a holistic, joined-up approach, he stated, citing the importance of areas such as design and 3D printing as needing that sort of treatment. David concluded by emphasising that public leadership of IP institutions was not just a matter of leadership but public service.
IP systems must deliver quality products: this means getting a result which is credible,delivered on time, consistent, measurable and predictable. This depends on being able to obtain, retain and train one's resources. This does not necessarily mean changing the law: the starting point is to see what can be done regardless of the law. Work can be shared, re-used; databases must be up-to-date, totally available 24/7 and free. Even so, a rise in quality standards does not of itself justify IP: IP is a tool, it can be improved and it will be judged by the results which it achieves. Asked by Hugh Hansen: "who are your [i.e. OHIM's] future enemies?", Antonio indicated that such enemies were those folk who were opposed to convergence of functional elements of the IP system such as classification systems but had no good reason for doing so.