did the class influence this whole dynamic between the kidnappers and her, and with the river deal that if she had been rescued and if the americans hadn't been rescued, with her of a deal that was possible for them being released or was there ever going to be a deal? .. and so, because her family

had a lot of political poll in france and in colombia, they were able to get a lot of meetings. however, in the end, he put an end to any one-on-one negotiations. he would say okay i will negotiate but, and the farc would say the other side was just as bad. the farc would say we want have the country to be demobilized before we will even talk to you in so it was ridiculous posturing going back and forth never got anyone anywhere so sufi of a higher class in some cases that may have meant some people fall she will be the last one that they would really because she was the only one getting the than any press. the american public didn't care there were three americans, and the colombians are sorted so used to this kind of kidnapping they live with it daily that there is not constant outrage. the families march and they do a

lot of events, but i don't think that helped her any and probably heard her more than anything. >> great. thank you very much to victoria bruce the book is halsted's nation, a great book. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] >> this event was hosted by the new america's foundation here in washington. to find out more, visit newamerica.net. this week on "the communicators" a discussion with congressman bob goodlatte chairman of the subcommittee on intellectual property and co-chair of the congressional internet caucus. >> congressman bob goodlatte is chairman of the subcommittee on intellectual property in the internet and as well as co-chairman of the house internet caucus. how do you envision your role in

the upcoming or the current 112 congress when it comes to the tech policy? >> i think i am very fortunate to chair what i think is one of the best subcommittees in congress, and it's particularly good in terms of looking at what we need most in the country right now and that's job creation and growth of our economy with a tech industry and community plays a huge role in that, a very high percentage of our job growth as related to development of new technology and a very very large percentage of exports related to that as well. so promoting that for both the intellectual property, which is the jurisdiction over patent copyright and trade marks the thing about the internet is the largest collection of patent copyright and trade marks in the history of the world, and the subcommittee has jurisdiction over antitrust issues or competition policies. so again, promoting competition i believe creates jobs.

so this subcommittee i think is very key in terms of job creation and that's what we are focused on. >> how is your role will be dealt with that of greg walden, fred upton etc? >> those are great guys, agreed kennedy, very important, pro-business, pro job creation committee that also deals with some of the same issues but from a different standpoint. for example, their jurisdiction over the federal trade commission and federal communications commission is more regulatory focused, whereas the judiciary committee generally is more focused on the creation and enforcement of the various types of laws, intellectual property lawyers and trust lollies, criminal all of which come into play when you talk about the internet. >> so when you talk about job creation, has the broadband policy of the last two years and its expansion in this nation been good for job creation? >> certainly the expansion of

broadband and bringing more high-speed internet access to more people is a very good thing. whether the process by which that is being done with massive spending under the stimulus all of which has been borrowed and has counter effect is good

you do not have to be inside of the beltway on wall street and the other area to provide certain types of job skills so this is a competitive issue for the rural america if they can communicate with the rest of the world they can offer quality-of-life and jobs that makes them very competitive for people who don't want to live with traffic jams and high crime and so on and want to move into those rural areas. >> one other note to the rural areas to discuss the stimulus broadband i believe those are the 2 billion of the original

stimulus abroad and plans were slated for the utility service. have you been examining how those were dispersed in addition to that? >> we have and that is what has led to even before the stimulus funding there was earlier efforts to do this during the bush administration and that's what led to this discussion about how do you write the rules of the road, and which circumstances are federal funds as appropriate and which are not? of course there are not clear guidelines for that, so different administrations have taken different philosophical points of view about what role the government should have, and again, i think that calls for a very close examination of what is being proposed as well as the close examination of how the funding that was put into the stimulus has been spent. >> this is c-span's "the communicators" program. the guest this week is representative bennati goodlatte republican of virginia. he's chairman of the subcommittee on intellectual property and the internet as well as the co-chairman of the

commercial internet caucus. joining us in our conversation, gautham nagesh of "the hill" is bitter. next topic, mr. nagesh. >> bring that intellectual property, you mentioned you felt like your committee was in place legislation is often written. so are you indicating that you or someone on your committee will be taking the lead on intellectual property or patent reform going into the next session? >> you that. this is in the chairman of the full committee lamar smith of texas has been working on the patent reform for many years, as have i., and he has asked me with being very fast out of the gate on the patent reform. in fact, i left a patent reform hearing to come over and be with you right now. fortunately i was able to get my portion done and someone else, the vice chairman of the committee, took over to recognize many other members who were there. lots of interesting things both in the congress and the various

sectors of the economy, not just, you know, the technology sector, but obviously very keen interest. we have run into a number of problems in the past congress and trying to get to the finish line. the house passing legislation that foot couldn't get through the senate and the senate passing legislation that was not of interest to many of the people who are in the intellectual property at tickets. so we are now both in a bipartisan and a bicameral way working very hard to try to find what patent reforms are necessary to enhance job growth in our country and what can get across the finish line so they can be signed into law by the president, and that i think focuses first and foremost on the efficiency of the patent office both in terms of how quickly they can make decisions about the patents because they

are increasing backlogs that are very concerning, and about the quality of the patents coming out. are these really new ideas, new inventions deserving of the kind of protection the patent system affords genuine inventors which gives them an incentive to invest a lot of money in bringing the product through the manufacturing phase and then into the marketplace, or are they efforts to simply climb on the back of somebody who has done that legitimate work and already has a patent or is attempting to license somebody else's patent ideas. so trying to find a way through that is very important. fortunately, here in the last several years the courts have taken a more dynamic more renewed focus on how the patent system is working in a number of reforms have effectively taken place through the court decisions so that has helped to narrow the focus on what the

congress actually needs to do and may make a little easier for us to pass legislation so we held a hearing today listening to a number of stakeholders we will hold another hearing to hear from legal experts as to what the courts have done in the recent decisions and how that might guide us, and we've had the commission and the patent office coming and talking to us about what he's doing to try to speed up the process and improve the quality. so there will be a number of contentious issues, and we are going to try to sort through which of those we can find common ground on, and which of those need to be left on by the wayside because we can't get enough votes to pass the congress. the chairman and my determination is to get a bill done and signed into law. >> what are some of the differences? why has it taken years to get to patent reform? >> you have basically two

different points of view. you have people -- and this is very general because there are probably as many different viewpoints as there are people hold patents -- but basically, the basic confrontations' tend to come from people who utilize by license other people's ideas and create a device or software that is very complex and might incorporate hundreds of different patterns, and you have people who are inventors and devise a single patent that can be used for a single device, or something that only contains a small number of patents. the don't encounter the same problems. if you are building a piece of our rear or software in the technology industry and it's incorporating several hundred different patents and one of those -- one of those turns out either legitimately or illegitimately to be the basis of a claim, that can hold up that entire product from coming to the marketplace and make it

no longer attractive to investing and bringing to the marketplace. obviously, that is a job killer. we want to make sure that doesn't happen. on the other hand, if you're the holder of that patent, and you believe you have a legitimate claim and you see somebody else utilizing the product, you want to make sure the legal system works to protect you and reward you from somebody else infringing upon what is your property right. if you were in the pharmaceutical industry you probably have a drug that only has a few patents attached to it, and the current system works better for you to defend yourself than if you are developing something that, you know, cisco or intel or a major technology company and you have incorporated hundreds of ideas. and then of course, the underlining genius, the individual, whether they work for a large company or are an independent inventor, that is what we want ultimately free board and make sure that they have the incentive to go on

inventing battles within the incentive to get that intention to the market that people will take a risk on them and invest in their patent idea and build a business are rounded and create jobs. if we can devise a system that improves the current one, which a lot of people think is starting to falter, to lag behind because of the fact that it's become cumbersome, it takes too long to get a patent to market and there's too many questions about whether the quality of the patents are good call all of that is what our focus is. >> so, i did want to ask you in terms of the administration's recent efforts, dave prioritized intellectual property issues to some degree of the chief enforcement coordinator victoria. we've seen immigration and customs seizing domain names which is a new action the taken recently. how have you reacted? are you satisfied with some of the actions the administration has taken? >> i think they're serious about patent reform.

we have the commissioner in. he has taken a number of aggressive stands, and i think that he deserves some credit for looking to modernize the system. i think that there is a long way to go, however. the testimony that we have been hearing here in the committee of fleet focus is on the lack of the use of, you know, some of the very technology that's been developed and patented to speed up and make more accurate with a preview process -- the review process. if you use technology to deploy how far reaching your examination of what other ideas are out there to see whether this is a new idea or not, and to accurately compare and you're not doing that, you are still doing things the old-fashioned way completely by hand, that slows down the process. obviously we need more examiners but we also need more and better use of technology to speed up the process.

there are other things, there are legal reforms. there may be some things we need to in the courts. as i mentioned come several things related to the then you shopping were people pick a particular chord because they know they will in favor of the plaintiff and bringing the lawsuit there. the courts have done good in that area and in the area of damages. the courts have ordered the judges when -- the supreme court has ordered judge is based upon new standards that they've come forward to look more carefully at about how they apportion and assigned images in a case where they have found entrenchment to have taken place. you don't want -- 1400 patents are in a product, you don't want one item to get so much compensation when there has been infringement found that makes the whole thing profitable. on the other hand, if that one thing is the key idea behind that entire new piece of equipment, then they are observing more compensation than

they have been infringed on. very complicated, and again, sometimes the courts are better suited to decide some of these things than the congress, but we need to look at that and find out where they've gone. there are internal things with regards to once a patent has been issued can you go back in and look at what is called post grant review. an idea goes through the patent system. not a lot of attention being paid to it, the examiner decides yes, this is a good idea. somebody else says i've already got something that is exactly the same thing. under what circumstances can they come and challenge the issuance of the patent after it's already been issued? a lot of examination is behind that as well. >> one other note on patent reform. >> senator leahy and hatch introduced a bipartisan bill that has gained a great deal of support. how do you view that bill in the house, and is that something that you would use as a framework? does it prioritize the same topics? >> we are going to start from

scratch coming and we are going to look at what we think there is widespread support and that could pass the house with strong support. but as we do that, we are going to take into account where the senate is and where they have been and have some close discussions with both senator leahy, senator hatch and other senators to make sure that we are not creating a divide that can't be closed. we don't want to start with the senate bill, not at all, but we do want to take into account what we think is achievable in the senate and what is achievable in the conference between the senate and the house. >> congressman goodlatte, what about the theft in bootlegging of intellectual property? de uzi action and the 112th coming forward, and if so, how do you see that legislative action being framed? >> very important. that's an area that i have worked in for many years, worked with the customs office got

legislation passed a long time ago, and that allows customs officials to seize the counterfeit goods coming into the country. in the old days they had just turned away. they couldn't seize it and they would go to another port or another country and perpetuate the piracy, that copyright theft. that's helped. but today the problem has gotten much greater magnitude. first of all more and more countries are manufacturing the counterfeit, you know, cds, dvds and so on. but of even greater concern is much of it now is not even tangible. it's going across the internet in ways that you can't have a customs examiner sees it at the port. recent studies have said that one quarter, one-quarter of all international internet traffic is basically involved in infringing on other people's intellectual property rights, primarily the copyright's but

sometimes trademark rights as well, and that is a staggering -- it's not one quarter of goods, one quarter of music cells, it's one-quarter of all of the communications of the international nature the way through the internet and involves somebody stealing somebody else's movies, music, software, books, video games, you name it. it is digitized is vulnerable and that takes the whole incentive out of creativity that we rely and as one of the basis for the free enterprise system, so we have legislation in mind coming and we also are holding hearings. we are going to hold a hearing on what are called rogue web sites. basically oftentimes that has a wide definition, but the characteristic of it would be someone posing as a legitimate business looking like the real thing and you can buy it online, download it and relocate anywhere in the world. the customer doesn't know that.

they think if you're dealing with a legitimate business but they are being sold something stolen from the legitimate owner of the business. what kind tools can we use? we need to have much more international cooperation, and we need to continue the message to the countries like china and russia -- these are countries with tremendously creative people and if they don't devise a system in their country to protect intellectual property rights of americans and others who are trying to do business around the world and see their property, they will never become more than just that, the country where they develop things based upon ideas, technology stolen from elsewhere and if they can't reward and protect their own citizens and others, they are going to miss out on the potential that they have of the creativity in their own country. >> gautham nagesh. >> the study referred to with 25% of the traffic believe that

was why nbc universal. i am familiar. but there are concerns with customs actions and dhs that the domain name seizures are taking place without adequate review and that there is some concern the government is given this unilateral control ability to take down the domains that they feel or rogue that this can be abused potentially for reasons other than copyright infringement. how would you react? >> absolutely. we don't want to be egypt, nor do we, you know, when you talk about cybersecurity, a broad issue to go behind theft concerns what can be done to harm the function of the internet itself we don't want to give government so much power that they have a kill switch or something like that. and narrowing that down to individual domains, we need to be careful though we are doing it in a way where due process is properly followed, so again, they're have been some criticisms of the senate legislation. we are not going to start with what the senate has done.

we are going to start by taking a careful fresh look at this and making sure that we can utilize a judicial system or a doubt that judicial system to fairly deal with these issues. we are also going to hold a hearing on some of its proposals which is going to, in fact it's more than a proposal, it is a plan there in the process of implementing to dramatically expand the number of end domains that are available which could complicate immensely the ability of people to protect their intellectual property rights. so we want to ask them some really pointed and tough questions about that and also share their ideas about why they think that is necessary and important to do. >> one other note on that, president obama met with the chinese president when he was here recently, and they discussed intellectual property