it is frustrating not to do a casting call. it used to be a buyers market. now it's a sellers market. if you can't find or become a harry early morning mayor mr. name of market character, the station i work with in boston has a couple of shows on the air whose business model ought to be and start it to you. how we car is here. barry armstrong is not. both stations are heard and a dozen more stations around england. i have thought the unplowed ground in syndication is bigger than local, smaller than national. argue potentially a statewide footprint? ..

what the heck is it? i will speak about this in the iowa broadcasters meeting week after next. what the heck is digital? if you try and call any of your friends this weekend you're going to get voice mail. because they dumped orange the is new black season three. this is how people choose to communicate. if we choose programing into the tower, out in the ether one off we're leaving money on the table. we have to use the thing in the pocket used to call the phone as

dvr of radio. >> thank you holland. chris, how are things at cbs? >> i've been here all morning. last time i checked it was good. do you know something i don't know. >> no, no. cbs -- >> right tony, i don't know. >> things are good. we do invest a lot in live and local programing. you heard mike francesa speak about that today. if you put his station on today, fan, 24 hours, seven days a week, live and local. wins in this town is still that way. 880 is still that way. that model is not gone. is it more expensive? yes. is it difficult to find talent to staff it 24 hours a day? yes. but is the payoff bigger? yes. you spend money to make money. >> so there is that awareness? >> yeah. >> another question for you you're sitting in a situation with a company that is multiplatform has a huge

investment in the stick and huge investment in digital personally is the stick still a good investment? is the stick something worth having? will there be am-fm radio in 10 years? >> it is a question for what you pay for the stick. when you talk about the stick, the stick is a business equation. what did you pay for the stick and what return can you get that talk to heritage broadcasters who bought the stick decades ago, 40 years ago, that is very complicated conversation to say it is still worth it or not. will it still be around? yes. if you go to detroit and you speak to automotive industry the makers of cars, they have no plans to get rid of the amhfm experience in the car. will they add to it? of course. we know about the dashboard. that is not at expense of taking away am and fm. so the people who make the cars are telling us it is not going anywhere. i don't know why we wouldn't believe them. >> karen hunter you're on

satellite radio. now you've been on terrestial radio. karen has been a publisher and a pulitzer prize-winning writer. absolutely brilliant woman. >> thank you. >> you've been with cirrus -- why are you smiling at me? >> i agree. [laughter] when you've done a show with somebody and taught you how to rap, you can be familiar. >> we did more than that michael but. the audience -- no i'm joking. >> karen what is your view of satellite radio? we haven't had much conversation about it today yet and you're in the thick of it? >> i absolutely love it. while i agree am and fm aren't going anywhere what satellite has done is provide a platform for people to broaden, when we talk about diversity to bring different people into the mix. most of us have satellite radio automatically in our cars whether we get them or renting or leasing or buying. from my standpoint before i was just here in new york doing a

morning show and now i'm reaching people from the bahamas and canada i don't know if it is legal, i don't know how they are getting a signal but talking to people literally across the country. it is breathtaking every day to come in and to know that your voice is reaching that far. >> you are on a channel that is basically designated as urban african-american. i would imagine not being african-american, i'm not in those shows but as an observer i wonder about this is it difficult to find the boundaries in terms of general conversation where being an african-american begins and ends and when it becomes generallism? >> i somehow knew i was going to get the black question. >> i wonder why? [laughter]. >> please, please. i think you could probably answer it better. i'm on two channels, thank you, dave. one siriusxm urban view and insight a new channel the brainchild of pete domenici nick. it is interesting, because i'm

doing a live show on monday. they repeat the urban show on insight. i'm starting to do a live show on insight with completely different audience. but i don't change anything. you know i publish kris jenner's book. i have had quite a bit of time with these reality people and i realize the world has changed dramatically. every day i wake up at some point these 15 minutes will be up and doesn't seem to be. i've come to the conclusion that people are fascinated by people. if i can be interesting every single day being myself. doesn't matter what my race is, quite frankly being on urban view is funny. yesterday we had caller tom hartman on talking about the tpp. caller said you should make this goes out to the urban community. my call screener was like this is urban view, right? urban community needs to know this. it is like, oh okay. just interesting to me that i don't necessarily draw those boundaries and lines. that is why i think we have very

diverse audience of a whole lot of people. i do hang up on a lot of people too. could be broader if i didn't hang up on so many. >> julie i will ask you the woman question, since you are the reining woman of the year people ask me all the time how come there are not more women on the heavy 100? don't blame the ma messenger. i asked the question, how come therent more women in talk radio. there aren't any. there is what it is. there is no answer. what is your answer? >> i have a lot of conversations even today with women in the industry, the most important thing, people ask the question how do i become that big success? i response that i gave today, i'm kind of looking around for some of those folks we talk about, we said, who has defined success? if you got a great show and you

are making money and there are options for distribution, there are lots of them. a lot of digital outlet including i heart media there is a different definition of success. be in charge of your own life and if there are limited times on an on air right now look at it a different way. we can do this. >> thank you. joe, you're in the newspaper business. you're as realistic a reporter, editor, lou grant. you have ink in your blood like i got the smell of turntables. >> they're dinosaur. >> you're no dinosaur at all. you're a visionary and you're part of the future. you work at a daily newspaper that has innovation in its ink. and you're in the radio business now. two years you're in the radio business on this "boston herald" radio. share with this radio business audience what you've learned. >> well, it is amazing.

to summarize it the radio has been a shot of adrenaline to our news organization which has been traditionally a newspaper. we obviously have website and do video, but it has enhanced our journalism. expanded our reach. and, we're seeing sort of the very best of radio the basics that you know about, immediacy of radio, when breaking news happens, real-time. really so valuable in terms of reporting things now. newsmakers, public figures the governor the mayor, athletes, celebrities, they might be reluctant to call it print reporter and do an interview and have that person put through a filter and decides which quotes they will use which quotes they will not use. now they come on herald radio and be heard in full context. the key thing is, i will be very brief, it is not a radio station in isolation. it is enat that greated fully with everything else we do in

our newsroom. we break news on the radio. then we break it simultaneously on the web. there is video embedded and there is sound embed bed on web and sent out in social media. we often times advance the story that we had broken on the radio. so actually today, on the front page we have a rand paul interview saying don't go after my wife the way you went after marco rubio's wife. that story broke on herald radio. only downside michael it is hard to find photos use in the paper without people wearing headphones. a lot of shooting in the studio. but as a news coverage, news breaking vehicle and as a way to expand our audience it has been incredible. >> are the powers that be there happy you did it? >> oh absolutely. i think we're getting great recognition nationally. just named as finalist for innovator of the year for integrated programing. i remember when you first came

into our studio and walked you through there, incredible supporter and helper of radio in the beginning we're newspaper people. radio is very difficult medium to learn and you need experience doing it. it is a difficult thing to navigate. michael is helpful. came into the studio and our studio not multimillion, fox news channel sirius studios with bells and whistles. it is renovated conference room, four mics set up, very basic board and michael is looking around saying, you want to put some soundproofing there or some soundproofing here but it has technically been very basic. we have a comre xbox we take on the road. we do remotes. we have bureau from city hall. we broadcast from there. so very low investment but we're seeing traction on advertising

across-sell as well as radio-specific buy. >> i strongly advise everybody not familiar with "boston herald" radio to check it out. what they're doing is definitely clear-cut example of future and potential of audio media mixed in a multiplatform setting. i applaud you for that. alan colmes, you are a friend of mine for years. so i know you personally. >> what? >> don't try to be funny. alan is really a very funny guy. when ever people say to me, i get so angry at him. he is a such a nasty bastard i get upset at him. >> you called me bastard. >> i will have to cut it out because this runs on the children's channel. it is our 18th degree as my friends point out. >> doing two move man show. i thought that part of my life was over. >> you get a tough question. who the heck are you really?

>> that's deep. >> fact you're doing really good experimental work in formats that are way beyond what anybody who knows you would know. and i would like to talk about it. >> that is very interesting. that is a great question. wish i thought about it before i came here. >> you find out now. >> who we are, i think speaks so much to what kind of show we do and who are we on the air. certainly people who know my work would say well, he is a liberal or he is anti-american, he hates the country. but, who are we as a great question to ask yourself and think about, in terms of what part of yourself do you want to bring to the show you're doing. people know from meehanty and colmes or see on -- hannity and colmes. argue with me, monica crowley, my sister-in-law, a six-minute segment you become a cartoon. mike francesa was saying earlier you have a few minutes or brian

kilmeade on television, you have three or four minutes to get little sound bites out. on radio you can have actual conversations. our show for fox news radio is caller interactive. it becomes more than just left versus right. it is who am i? who is my audience. we have regular callers. when they first moved knee to 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. i didn't have a big audience at first because they changed my time slot. and which is, to much better time slot quite frankly. so i would get two callers an hour. those callers became people on the show and characters on the show and we made made the people who called the show into you know, one theory would be, well same people call in every day, you don't want the same voices to get kind of boring. these people we talked about their i was are. we talked about what their personal issues were what their health issues were. the caller about the show less about who i am -- >> answer my question but it is

nice. >> i guess this is leading me to maybe, didn't anticipate this going in this direction but who you are, is a lot about what you bring to the table. so not just about who i amount. but to get more directly to the question i do a show on talkers.com, called heal planet one of my other interests which has nothing to do with left-right politics. it is about human consciousness. it is about cost pollgy, that is not makeup. that is how the planet got started. we talk about people in the self-improvement and people in the human potential movement, and talk about people with medication -- meditation. this is one of my passions. what i'm not doing radio i'm not reading political books i read wayne dyer or deep pack chopra.

i doing with fox news radio where chopra will be a regular guest. you ask who are we and what part do we bring to the audience. that is a very important question we should each ask ourselves. what part of ourselves do we want to reveal during the few hours on the day. >> or what part of ourselves we want to reveal to a different audience. you're notable gated to be when you are on the big one. you can have your own small channels and podcasts. craig, i haven't forgotten you're here. >> i haven't forgotten i'm i'm here either. >> what is it like being program director of wabc, having immense heritage behind you, part of the answer, how is it different being in new york as a pd than it was in providence or a smaller market? >> well, thanks for having me, first of all. i think it's a great group here. every year i learn a lot. everybody takes something away

from this conference. thanks for having me. gosh wabc versus wpro in providence which is a great station as well i don't think the challenges are that much different. i think that yes the audience is bigger. you know yes, the spots sell for more. yes, the talent has different, there is a different level of talent in the sense they have to perform on a larger stage but the talent in providence are very talented. the to lent in new york are very talented. that doesn't change. i think radio station is a radio station in many ways. you still have the, you know, the concerns of a marketing. you still want to sign the talent to the right agreement. you still want the talent to be in a productive day part and have them do the best though they possibly can. the fights, the battles, you know aren't different providence to new york or

des moines to new york or whatever. you still have a transmitter that goes down in the middle of the night in des moines. you still have that in new york. you still have sales concerns and you still have, you know sales managers to work with and be productive with and try to find your spot and find the things that are going to matter. those conversations are the same in the hallways of providence as they are in new york. so i think the difference for me is just that, you know, there is there is a different pulse in new york city. there is a different, there is a different expectation in new york but both of those stations pro and wabc are heritage brands. like mr. dickey said earlier you want to be the custodian of them. i take the heritage of the station in providence and the heritage of the station here in new york very very seriously. it is what a lot of us listen to. we listen to 77 growing up and yankees games.

listen to cousin brucecy or whatever it might have been, listen to big am radio stations. i grew up in st. louis and listened to kmox and wgn. so those big sticks meant a lot to me. so this big stick means a lot to me at 77. so i take it extremely seriously. i take our talent seriously. i take our, approach to promotions and marketing seriously. i take everything seriously because that what is has to be for all of us. and it is an exciting time. so you know it's something i hold very dear and something that i'm very thankful to be a part of. >> you bring up something interesting and we'll wrap this up in minute 1/2, two minutes. i have programmed in the biggest markets and lives programmed in some small ones and i have found biggest mistake a major market radio person could do think just because they're in big station or big market somehow they know more or are better than people

running small stations or somehow small markets have small people and small money. small markets have big people with big egos and lots of talent and lots of power and lots of clicks. it is hard to program radio in a small town. there are amazing obstacles when you come in with your big city ways and you think you have all the answers. chris, we'll let you wrap up the big picture because it is interesting as i followed you over the years. here you are 2015, you've been around the track a lot and you're not the same young fellow that knew 15, 20 years ago. what is your assessment of the big picture? what do we as radio broadcasters need to be concerned with going forward? >> well i think, what we have to be concerned about moving forward not making excuses we made a habit of in the past. the whole conversation about volatire this morning is very interesting, it is very interesting, it is new it is

shiny, the point i made about that, there have been radio stations, spoken word radio stations in ppm long before volatire and long before 2554. sometimes which try to pick on one thing and make it all about that thing and we lose sight of the big picture and that is not good for any industry but the thing that i most passionate about, i actually think nielsen will get it right and i actually think average quarter hour rating points, not share. share is kind of meaningless in the big picture but average quarter hour rating points for broadcast radio will increase in the next few years, that will be great for business. >> thank you. alan colmes, colin kook craig schwab julie talbot, let's have lunch. [applause] >> c-span2 brings you the best access to congress. live debate and voights from the senate floor. hearings and current public policy events.

and every weekend it is booktv with non-fiction books and authors. live coverage of book festivals from around the country and behind-the-scenes look at the publishing industry. c-span2, the best access to congress and nonfiction books. in a few moments we'll take you live to a discussion on the u.s. patent system examining ways to better p%otect innovators while allowing the u.s. economy to compete globally and remain competitive. gets underway in just over five minutes from the center for strategic and international studies. we'll have it live here on c-span2. congress returns to session tomorrow following the july 4th break. they plan to continue work to fund the interior department, epa and other related industries. also on the house agenda a bill making changes to no child left behind. the senate is in tomorrow debating their version of no child left behind. here is more what is happeningeces

in congress this week. >> really headline here in the "u.s. news & world report," highway funding presents a new test of bipartisanship. what is the deal with the highway funding? why is it so important? wit >> guest: thanks for having me. you're right for the august recess they have to pass a highway transportation bill. this is something that bothl. sides have indicated there is bipartisan agreement on for the highway funding bill will run out. what is going to complicate this most expect there will be an amendment attached to extend, toto extend the reauthorization ofth the export-import bank.the i expect that's a, come from the senate. the house there has been a lot of finagling on to reauthorizet to the import export bank. bottom line we've seen the situation play out where there is seemingly a less controversial bill and

controversial amendment gets attached. tea party conservatives raised concerns about the import export bank. they say it is a form ofab corporate welfare. other lawmakers say it helps sustain u.s. jobs. >> so the export-import bank, basically their authorization ran out as congress went to the july 4th recess? >> guest: absolutely and so, atrece this point the charter is temporarily expired.bsol that means that the bank's tem officials can not vote to have be more loans for projects. this is a bank that is federally-backed. it is widely supported by the business community. they can still make good on commitments it already made. b it is fully funded through the appropriations process through september 30th. that being said this is oneg of the most contentious ideas in the republican party. outside of congress you have every major, every major top tier presidential candidate in top

the republican field coming out against it while democrats support it.an f and moderate republicans in congress also support it as well. >> host: give us an idea where congress stands on the annual spending bills?ive seems like the house is aboutco halfway through the annual of 12. what is left to do? how about the senate?o >> guest: that's a great question, and you're right. g three house is once again out in front of the senate on this. the house has taken a much more piecemeal approach. the senate likes to go and ina mu more of a more of a juxtaposed position. we're, heading into the fall.ng i i would not expect there to be major spending bills voted on floor of the august recess. we're adding into the fall and of course that comes later on in the time of the another debt limit. also comes when we could see another fiscal cliff situation for the holidays. the fall and the winter and

around december, and holidays, it is really going to be another example of whether or not congress can t get something doneor in terms of a budget. of course the background of this fight is that you have this, youe knowba we saw this to some extent last year but i expect the ramifications to be a bit more heightened this year simply because we're heading intoned another presidential cycle. and i think that the debt limit fight kind of surrounding all of the budget fighting could heighten things. but, you know, it will be, interesting toan see how that plays out. it is too early to tell at this point. >> host: we talked about the highway bill. "usa today" headline sayshe congress to tackle highways and education. i understand that the no child left behind bill is coming up for debate in the senate. what does that look like?chil >> guest: well, you're right. the no child left behind

obviously something from the bush administration. again it is really tough to talk b about these issues and not talk about what's happening on the presidential field because when you talk about something like no child left behind you're going to have, and you have leadingle republican lawmakers inft the senate like senator ted cruz senator marco rubio senator rand paul, to some extentbio, lindsey gram, all these people are running for president.raha it will bring up debate of course of common core. so, you know, i think that on the flip side, democrats attacked no child left behind. and so we're going to have an education debate and i think there will really go through. pass any type of comprehensive education reform. i don't think that is on the agenda. i don't think there is the capital to do it. we'll have to wait and see. the country is about to have a

national debate. this will be the first instance of that in the coming weeks. host: the hill this week talks about democrats to watch on iran nuclear bargain. how would the signing of the treaty play out on the floor? particularly in the senate? guest: we are going to see battle lines drawn. republicans have continued to raise questions about whether or not president obama has been able to get the best deal from the iran sanctions. to some extent, people within the president's own party have questions that. they have asked for the final say.

i think tomorrow, it is an opportunity for republicans to criticize his foreign-policy. i would expect that to happen tomorrow. republicans have consistently called for president obama to be more tough, for lack of a better term. that will continue on the floor tomorrow. host: kevin >> live picture from the center for international and strategic studies. we're here for discussion on the u.s. patent system. looking for ways to better protect innovators allowing the u.s. economy to compete globally and remain competitive. the director of the united states patent and trademark office, michelle lee is the keynote speaker. she will talk about patent

reform. live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]. . .

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

good afternoon. my name is jim lewis. welcome to csis. we are lucky to have with us michelle lee the undersecretary responsible for the trademark office u.s. pto and with her also a very distinguished panel of experts. michelle will give remarks and then the other panelists will join us appear and we will have an interactive session and turn to you the audience. i'm looking forward to this event. we can have a pretty good discussion of a timely topic.

we have biographies on the website but i will do a brief introduction. michelle is the undersecretary for commerce for the actual property and director of the u.s. pto which i didn't know was 12,000 employees. and she directs the day-to-day operations. it's kind of unique in washington, maybe not in silicon valley because she was at mit and worked on the intelligence lab and then was the pto director of the silicon valley and worked at google and then came back after getting a law degree. i probably got the order wrong but you will have to live with that. came back and to washington and east coast as the director of the patent office and introduced

the speakers but let me turn it over to michelle. [applause] >> thank you. good afternoon everyone. to talk about a subject that is extremely important in all of you as well that's the topic of innovation. i would like to consider the critical role that the u.s. patent system plays in making the american economy competitive in today's increasingly global innovation economy. to give you a little historical perspective that wasn't so long ago it was considered a niche topic of the most valuable assets of the company that were often times tangible. there were houses in the inventory but today the most valuable assets of the leading companies are the intangible assets.

or the intangible assets. the invention, the algorithm the rand of the company in the property. they are more easily copied. protecting them is important for investment and american competitiveness. contents which provide the provided the market exclusivity for a limited period of time are an important form of that protection. it's the fact that our economic competitors recognize, appreciate and mention in the meetings with them. last may i traveled to beijing china for the meetings. they have patents, copyrights and trademarks office is. one of the most senior officials in the chinese government is the vice premier. during that meeting he

emphasized china's desire to strengthen its ip protection and enforcement system not just because it's trading partners are asking for these changes. they have news necessary in the desired transformation from a manufacturing-based economy of inventions developed elsewhere to an innovation-based economy with technology developed in china to provide products and services higher up the value chain. put another way, china wants and economy more like ours in which intangible assets play a greater role and the need for the patent system more like ours. in china and other in counters with leaders around the world i repeatedly hear that the united states is a global leader when

it comes to protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights. despite all of the debates at home our system is frequently with many countries look to when designing their own ip system and enforcement mechanisms. while we can and should take pride in this we also need to take heed as china and other countries move from the manufacturing-based economy to the innovation economy we will face more and more competition. we cannot afford to stand still as other nations seek to catch up. we cannot idle other manufacturing economies as they seek to live up to value move up the value chain and we cannot remain in mobile as innovators seek to compete in the 21st global economy.

so we are faced with a question do we lead our patent system as it is order to be strived to make it better at in synthesizing and promoting innovation and investment? it's worth noting the system itself is quite innovative. at its core is the bargain between inventors and the rest of society and that in the clause of the constitution. the inventor gets an exclusive right for the limited time through the patent invention in exchange for teaching society have invention works. that exclusivity makes it easier to secure investment and commercialize the invention. and the public disclosure of how the invention works of those others to begin working on improvements while also letting no such technologies require licenses were workaround.

but the constitution only provided a very broad level framework for our patent system. it lets the specifics to congress to design and update through legislation. through the courts interpretation of the law and administratively in the work of the united states patent and trademark offices. office is. that work continues to this day in an information a colony where patents are increasingly viewed as assets like any other corporate asset. i saw this firsthand during my time in the private sector. in the past operating companies with older patent for leo's come sometimes licensed them with other companies that they wouldn't often transfer or sell

the patent affects. today in contrast there is a much greater market for patent assets. and with that comes a greater chance that the independent hands of somebody else. but the patent system such as ours that imposes meaningful penalties for infringement we've seen the rights of purely monetizing the patent bought from another without contributing anything inventive and without making or providing a new product or service. this can and has led to increased patent rights and to the extent that the claims were made to cover the cost of settlements without regards for the merits of the claim this is costly for everyone involved

particularly small companies and startups often times have limited financial resources. i can tell you from my time in the private sector litigating patent cases is very expensive. depending can cost on average dependent upon ever idea factors anywhere from three to $5 million for a case that's not very complicated. so a venture backed startup in the funding is a $10 million that is a devastating cost on innovation. taking a patent case to trial can burn through one or even two rounds of funding at a time when a company should be spending its limited precious amount of money hiring employees investing in research development or growing its business. and let's be clear this isn't

just bad for small businesses and startups it's bad for all of us, inventors, consumers, jobs and the american economy and first of all -- was the poet reduces the public's faith in the patent system but there is good news. it is this. we can change things and we can do it any way you preserved balance that is necessary to incentivize innovation and ensure a more efficient and streamlined way of handling patent dispute. achieving balance is the responsibility shared by all three branches of the government. each has a particular set of competencies that make it better than others in addressing a certain aspect of the issue. we strengthen the patent system most effectively when we take advantage of what each branch of

government is best. it is an agency of the executive branch charged with examining issuing patents. our examiners have the important duty of examining patent applications and issuing the patent when the legal requirements are met and rejecting applications when they are not. every one of our examiners understand issuing patents accurately and with a clear scope is more important now than ever before. so inventors can better understand the scope of the invention. and so that others including competitors can have the information they need to make better and for business decisions on how to invest the limited research development dollars and went to take a patent license. this is why we launched the enhanced quality initiative at the end of last year soliciting

an unprecedented amount of input and feedback from the public on how the agency can enhance the quality. our patent trial appeal board plays in essential role as a quality check on patents. in this case the patents that have already been issued. the board provides a soft and lower-cost alternative to district court litigation where the ability of the claim is in question. the proceedings also have an important impact of the front end of the patent system. they think carefully about pursuing broader claims that may not ultimately be upheld. in in the court litigation while

also encouraging applicants to see patent rights of appropriate scope. the court still has an important role to play in bringing about the needed improvements to the patent system. recent decisions tightened the standards of clarity for the patent claims. in a patent infringement cases these are welcomed changes. but we must remember. but the judges can only decide the cases before them and they can do so only one case at a time and because the rulings can be appealed awfully up to this court judicial rulings take time to propagate throughout the entire patent system. if we want changes that are uniform or systemic and timely data save the small businesses and startups the money they needed to interface now targeted

and balanced legislation is needed. the patent reform legislation is moving forward in congress. it's important that these changes reduce the incentives to engage in abusive patent litigation tactics they level the playing field for all innovators. by providing the party about the patent allegedly infringed. to take the reasonable positions in the litigation.

by providing manufacturers opportunities that are best suited and incentivized. it's on behalf of their customers and end-users and providing the increased transparency of the patent ownership information to reduce barriers to the patent licensing and patent sales. these reforms combined with other changes that are occurring in the judiciary and administratively well and sure the system continues to remain an engine of innovation with strong and clear and balanced property rights. it's in the wasteful litigation to the research and commercialization. this will ensure that innovators will continue to define the top

of the global value chain even as the rest of the world rushes to catch up. reform is not a reform is not a crisis of faith about the patent system but to believe keeping faith with its goal of promoting innovation and technological progress. if i've learned anything in my experience in the private sector expect no good company ever rests on its morals. it's always looking for new ways to improve and to streamline and to adapt to the new realities of an ever-changing environment. from my vantage point as head of the united states patent and trademark office i believe we should create our patent system the same way. we need to maintain the system to improve what can be improved

guided by the constitutional mandate and incentivized innovation and the conviction that the best days of american innovation still ahead of us. thank you for your attention. i look forward to continuing with my fellow panelists. [applause] >> thank you. please have a cd and if i seat and if i could invite over other panelists to come up. i've known both of these people for quite a long time so that is a pleasure to have them here. before that. at the white house it that was kind of a patent breaking job and before that from the ustr

where she handled many of the negotiations and broke a lot of new ground in all three jobs. so victoria to thank you for being here. i've also known michael for a long time to the director of the washington office and executive director of the federal relations at the university of michigan. it's in how washington works and how washington politics might help us move the ball forward on innovation. victoria and michael to briefly respond to michelle and then coming to questions for all three of us. at this point i will ask you to restore him to raise your hand please identify yourself and keep it as a question.

>> thank you for inviting me to be here today. thank you and michelle for holding together this event. i also want to say congratulations to you and your confirmation. you've been doing great work for many years and it's fantastic. it's an honor to be up here. the universities are an important part of the innovation system in the country and a lot of time has been spent and the university. my organization represents the software industry worldwide. the companies are the most innovative in the world and they

offer the most largest patent holders in the world. so we've really been even a clearly understanding importance of having a well functioning patent system. we also believe in what you said that it's important that they be set up in a way that doesn't allow the actors to gain the system or abuse the system so for us it is important that they would be changes to the litigation system to avoid the abuses that have been happening today. very briefly as people are probably aware of the fact there are probably four things that we are most focused on so i will mention those briefly. we want to make sure that if anyone gets through they get a genuine notice. in other words, the suit was

filed against them lays out what the allegations are against them it's important to having an official litigation system and fair litigation system. second with respect to which pieces are probably want to make sure they are brought in the right court and we want to avoid. third, we want to make litigation discovery is specifically specifically and make it as efficient as possible cause of everything that it would be best if the discovery was delayed until the motion had already been addressed and get them out of the way. and fourth, we want to detour the frivolous cases that are being brought so we think it's important that it would be possible to be awarded in the cases where the claims are brought into that are objectively unreasonable and there are some in the sums to be awarded. if we leave the financial incentives are shifted and so

cost three to bring the litigation that is propped today that would be better as a whole would be stronger and better than it is today. it's something that we care about the very much. i would conclude there and turn the mike over. >> thank you for the invitation to be here. we are wrestled in the notion of the patent system and what should it be in america and how should we update it to make it safe with the international norms in the patent system to pass the america invent act and here we are now less than four years later trying to reach major changes in the legislation that is an interesting place for us to be.

i should also see first before i get to work on the road while they work in the university of michigan i'm not here speaking on their behalf today i'm speaking at presenting the community at large. i can't spar with my colleagues here on the law and i haven't been involved in the negotiation specifically i will respond how i can to the questions and concerns that we have and hopefully we will talk about things be on the legislation there are other issues they are resting with. let me start by saying why the universities care about patents. in 1980 was a watershed piece of legislation that almost didn't pass. thanks to the senators worked at the end of the congress they were trying to get out to finish

up the year and get some approvals by a couple of senators to take hold of the legislation and move the bill through the congress. up until then the government, when it funded research the government held a patent on that research. a lot of those things that were created in the university labs and other places around the country that were funded it it and have a mechanism where you could get that invention and that idea out of the private sector to develop into the product or the new technology. so they said let's do this differently. that was the whole tech transfer system. they are in the university managers association but it's created in less than 35 years or

trillions in economic development for the country. thousands and thousands of startup companies 3 million jobs, hundreds of new drugs that we are able to take advantage of in healthcare in the united states and other states are now trying to mimic that with their own version around the country. so that speaks well to the system that we had. it's for most discoveries so the discoveries created a in the lab bring the idea that the transfer office and the business people what can we do with that and let there be somebody that would want to license if we had a patent, that is a complicated thing. quickly find a licensee that would want to develop the patent and would want to fund the further research dollars to finish up the work that was started in the university campus that is fairly basic and get out

into the new startup company or existing company to reap the benefits of that as taxpayers. it's a linchpin for a couple of years ago and inventor describes the patent as the collateral. it's to take that idea out of the lab where people can take advantage of it so that's why patents are imported and are things that universities need in order to do their job to get the transfer process working by and large areas of when we see the buddha solution that we think is going to make inserting the patents more complicated, more expensive, potentially more risky we get concerned with where we go from here. i would know during the three

congresses that we worked it out as long to get to the consensus point of view and at the end when it passed pretty much everybody didn't get what they wanted they were able to live with the outcome essentially and i would submit if you look at the situation today that is not the situation that we have now in this legislation. we continue to have large segments of the country coming universities included the select the select major concerns about the legislation being considered particularly in the house. so i would throw that out for people to think about the differences in the political situation in 2011 when we passed aia with a consensus viewpoint and now we have the leverage -- divergent viewpoint and we are involved in these issues and work closely with the group said that's why we are at the table to negotiate with the house and senate to work on these issues and by the university feels why the university feels so strongly about that. i .-full-stop there.

>> i'm going to start with a general question. how we think about the policy is how we move into an economy driven by the acids and this is a measure of how we construct the policy. many of the policies are out of date but it's also writing as michelle noted something that is a global problem. so i know that there is a lot of positive statistics you can say about the u.s. patent system. we lead any number of things. it is a non- appreciated tool. one of the things that we lead in the patent litigation. so let me start by asking when you think about other patterns how do you think we would want to improve the performance to be competitive and let me ask victoria and michael to comment on that as well. >> well i think there's a lot we

do right in the country and now that we have the role speaking to many of the leaders in the world i do hear a lot both about what we are doing right and then we also get a sense of what they wouldn't want to have a part of and about litigation system is probably one of the more expensive litigation systems in the planet. it is compared to other systems and what you are seeing before congress is a provision dealing with streamlining the discovery and greater notice integrator specificity of the requirements of the complaint so it's right for congress at this point to be focusing on the litigation and the latest reforms in the aia we made a lot of good progress and we moved and harmonized the rest of the world and we went to the first system to make clear simple rules and we got the

ability and a whole set of review proceedings which have been pretty effective as a quality check. but in the area of litigation i think that is an area that obviously we are all focused on and it's a matter of striking the right balance. >> the innovation is clearly one of the things is not the number one thing that makes the united states globally competitive. and it's how we count for the trade balance is but are completely out of date with where the value of the economy is coming from and i think that is a really interesting project that needs to be fixed. but going back to the topic at hand, now that it passes the system is absolute with one of the strongest in the world. i think that they do tremendous

work. there are the concerns about the quality that you've taken on to try to improve, and a big part of that is changing away from those that have been creative and innovative and also making sure that they have the funding that they need and that they are getting the full amount of the feedback so fees back so they can continue to do the great work they do. so i think the system has lost strength. i would agree i think it is the way that the litigation system is structured that allows people to take unfair advantage of the system. they are not issues that we see in other countries around the world world, and that is because the litigation system is set up differently in how the fees are awarded. we have a different system here in the united states that we do in the rest of the world trade i

am keenly aware of that because of the trade agreements we have the shifting out of the trade agreements because it was out with every country that we were negotiating. so there are some changes that need to be made how the litigation system interacts in the patent system and i think what that will do is make the system even stronger. i think one of the things that we see when there are frustrations about the system because of inequities in the litigation process can make people doubt whether it is a good thing. it is bad for all of us collectively collectively as people collectively as people started out with her passing for a good thing so i think a part of making sure that we have a stronger patent system is is possible and making sure that we can clear out some of the frivolous litigation and get rid of some of the shadow of doubt that it can cause -- cast onto the patent system.

>> that was the tricky part years ago and essentially what we are doing is litigating to deal with these issues that we were not able to wrestle to the ground for years ago we are dealing with baghdad -- then again and making things obvious. they have $1,000 penalties because they are using some kind of patented technology that they brought down the street at best buy is wrong but it's interesting. it doesn't even deal with that issue. that's the kind of thing we need to find in the balance and if

you are going to make people essentially argue their entire case before the case even comes to trial that's going to be tricky and it's going to make it impossible to meet requirements if they are too high. it's always the last resort and most of the time it gets resolved in the parties. there's either a license taken or they realize that technology doesn't infringe and that is my problem. where does the balance needs to be. there is a presumption that anyone that goes to court and loses errico must be age: and show that they have a value to their case that is too far in the other way of trying to seek to rebalance the system so

that's what the fight is all about and that's where we need to come back to to is what is the balance point that is going to tip the interest of both the big parties and the small parties, the individual inventors and the licensees. the association has come out and raised as we have another groups that have serious concerns about the legislation. if people are not going to invest in technologies because there's be a question about the validity about the patent or the ability of the patent to stand up under scrutiny we are not going to see the innovation occur to get things out of the lab and into the marketplace. >> we did invite michael said that he would be living up to the expectations. >> i would say a couple things. one is one place that says if

you lose you have to meet a p. isn't something that we would support and i don't think that it's -- our companies are very innovative and go out and insert so we have an interest in making sure that it is not difficult to assert and we would not support to say that if you automatically have the point of going to lose. we do think that if you have a plaintiff go out and insert claims that are objectively unreasonable the fees should be awarded against the wind we think event we think that would be helpful to deter people from going out and making the the case is the cases that are objectively unreasonable. we think that is a reasonable place for the system to end up.

if people are concerned they cannot hold up under scrutiny there are innovators and inventors and in spite of the university system that you represent and they are going out and discovering incredible thing and those will be held up under scrutiny. that's what we should be looking for ways to support that will stand up to scrutiny that are not that concerned about having the system that can hold up under scrutiny are not part of the system. i think that we want a strong patent system. >> i will just add on the provision i don't like to refer to it as a lose or pay loser pays system i like to refer to it as a system that has victoria said if you are a plaintiff or defendant or you unreasonably asserted a claim of infringement you should pay. if you are on the defense side

and unreasonably defend a case on there then you should have you should take the license and you should pay so then when you pose as a financial discipline on the system to make it more expensive to engage in abusive litigation tactics that's number one and i guess number two is more broadly we are all in the same boat together. universities, businesses, companies, innovators are incredible engines of innovation. if it were a further contribution we recognize that and on the other hand the universities when they licensed their technology outwork when they licensed the technology out of the startup company could start up company is going to be in the real world of the kind of ecosystem and if they are facing the patent infringement that are more abusive mob in the interest but not in the interest of the university when the interest of our society to allow that to continue. so we are all working together to make sure that when we strike that balance the balance is

critical and i think that's why you are seeing you're seeing the legislation doesn't get done like that. people are working on and thinking about these issues. so i'm optimistic we can get there. there've been a lot of good discussions but it's going to require everybody's input and effort on this. we have to be able to preserve the ability to enforce when we need to and curtail the desegregation. >> a lot of times people in the room realize they don't know how important it was for the u.s. to sustain its technological lead. we went through a couple of bottles of coffee innovate. maybe a good question to ask. what are the biggest challenge is and challenges and what are the changes you would want to see that you want to talk about.

>> i have a lot of issues i'm working on. >> each branch of the government is suited to accomplish certain things. so at the u.s. pto, one of the issue issues that we are very focused on is truly enhancing the quality of the patterns that we issue. and you might say you are not the first director and you certainly won't be the last one and i get that. so by now or use a focus on quality and the reason is because a couple factors. number one for all of the discussion about the litigation is even more important for us to issue the patent that should issue and not because there is a cost both ways. number two for the first time in a long time we've been given the ability to set our own fees and i cannot tell you what a difference that makes being able to do the job that we need to

do. i mean we set up the price of the patent application based upon the cost to provide that service and if we are not getting full access to the amount of the fees quite frankly we make do with less created the patent backlog was going up and up for a while and now we brought that back down so now we are in a position to focus on the patent quality. it's hugely important. it will be a long-term initiative and we welcome everybody's input but also getting the appeal in the proceedings and the trials making sure that those proceedings issue opinions quickly got promptly and accurately is also an important priority and i will stop there because of course i could go on for many other initiatives and i would say for the purpose of this audience those are two of the top priorities. >> in the process that came out

it added some value and we want to thank you for that. i want to ask one of the things you didn't mention which case a step taken. i would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how they are going and what they are adding to the community. >> i would be glad to answer that. as many of you know i was the first director of the silicon valley satellite office. actually first director of the offices and i was responsible for formulating much of the dish and satellite offices. and basically we have for four satellite offices outside of the area area they are in denver, dallas, detroit coming detroit come and go silicon valley. and i thought it would be a shame if all the office and it is hoped to application that wouldn't be in the full potential of the offices. we have got so much innovation that occurs outside of the

washington, d.c. area and so many small startups who are not as well-funded and do not have the resources to to flight outside counsel to washington, d.c. to interview or to participate in the board or who even know much about the filing process or registering a trademark or filing for the patent application. so, the satellite offices in my opinion are nothing but upside. it's the opportunity to bring a wide range of services, educational materials out to the innovation community rather than asking the innovation community to come out to us. we are getting a broader range of input like what is the project that are good it's no longer a big legal department and governmental affairs department providing input. it's the smaller companies also providing input into the rules affect them too. that input is important for us in order to do our job well.

so it is a win for everybody. >> it recognizes the number of engineers and the whole area and now more and more as well have been helpful. you've been to the campus campus if he was going on. it's a great and it's listed the input of the campuses to give you ideas into that sort of thing and i think it is good to get ideas but the other thing i would say is we are fully kind this whole notion and now that's an issue that isn't in the legislation that there ought to be a way to protect you all every time this comes around so that you're not having your fees taken off the top so you can do your job. we are very much behind that effort and would support them. >> thank you.

>> there you go. >> remember to introduce yourself please. >> we are a small startup interviewing patent and intellectual property firms at the moment and i guess from a standpoint down in the startup mode is there a way out of the services that the inventor on japan -- entrepreneur and that type of thing do you have to hire a big firm because what i'm hearing is that you can go through the whole thing and submit if they say that it's patent in three days later you find out if they have gotten a

different outcome if you had come from a different firm to put up $50,000 in and the startup or some equity in exchange for some of those that are set up that way but stay for five points we will do this. self-serve searching what is the patent etc.. >> thanks for the question and i think as many of you know i come from the startup community of technological innovation. when i was thinking about what i would want in the satellite offices i had a long list of ideas based upon my past experiences. and i will say that they have a phenomenal panoply of resources targeted to support the startup environment because that's where our future jobs are coming from.

so we have the inventor assistance hotline if you have questions about the process whether you can call and ask questions we have a trademark video online available for viewing and a program where if you qualify the under resourced inventor you can get and it will carry you up with an outside counsel for free. if you don't satisfy as an under resourced inventor we also have a program that means you can write the application was off and we have okay and we have a dedicated team at the u.s. pto to help pull you a little bit more through the process and people that are very seasoned experienced and can spend more time with you so we would like to say that we have a whole range of services not only that but for the small entities if you qualify for the small entity status, you can have a 50% discount on fees if you qualify for the micro you can have up to 75% discount so we try to be user-friendly and that all of

the resources available to off just the big companies we hope you'll pay the full piece but for the smaller startup companies as well. so what i would see us contact us. we would be glad to put you in touch with the resources we have in a small startups and satellite offices are also playing a critical role on the ground in a local innovation communities. >> i would like to ask about a related issue and that is patent eligibility. it's been a year now since the opposition came down to the supreme court where they attempted to define. it's probably in the software industry particularly studies just came down a week or so ago that said it's only one out of the last 20 plus decisions.

100% of the cases was not patterned and it's not double the number of rejections under 101. is there anything anymore under this or not? does that trouble you or is there a presumption of validity of the statute? 's gimmick that is a good question. i couldn't tell which side you were on. [laughter] >> we are watching carefully to see how it is being interpreted by the court. we agree we thought it was a big issue in the case and that it should have been overturned. we are watching to see how that

develops and we will be interested but i wouldn't say that we've taken the view that nothing is possible. >> the supreme court said as much. they didn't say that it isn't per se in patentable. so i mean there has been i will say significant changes in the case law including what is patent eligible in the subject matter for the area of software. you are seeing the court responded to it at it at the court for having read to respond to the notion of the notion based upon the lack of the eligible subject matter and they are on the front line of that issuing guidance. we've got a lot of input from the public. but we all hope for greater clarity on the issue that is extremely complicated and i think that we will see lots of development in the foreseeable future in this area because there is still quite a bit of in the committee. >> we appreciate that and we

look forward on the carpeted area but it's important. [inaudible] and ended up into the hands of different countries. how can you comment on such because maybe they have the innovations and they will have the money. so how can we do about that? thank you. >> the question is because of

the patent systems for the small innovators they will see their innovations taken up by large european companies without getting the proper due. the issue is another position or the u.s. pto or were they doing that might help address this problem. >> i would say that we work with a lot of countries across the globe. my chief of staff within the african continent in ghana talking about intellectual property and our international affairs team is always working with other governments in trying to get governments to develop robust intellectual property systems because it's it not only benefits the local indigenous inventors but it also benefits

american companies looking to export their products and services overseas when we enter a market we want to be sure that the products are also respected so i would like to say to the extent we can have a level playing field in every country all of us will be better off so it is a global marketplace based upon the merit of the product or service and we should be encouraging innovation whether it is foreign or domestic. it will be better off if the best ideas come to the talk. >> i would just add it's part of the argument we are having in this country as well how you balance those rights. and especially in the courtroom. if you think about the american jurisprudence that is designed to protect the little guy. the big guy will have the resources to defend himself or herself and if we bend over too far in this effort to try to change what the dynamics are

other changes can be made that if we bend over too far we are going to make it hard to have much of a chance if he or she has to go to court. >> speaking of the big guy, they come back to another session which is china. the chinese do indeed want to move up the value chain and people make things on other patents. i was reading a book a little while ago britain in 1900 about a british diplomatic china who was complaining that within a couple of months of the new british products showing up in china it was copied into there were copies available on the market. it's been a long-standing problem and perhaps she can add

how old do do you see us working with china on these issues at reacting to changes in the u.s. patent law? >> i said i just returned from a week in beijing meeting with the vice premier and the heads of the trade patent copyright offices and i have to say that i am encouraged about their desire to want to strengthen the systems that they are still a long way to go. i mean they are undergoing changes to almost every aspect. they are undergoing a legislation that is on the patents path of thought copyright law, trademark law already conquered the right now and we have provided input to that and we are helping with that and they are considering some launches and there is the antitrust from anti-monopoly issue and we work very closely with our counterpart offices and with the american company and i

am a cochair of the china u.s. joint commission out of the department of commerce and the secretary also is the head of the principal group and we are working together with them too as i said get to a place where domestic innovators are treated equally and china is recognizing this. if they wanted those ideas to be protected and encouraged the need to have a strong system. it will take time to read there's lots of work to be done and we've emphasized to the extent of market forces can determine which companies and which products and which places things are sold at that would benefit everybody rather than so much government intervention. >> so, i would say one is on the passing quality china struggled

and in part that was driven so the numbers would be closer to the command in the u.s. patent office and i think that that's so much pressure on the system that they ended up with a number of patents that have a good quality. and i think that they have written about it integrates a desire to work on that. >> they also have a registration examination system and then an examination system so you have this tool track -- duel track even from the quality concerns in the exam system but that's something they want to see approved. the major concerns that you either did to his health system interacts with their

anti-competitive monopoly law using the law to trick you undermine the patents in china and undermine u.s. companies in china so we do have to compare that and the government on those concerns. i think there's a tremendous a lot of innovation happening inside china right now. ..