that has a high standard is a good start lou whatcom and staying away from overseas diet, marketplace, internet sites are particularly important and customers to money in the pricing, paid attention to the pricing. if your accessories a fraction of the cost of the standard accessory is probably too good to be true. you have always -- wind up with something that could explode or crack and damage or product or damage your home for yourself. >> thank you. larry hardin. >> you have been watching the communicator's un c-span. if you would like to see more programs go to c-span.org/communicators. >> like many of us first families take vacation time and like presidents and first ladies, for a good read can be

the perfect companion for your summer journey? what better book and one that appears inside the personal life of every first lady in american history? first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summer time read. available from public affairs as a hard cover or an e-book, 3 or favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> defense secretary ashton carter and chairman martin dempsey will be on capitol hill to talk about u.s. strategy against isis, testifying before the senate armed services committee at 9:30 eastern, after president obama said today he plans to give more support to the effort but has no immediate plans to send more u.s. troops into iraq. the obama administration taking steps to better at protect tens

of thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children who cross the border each year, reportedly each age as is increasing the number of doctors available to treat these unaccompanied minors. the senate homeland security committee is holding a hearing on the emigrating children and live coverage is here on c-span2 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. now a discussion on the u.s. patent system and its affect on immigration and the economy. this is an hour-and-a-half. >> good afternoon. my name is jim lewis. we are lucky to have with us michelle lee, the undersecretary responsible for the u.s. patent

and trademark office. the format for today is michele will give opening remarks and other panelists will join us up here we will have an interactive session and turn to you the audience for a question. i am looking forward to this event. i think we can have a good discussion of a timely topic we have bios available on web site and i will do a brief introduction. michelle lee is the undersecretary for commerce for intellectual property and director of the u.s. p t o which i would did not realize was 12,000 employees. it has grown she directs this day-to-day operation, and not

unique in silicon valley. and p t o's first director of the silicon office and worked at google and patent, after getting a law degree but i got the order wrong but you will have to live with it. and now come back to washington and east coast and director of the patent office and introduce other speakers but let me turn it over to michelle lee. [applause] >> good afternoon, it is of pleasure to be here to talk about something that is important to me and i think to all of you as well and that is the topic of innovation. i would like us to consider the critical role, to make the american economy, and the increasingly global innovation economy.

to give historical perspective, it wasn't long ago patent law was considered niche topic, the most valuable asset for the company often times tangible. and their inventory, the most valuable asset leading companies were the intangible assets. the algorithms, the prophecies, and the brands of the company. what we like to call intellectual property and because these tangible assets are more easily copied, protecting them for investment and competitiveness. pants which provide the market exclusivity for a limited time are an important part of that protection. it is a fact that our economic competitors recognize appreciate and mention in my

meetings with them. last may i traveled to beijing, china for meetings with ministers and vice ministers of china's trade, patents, copyright and trademark office's but began my trip, with senior officials in the chinese government and young. during the meeting we emphasize china's desire to strengthen protection and enforcement system. not just because it is trading partners are asking for these changes but because china used as necessary in their desired transformation from a manufacturing based economy of inventions developed elsewhere with technologies developed in china to provide products and services higher up the value

chain. put another way, china wants and economy like ours in when joy intangible assets play a greater role and they recognize the need for a cotton system more like ours. from that meeting in china and other encounters i had with leaders around the world i repeatedly here united states is a globe will be here when it comes to protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights. despite all of our discussions and debate here at home our high tease system is what many countries to when designing their own system and while we can and should take pride in this we also need to take heed that as china and other countries seek to move from a manufacturing base economy to and innovation based economy, we will face more and more

competition. we cannot afford to standstill as other nations seek to catch up. we cannot idol as other manufacturing economy is seek to move up the value chain and we cannot remain immobile as american in of a receipt to compete in the 21st global economy. we are faced with a question. do we believe our patent system as it is or do we strive to make it even better at incentivizing and promoting innovation and investment? is worth noting our patent system itself is quite innovative. it is a bargain between inventors and the rest of society is invested in joy progress clause of the constitution. the inventor gets an exclusive right for a limited period of china and invention in exchange for teaching society howled that

invention works. that exclusivity makes it easier to secure investment and commercialize the invention. as public disclosure of how the invention works allows others to begin working on improvements and letting others know which technologies require a licenses or work arounds. but the constitution only provided a very broad level framework for our patent system. it left the specifics to congress to update through legislation andover's the years that the golf framework has further developed. and in these circumstances, earth through the work of the united states patent and trademark office but that work continues to this day.

in an information economy where patents were reviewed as assets, i saw this firsthand during my time in the private sector. in the past operating companies with at portfolios sometimes across licenses with other companies. today in contrast there is a much greater market for patent, a greater chance of assets in debt in the hands of somebody else. with the patent system such as ours-imposes meaningful penalties for infringement, we are seeing a rise in behavior of truly monetizing the value of a patent from another, without contributing anything inventive and without making or providing

any product or service. this can and has led to increased threats and to the extent that panting from joy and claims i made merely to coerce settlements from the merits of a claim this is inefficient and costly for everyone involved particularly small companies and start ups who often times have limited financial resources. i can tell you from my time in the private sector litigating hand cases is very expensive. defending against patenting fringe and suit can cost on average depending on a variety of factors anywhere from $3 million to $5 million for a case that is not very complicated. for us start up with an initial round of funding of $10 million that is a devastating cost on innovation. taking a patent case to trial

can burnt through one or even two rounds of funding at a time when the young company should be spending ltd. a precious amount of money, hiring employees investing in research and development for growing its business and let's be clear this is not bad for small businesses and start ups. is bad for all of us. inventors, consumers, jobs and the american economy. worst of all it reduces the public's face in our paten a i patent

protection to incentivize innovation high to examining and issuing patents. our patent examiners have the duty of examining patent applications and issuing patents is the requirements that are met and rejecting applications when they are not. every one of our examiners understands ands accurately and

a clear stroke is more important now than ever before so that inventors can better understand the scope of their invention. so that others including competitors can have the information they need to make better informed business decisions on how to invest their limited research and development dollars and taking a patent license. this is why we launched our enhanced pet quality initiative at the end of last year soliciting an unprecedented amount of input and feedback from the public on how but agency can enhance the quality of the paths that it issues. trial appeal boards also play an effective war role as a quality check on patents. patents that are already issued. the board provides a faster and lower-cost alternative to district court litigation where the validity of the pact claim is in question. it will also have an important

impact on the front end of patent system. by making patent applicants think more carefully about pursuing broad claims that may not ultimately be upheld, this is good. it ultimately drives down needless expensive and time-consuming district court litigation while also encouraging africans to seek patent rights of appropriate scope. but the accord still have an important role to play in bringing about needed improvements for the patent system. recent decisions have tightened the standards of clarity for patent claims and made it easier for judges to award attorney's fees in pant infringement cases. these are welcome changes but we want to remember it, they are also incremental. judges can only decide the cases before them and can do so only one case at a time and because

their rulings can be appealed all the way to the supreme court judicial willingness to take time to propagate throughout our entire patent system and if we want changes that are uniform, systemic come and timely that save our small businesses and start ups, targeted and balanced legislation needed. they can be achieved via legislation. which was wild pleas by patent reform legislation in congress. and these exchanges reduced the incentives by abusive patent litigation tactics. can target and balanced reforms

constrained and and level the playing field for all innovators. and patent suits, about patents allegedly infringed by providing financial incentives for parties both plaintiffs and defendants to take reasonable positions in litigation. by providing opportunities for manufacturers who are best suited and incentivized to step in and defense against infringement suits on behalf of their customers and end users and providing increased transparency of pant ownership to reduce barriers to patent licensing and patent sales. these reforms combined with other changes that are occurring in the judiciary and administratively, attributing the pant system to continue to remain an engine of innovation with strong, clear and balanced

property rights of appropriate scope that are enforceable. these reforms will contribute to our competitiveness in today's increasingly global economy. reallocating resources from wasteful litigation to productive research development and commercialization. these reforms will ensure of american 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 crisis of faith about our patent system but a way of keeping faith with its goal of promoting innovation and technological progress. if i have learned anything in my experience in the private sector it is that no good company effort rest on its laurels. is always looking for new ways

to improve, streamline and 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 treat our patent system is the same way. we need to maintain what is best in our system but we must also strive to improve what can be improved guided by the constitutional mandate to incentivize innovation and the convictions that the best days of american innovation are still ahead of us. thank you for your attention and i look forward to continuing the discussion with my fellow panelists. [applause] >> thank you, michele. please have a seat. but invite our other panelists to come on up. >> i have known both of these people for quite a long time.

take your cares, seats please. first, victoria, and many of you know, victoria espinel, president of p s a, but before that as the first intellectual property enforcement coordinator at the white house which was kind of a patent breaking job and before that you probably knew her from u.s. t r where she handled many negotiations and broke a lot of new ground in all three jobs so thank you for being here and also a known michael for a long time, michael waring is director of the washington office and executive director of federal relations with university of michigan, someone i have worked with many years of innovation topics and a real expert both in how washington works and how washington policies might help us about innovation. what i told them for the format and thinking of changing it

while michele was speaking but i won't. victoria and michael to briefly say something, respond to michelle ng and we will go into questions. at that point if you have something i will ask you to raise your hand please identify yourself, keep it as a question, not a speech and we will move ahead but victoria, why don't we turn to you? >> thank you for inviting me to be here today, a pleasure to be here i thank you and michele for pulling together this event, and congratulations to you and your confirmation. enduing great work that you have for many years and it is fantastic. it is an honor to be up here with michael so our university, an incredibly important part of the innovation system and the

prior job for the university, a pleasure to be with you. i of victoria espinel and my organization represents the software industry worldwide and one of the reasons my job is fun is because our companies are among the most innovative companies in the world and because of that they offer the largest hand holders in the world so we really believe in and clearly understand a well functioning patent system. we also believe what you said about keeping faith with the patent system that is important that our litigation system be set up in a way that doesn't allow bad actors to get our halfwit system id our patent system and so it is very important that there be changes to the litigation system to avoid the kind of abuses that has been happening today. it is hard for bad actors.

and joy various pieces of legislation moving into the system, four things to focus on so i will mention this briefly and turn things over, we want to make sure that if anyone gets for the patent infringement they get genuine notice that a suit filed against them clearly lays out what the actual allegations are against them. that notice is important to having official litigation system and feared litigation system. second with respect to where this is, cases of robbing the right chords and avoid form shopping, and bake litigation and discovery specifically as efficient as possible so therefore we think it would be best discover was delayed to be addressed to get them out of the

way. we want to beat her frivolous cases being brought. is important to be awarded in cases that are objectively unreasonable and an efficient mechanism to be awarded. financial incentives have shifted some is not so easy and cost 40, they are better for the system as a whole and it will be stronger and better than it is today. and could talk at earthlink, to turn the mike over. >> thank you very much for the invitation, always a pleasure to be here with michele and victoriana and talk about a topic we seem to be talking about for a long time, we went through three congresses where we wrestled with the notion of a patent system, what should depend system be, how to update

it to make it fit with the international, our understanding of the patent system and did three congresses to pass the act and here we are less than four years later trying to make major changes to that legislation so that is an interesting dynamic interesting place to be and i shall also say before i get too far down the road, i worked for the university of michigan but i am not speaking on their behalf just representing the higher community at large including six associations that have banded together to work on behalf of the university system around the country and i am also not an attorney. as far as my colleagues here on the lot, haven't been involved in negotiations specifically with congress on this issue but i am aware what is going on with this issue so i will respond the best i can to the questions and concerns and hopefully talk about things beyond legislation and there are other issues we are wrestling with.

let me start by saying, why universities care about patents and there was an allusion to the act in 1980 which was the watershed piece of legislation that almost didn't pass. it has in the waning hours of that congress thanks to the work of bob dole at the end of congress, trying to finish above the year-end able to get some approval by a couple senators to take hold of of this legislation and move the bill through congress. until then the government when it funded research the government held the patent on a research. the government is not always good at business and a lot of the things that were created in university labs and other places around the country that were funded didn't have a mechanism to get that invention, that idea out to the private sector to develop into a real product or new technology. they said let's do this differently, at universities have the patent and see if we can use that as leverage with

licensees to try to create a marketplace for these ideas out of that was born the tech transfer of the system the we had at universities and the last 35 years and i submit it has been a very effective system for america. the most recent statistics from the university of technology managers association is it is created in the last 35 years $1 trillion in economic development, thousands and thousands of start up companies, 3 million jobs hundreds of new drugs we all are able to take advantage of to improve health care in the united states that is a wonderful legacy and other countries are trying to mimic that with their own versions around the country. that speaks well to the system, the patent is really the bridge from the lab to the marketplace from most discoveries so discoveries created in the lab bring ideas to the tech transfer office and the business people say that is an interesting idea

interesting knowledge, interesting discovery, what could we do with that? if we had a patent should we get a patent first of all? a complicated thing expensive proposition, new knowledge, the we find a licensee who would want to develop that hand? who would want to fund, provide further research dollars to finish up the work started a university campus which is fairly basic and get that out to a new startup company or existing company and reap the benefits of that, all of us do as taxpayers and american citizens. it is the linchpin. i was at a forum a couple months ago and an invented scribe depend as collateral. a collateral that would then be used to attract the venture capital that will be needed to take that idea out of the lab and get it to the marketplace where people can take advantage of it and that is why can'ts are really important and patents the things that universities need in order to do their job to get this tech transfer process

working by and large so when we see legislation we think will make asserting patents more complicated, more expensive potentially more risky for inventors and their hand holders and licensees we get concerned. that is part of what the debate has been in congress, where to go from here. during those three congresses we worked on, it took that long to come to a consensus point of view and in the end when the bill passed everybody didn't get everything they wanted, they were able to live with the outcomes. i submit if you look at the situation today that is not the situation we have now with this legislation. we continue to have large segments of the country, universities included, with major concerns about the legislation being considered particularly in the house. i would throw that out for people to think about. the difference, the political situation in 2011 was fairly a

consensus view.and now where we have such a divergence of viewpoints on other legislation. we care about these issues and are involved in these issues and work closely with groups and been at the table to negotiate with house and senate folks to work on these issues and why the university is feeling so strongly about patents. i feel strongly about that. >> i start with a general question by posed wall street by will begin with michele. one problem we are looking at is the transition in how we think about economic policy as we move into an economy that is driven more by intangible assets, like this is a big challenge for how we measure how we construct policy. many of our policies are out of date but it is also as michele noted something that is the quotable problem. there are a lot of positive statistics you can say about the u.s. patent system. will be in any number of things you s p t o is a non appreciated

through. one thing we begin in patent litigation, let me start by asking michele when you think about positive patent systems when you think about japan or the e.u. or china, how do you think we stack up? where is it we would want to improve our performance to be competitive? let me ask victoria and michael to comment on that as well. >> let's see. i think there is a lot we do right in this country and now the have the privilege of having a role i have speaking to many of the leaders in the world i do hear a lot about what we're doing right and a sense of what they would rather not have a part of. ..

>> >> and dave matter of time to strike the talent. >> clearly something i thought the lot about but

how it we account for trade balances is completely out of date. the go back to the topic at hand our ptl does tremendous work that you have taken on with vigor to improve to change the process to make sure they have the funding that they need. was so i think it is lowe's

the patented system and more the with the litigation vince system is structured to take unfair advantages the problem. the issues that we have are not issues that we see in countries around the world because our litigation system is set up differently. i am keenly aware of that and what that will do is make it even stronger. i think when there are frustrations about the system because of the litigation process that can

cast a pall to read people doubt that is bad collectively if you doubt whether a patent is a good thing but it is part of the system to make sure to clear up that litigation than the shadow of doubt cannot be cast out. >> michele touched on balance of interest. that is the tricky part. what we're doing is read litigating to do the positions but they're not any easier to resolve. we would agree that day get

the mom-and-pop retailers threatening them with a $501,000 penalty because they use of pated technology and though wife by is wrong what is interesting but hr9 does not even deal with that issue. if you make people argue their entire case before it even comes to trial that will be tricky. the tavis some of this you cannot get them going to court is always a last resort and most of the time they think there may be some infringement.

either a licensed taken or the technology does not infringe. so these are all questions of balance and where does that need to be? i would submit a jardine anyone who goes to court and loses much show they have a value to their case goes too far to rebalance the system. that is what we do come back to. for the big parties and the small parties. it has now come out to raise those that had serious concerns about this legislation they think there'll be some question of validity or the value to get

it to stand up under scrutiny because people will not make those investments. >> we did invite michael. [laughter] >> the one that says if you lose it is not something we will support our companies are very innovative. we have a real interest to make sure it is not too difficult and we will all not support but we do think

to be objectively unreasonable then you should be awarded and we think that will be helpful with the bad actors says of reasonable place but it sounds like then to hold up under scrutiny they are real innovators and then it will be held up under scrutiny. if i am not that concerned about having a system we

have a strong path. i don't like that provision as a losing case system but the abuser case system if he would use the system plaintiff or defendant if you run recently asserted then you should pay. to defend a case for logger there you should have. so to make it more expensive to a gay didn't abuse and tactics. and we're all in this sabo together universities, businesses co mpanies. universities are incredible in chin's of innovation reword not be where we are today without the contributions of

universities but on the other hand, when they license technology out to the startup company they will be there facing patent infringement lawsuits that are not abusive to allow that to processed to make sure they strike that balance and that is why very smart people are with these issues i am optimistic but it will require every betty's and put. so we have to preserve the ability when we need to. >> and michael mentioned many people don't know how important that was to

sustain the technological lead. maybe a good question to ask. >> what are the of biggest challenges? to best treat than up at an system. >> as i said with us keynote won a the issues we're focused them on a at the uspto you may say the you are not the first of the last to say quality is a private -- parody so why

now? because number one all the discussion about litigation is even more important not to issue not because there is a cost both ways. number two for the first time we have been given the ability and i cannot tell you what a difference that makes it to do the job. we have the price of the patent application and if we're not getting access and then make do with less. so to go up and up so now weirded a position is said long-term initiative but getting that chiles right to

issue opinions but i will stop there because i could go on of course, . [laughter] for the purposes of this audience those are the top priorities. >> that review process has added real value. i am curious to ask a question it is the innovative step the ptl has taken for what they add to the community. >> as many as you know, as

the first director i was irresponsible for those satellite offices. we have for outside of the d.c. area denver, dallas, detroit and a silicon valley. even if all they did was help process applications that would not take the vantage of the full potential. we have so much innovation in said that occurs outside of the washington d.c. area and so many small ups -- start of set don't have the resources to fly the council out to interview or to participate in the review board. so really nothing but the upside to bring a wider range of ptl services and materials and we developed

lots of policies and procedures that the uspto we now have a more broader range of been put with guidance now it is no longer of big company who are fighting in what so that is critically important so it is though win for everybody. >> the key for opening that detroit office. to recognize the number of engineers that now more and more that has been very helpful so it is great. and if the kudus good. we are fully behind every

time it comes around to be taken off the top. >> i will see if there are any questions of the group. please introduce yourself. >> as a small start up and from the standpoint of the startup mode he is out of

the pto services to look at the web technology low-key yet things that have not been put together before. day you have to hire a big firm? so when i can hear is you submit and then three years later you find out maybe there is a different outcome with a different firm. or some equity in exchange with those that are set up that way. soul-searching what is patentable.

>> thank you very much for the question i come from a startup community and thinking about what i want out of the satellite office based on past experiences i will say that pto has a wonderful panoply of resources targeting the start -- the target environment with the fifth come from the smaller companies so we have the inventor hotline if you have questions you can call. we have a trade mark video available on-line for viewing and a pro bono program if it is the other resource inventor if you don't satisfy that we also have another program that means you can write to the application yourself we have said dedicated team at the

uspto to handhold you through the process who can spend a little bit more time with you. we like to say we have all whole range of services. if you qualify for small entity status you could have the 50% discount on these or even an 75% so we are trying to be user-friendly to make all resources available. we hope one day you grow into a full company to pay full fees but contact us we are glad to put you in touch with all resources and the satellite offices are playing a critical role on the ground in the innovation communities. >> we have unleashed pandora's box. >> tom dickinson. ivan like to ask about the

issue of patent eligibility. it has been one year since the decision came down at the supreme court where they attempted to narrow what was eligible and a steady came down that said only one at a the last 20 decisions were held patentable 100 percent of the cases were not now of the rejections have been doubled under what no one. is anything patentable anymore or not? [laughter] this is a presumption of validity to apply to section in 101. >> that was rarely a good question of.

[laughter] >> although i cannot tell which side you were on. [laughter] >> so to see how it is interpreted by the courts and it uspto we feel it should be overturned with how that develops but we have taken the view that nothing is patentable. >> but in the area of software it is eligible but there has been in significant changes is the case law from the supreme court in the area of software you have seen the court's respond and the pto

was on the front line here issuing guidance with input from the public. but we all hope for greater clarity on the issue that is extremely complicated. i think we will see a lot of development in the foreseeable future. >> we appreciate on this issue it is a very important topic. >> but the international group thank you for your position but those in africa have invented things and

then they get into the hands of different countries so highroad to protect themselves? into the big guys' hands. >> and then because of the systems we will see the innovations taken out by the large european companies. to help address this problem? >> with countries across the

globe my chief of staff and the african continent talking about intellectual property that international affairs team was trying to get other governments with the robust system because of not only benefits the indigenous inventor is the also american companies to off export products and services you want to make sure they're also respected so to where we can have a level playing field, or all countries all of us will be better off as the global marketplace we should be encouraging innovation and supporting it whether foreign or domestic if the best ideas come to the top.

>> have the votes by big guy a argument is how you balance the rights it is designed to protect the little guy the little guys need some help and if we go too far in the effort to change the dynamics changes can be made it will be hard for them to go to court at some point. >> let me come back to another impression of china. to move up the of value chain to make things for those that patent

themselves. of book didn't 1900 had a book that he was complaining within the couple of months of the new product showing up in china there were already copies of the market. i know pretoria doesn't spend any time on china. [laughter] how low do you see as working with china or the chinese reacting? >> i just returned from beijing from the vice premier and i am encouraged about the desire to strengthen the it enforcement and protection but there is a long way to go. there are undergoing changes

with legislation on the patent law and copyright law trademark law to provide input to that. and considering trade secrets law changes also antitrust and anti-monopoly issues and rework closely with the counterpart offices i am the co-chair of the china joint commission of commerce and in trade that we are the head of that end we are working with that to get to a place where domestic and foreign innovators are treated. >> guest: those idea is to be protected there is a lot

of work to be done that we emphasize that market forces can determine where they are sold that that will benefit everybody. >> i would say a couple things but china has struggled the part that was driven with the u.s. patent office that they read not good quality. we also have far registration no examination system so that they are

unexamined. >> and how that track is working. but they want to see that. but what i was going to mention is how to be anti-competitive to undermine the patents in china. so we are still working with the chinese and u.s. government. there is the tremendous amount of innovations so there are lots and lots of issues with the it related

but if there is intellectual property space there is the view of this we are holding over the long term we will see the approval of china. the to be with those chinese university leaders. tour exchange students and faculty said to be involved in those discussions.

>> visit is important to have judicial changes to have the specialized case and is a national court. to local favoritism a national court has the experiment for judicial reforms. man's maybe even end greater damages for infringement. >> but the profits have been working in the court over the last six months with the intellectual property issues to the of of positive

reaction to that. >> when we talk to people from chinese companies it appears that they are eager to incorporate themselves to sell the global market. it is positive for a bumpy ride. >> we do have access to medicine as an ngo. ice though think that would be preferential treatment

with pharmaceutical patent rights. but india said treats pet and stiffly than pharmaceutical law for patents on drugs that don't short approve with the safety or efficacy. so if that car about provision and passes so what is that aspect to have differential treatment. >> if we have someone from far mightier? >> thanks for that question those are valid concerns as you know, it is the topic discussed and no legislation has passed but it is what

people are focused on. >> it is done to compare china they are little further along in the intellectual property protection so it is one of the places reseed disparities with how the two countries said minister things it is an issue of concern. >> i am with the american bar association i want to do is take you all to get here in one space the first time

in a battle they china but russia and iran as a threat in this space. so russia also plays of big role in diameter and private practice now but the enforcement issue is what we are concerned about for our clients and a variety of activities that has both the patent trademarks and cyber and i am carey is also most recently at the indictments of the university professor and the fact they are involved in the cutting edge work with military and dod to see more penetration and information leaking out. what is the role we can play in the private sector for enforcement for the trade

mart work? >> we have enforcing intellectual property that is deteriorating to doesn't target that intellectual property but a lot of are unhappy with the position in the government has taken. and we are very concerned about in the country to stay within their borders so that is a real concern.

summit would be a real blow corporation but that has taken but some of the steps that russia has taken with the russian in government so it is difficult to give advice on how to try to improve the situation in russia. and there is an interest with a system like russia but i don't think that that

is the main focus. with of corollary of fact - - defect is what we are concerned about. but it looks like it will be difficult rescissory can work together. at this moment in russia it is hard to say that. it is difficult to give you advice but we have operations in russia and we are concerned about the stage of operation. but it is difficult at the

moment but what we are concerned about them looking to russia as the president but certainly it is of of grave concern and as they put in place as a positive example. >> with the patent and copyright equation we share those concerns in fact, we recently have established the attache in moscow we do have a program that is a representative from the ground to help americans navigate the id - - the landscape we have about one dozen world wide we have

three or four in in staging and because the landscape is as challenging as dimension to with every source american companies know what they are stepping into as a complete solution it is the sharing of information how to navigate that environment and importantly the opportunity to work with lawmakers and law enforcement officials to try to do what we can to improve the situation purported is difficult but then we have the ability to get information under which the companies are operating so for those as represent companies definitely let us know that you can't be more specific we can raise these

issues said in conversation with specific examples otherwise it is just dead generalization. under what circumstances so let us know because we do gather that information we will have those conversations with those issues. >> but there are certain levels at government so we are still seeing to encourage your clients with the cooperation what michele said to bring concern there is the agreement between russia specifically on intellectual property for the obligations of the government that have

committed to work on to be as specific as possible whether or not they respond is a different question but there were some very specific concrete concern said is a possible avenue. >> there is of a lot of jokes with the trade violations in the interest of time i will skip that. one of the sayings that we probably all have is how you measure success? particularly for innovation and number of ph.d. or start up gore patent? what are the litigation

rates? how do you measure success when you say this is working not only as a patent system but to contribute to the economy? >> is how you measure output there is a lot of these numbers you can put on the patents or the start-ups but the association of america did universities set task force with the president's last fall to walk through that discussion why we do what we do and why are we in this business. looked at the results they each came up with it is about to bring this activity or the discovery that is how you add value see you can

attract these variables. i was just that the bias industry convention three weeks ago it philadelphia. it is an amazing trade show. hundreds of not thousands of companies talking about the work to solve health care our agricultural issues. there were amazing stories told. the people stories a little girl who had a rare form of cancer and they had run out of ideas the doctor came up with out of the box solution she walked out four years later cheered and there is not a dry eye in the place and that is what you want to see. is anecdotal but a lot of those where people's lives have been changed by the work by researchers on

campuses are labs or companies is an issue that is hard to quantify to be an effect will be better off economically to have better quality of health care? our brief trading the next generation of scientists? i say we are the biggest transfer is not the ideas of the marketplace but millions of educated students into the economy to do great things whether it is research related or not it is hard to agree on one certain set of criteria but the overall benefit is the country and of better place than 10 years ago?

>> it is important to have metrics as a comparison so i will answer the question from the government point of view. governments are a good dad many things. it is not particularly good at innovating. so i think from the government pointed you whether it can credibly say it has stepped back to review as -- remove as much friction as possible so whether that means there is the immigration system to make it easy as possible whether that's there is an

education system to make sure that we have our own pipeline with the unknown by engineers and developers to make sure there is day of litigation system to not divert from research and development. i believe that is the mode of success. it will take as much friction out of the system as possible. so they could innovate as much as they possibly can and. >> i agree. >> we do attract those but with the we are talking about more global.

>> we track the cases that are adjudicated within the statutory time frame and we track the outcomes and for the most part they have all ben a firm to how do we measure the affective government policy on innovation? bay hit it just right. >> we measure everything. >> do you see the depth to diagnose what is happening? >> we do see the trend beyond the of finding feet or the backlog what we're doing now the uspto has a

lot of valuable information that is the early telltale sign of their investments are made and we are looking through the big data to make available publicly available information about filings so businesses can take that to make informed business decisions. where is this talent located? it has tremendous economic impact and of benefits for a country. >> but what has continued to the end of the backlog so once a week to bring to him the oldest patent applications they would dispose of them that day as

a way to say however long it has spent it is unfair to hold up the innovation because of our bureaucracy that is why we are in favor of having more resources to get that process so to get that adjudicated and out the door. >> if you put more on the market that is okay. >> i am from g we have two versions the senate and house version i interested to hear from you which you believe that takes the most of the transaction and cost? you talk about that little girl coming up on stage to be as innovative as possible

to favor the house or the senate version and why? >> i will start. the community has been working closely with the senate and we appreciate the negotiations on those issues the draft was voted out of committee it does have improvements on two major points and one is the joinder peace to try to reach back to other investors in there is the better way to shield those that would not be held liable so the house bill is a number of reasons that we have highlighted in the past so that is where we are. as we talk beforehand i get

the sense there is in time jews taken up before the fall. i think the house is looking to act much sooner. >> those bills have some of good things. so to be on the senate side for what the senate bill doesn't have that when it was new to a committee so we

will continue to work with the senate on this bill but of the house side so when it makes sure there is language in their at the beginning of litigation. it is not clear how the patent is infringed the we will continue to work for the house judiciary committee as things are continuing to improve to eliminate some of these. >> we are a lot working very closely with stakeholders on these issues.

there is more activity with the senate bill from the house bill and not the senate. with customer stay in their minor variations between the house and the senate. i am optimistic that people will work together with each respective bill to get the consensus still this year think a lot is going into these provisions but it is headed in the right direction. >> you don't want to jinx these things. >> it is early they have lots of time to move around

with one question in the back. >> thank you for bringing their great group together. in 1994 the president of the institute was the year original author of the espionage act one of of provisions we attempted at that time was the civil portion but today concurrent with that action was the establishment of the national counterintelligence center to savor eight countries aggressively stealing technology from the united states from the national counterintelligence

executive now 40 countries are stealing technology now moving first to patent all the stolen technology from the other countries how do we protect our inventors with all of the stolen data with the innovation coming forward to protect themselves against? >>. >> that is say big question. when you say we again i will answer this from the perspective of u.s. government but the private sector may have things to say but to say i know this problem that it would be helpful to give the law-enforcement more

authority in and it is very difficult but there is the fair amount of trade secrets that it doesn't have greater authority and it would be very helpful said additionally i think 140 countries and did my own view that that they have a very senior level diplomatic pressure to forestall some of the economic espionage i will take us a national security had of this but that is searching cases that can be very hopeful -- helpful and it is important

it is the concerted effort by united states government i dunno if they can do that alone or fetid the signal but that has been helpful in some cases as an approach to take that companies need to be, and i know but it the company's that have decided what they will focus on that need to be investing more i advocated the aware no system is completely full proof but in my old job i was surprised to see they

were hoping they would not be a target to firewall off the information for which location to other types of information for them to 100 protect themselves than i think in particular that the beverage has said as a target we need to take stuff to make sure that you are as productive as possible. . .

just getting the language right but what they are trying to do in terms of probation, we do a lot of work with, on the ground coordinator and making sure that people are aware and have the resources. that's certainly not the time to be coming into the government office and working with us to

make sure we have appropriate remedies. another topic i raised seeing trade secrets as a form of intellectual property like copyright and trademark. we are beginning to get it. >> they have been actively advocating and working with european nations and they are very interested in what's happening here in the united states. >> you mentioned moving from first inventor to file with the systems we have now. there's a

number of changes i pr was created out of that whole process. we just need to see the implications. just now, three or four years later, what it means. later, what it means. will it have positive implications or something that we may see there are issues with that. that is why, if we are going to legislate again in this area we need to be very careful about how we go about it because we are just now seeing the output of what it was back in 2011. we ought to be cautious about how we go back and wade into that water again. >> i agree with you. this is a big harmony with the united states. japan is also looking at providing their trade secret law and it's a problem for european countries. i think this is where the u.s. government can work well with its counterpart. they need to try to encourage other governments to put domestic laws in place that make it easier to prostaglandins prosecute against that. or at least prevent it from

happening in the first place. >> there does seem to be consensus in europe and japan that there are measures you can take to reduce the problem but one of the things we are seeing now is rethinking our approach with a more assertive approach. we've reached the end of our time. i thought this was a great panel. it was really fascinating. was really fascinating. michelle lee, thank you so much. you cut me off before i could think victoria and mike so thank you to them as well. [applause].

[inaudible conversation] >> on the next washington journal, the hurdles hurdles that are keeping third party presidential candidates from running competitive campaigns. how changes to overtime pay announced by the white house will affect employees and hiring. "washington journal" live every morning at seven am eastern on c-span. during the program he can telus what you what you think by phone and on facebook and twitter.

>> also on the house agenda for the week, a bill to make changes to the no child left behind federal education program. it will gather into eastern on c-span. the senate will take up a separate proposal dealing with no child left behind that will give states the authority to determine how much weight should be given to state test scores. you can see live senate coverage here on c-span2. >> up next to different perspectives on president obama's legacy in light of the recent decisions on same-sex marriage and healthcare. as well as negotiations on a possible iran nuclear deal. first historian richard norton smith who was on "washington

journal". >> a familiar face to "washington journal" viewers richard norton smith is joining us from grand rapids, michigan to talk about pres. obama and where things stand on the legacy of the current president. especially, in light of recent events such as gay marriage affordable care act the victory in congress over the trade bill and his recent comments on the shootings in charleston and his eulogy in charleston. thanks for being with us. what. what brings you to grand rapids? >> i have moved back to grand rapids. i plan to undertake my next book which is a comprehensive biography of general ford. of course at 1. i was the

director of the ford library and museum so this is sort of a homecoming for me. it's nice to be back and be back on c-span. >> we frame this conversation on the legacy of president obama in terms of how the recent events may eventually frame his legacy. when you saw those recent news stories happening and the reporting of this was his best week of presidency, from a historian perspective what did you think? >> the word is eventually. this is a classic example of the difference between journalism and history. i hate to say it, i am not saying one is better than the other or more reliable than the other they are just two different disciplines. journalists after all are interested in bringing us with the much immediacy as possible, the news as it happens. they can write about the best week in the obama presidency. in many ways understandably so.

historians on the other hand are trained to take the long view. it takes years sometimes decades to see a presidential legacy form. the best example is dwight eisenhower. when he left office he was popular with the public but not so much with the academic community. in fact the first pole after he left office ranked him 22nd, tied with chester arthur which gives you some idea of where they were coming from and politics. then five years later, we, we began to get access to eisenhower's papers and very quickly we discovered what we thought, who who played golf during the 50s, was in fact a much more manipulative and skillful leader. today i don't

don't think you'll find any presidential polls where he is outside the top ten. when you look at barack obama, some things we know, obviously. we know that he is a consequential president. that's not always the case. we know that true to what he told us, he has pursued big ideas, he has taken big risks whatever you think of the affordable care act, for example, history, history will record that he managed to do something that a whole spring of his predecessors had been unsuccessful in doing and he did it in a political climate. there was intense polarization and frankly a great submission of government in general and governmental authority in particular. >> the headline in the wall street journal says the

president and a news conference that he saw his recent wins as a combination of hard work. giving the credit less to him and more to his aides. >> well, that is very true. you don't advance here cause by climbing personal credit. let me give you another example of how a president's legacy can be totally different from what we think at the time. harry truman, to be by partisan and take a democrat, he went out of office with the lowest poll ratings in history at that time. then 25 or 30 years later we have vietnam and watergate and all of the sun, we look back at truman and we saw the real deal.

we saw deal. we saw an authentic leader. we saw someone who got all the big things right but we forgot the loud hawaiian sport shirts and the letters to music critics and that because i'm endearing in a time where so much of politics were stylized to goofy theater. he once said, i wonder how far moses would've gotten if he stopped to take a rating poll in the middle of the desert. he became became in many ways, a model of a decisive leader who made big decisions and took responsibility and by and large history has been much kinder to him been historians were at the time. in terms of brock obama, he said he wanted to be a transformative president. that's president. that's a term political scientist use, we won't know quite frankly, for for ten or 15 years how transformative he was.

it matters who is elected in 2016. if someone who doesn't like to carry on the obama program that is one factor the stories will take into account. the other factors, look at the headlines the news out of vienna and the talks of the nuclear program. secretary john kerry is quoted as saying they can go either way. well that is hugely significant, not only in terms of immediate american diplomatic and military policy, but in terms of the obama legacy. if kerry manages to negotiate a deal that congress and the country can live with and that stall the iranians from getting a nuclear bomb for x amount of time, that has real significance in the middle east and would be

a huge feather in barack obama's historical cap. if he fails, it will be assessed against the same source. >> richard norton is our guest talking about the legacy of president obama. in that week of the supreme court decisions, the passing of the trade bill, the president also spoke at the funeral for the reverend peeking and and the headline read a eulogy that took its place in history. >> can or spect transformation overnight. every time something like this happens, someone says we have to

have a conversation about race. we talk a lot about race. there is no shortcut. we don't need more talk. none of us believe that a handful of gun safety measures will prevent every tragedy, it it will not. people of goodwill continue to debate the merits of various policy as our democracy requires the big rockets pl., america ahead. there are good good people on both sides of these debates. whatever solutions we find will be incomplete but it would be a

betrayal of everything the reference stood for, i believe, if we allowed ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again. once the eulogy have been delivered, once the tv cameras move on to go back to business as usual. that's what we so often do. there are uncomfortable truths that still affect society. to settle for symbolic gestures without following up with the hard work of more lasting changes. that is how we lose our way again. >> richard norton smith i will a speech like that affect the legacy of president obama?

>> there is no doubt that memorable presidential speeches are part of our collective, popular and the stork memory. we still quote fdr on the only thing we have to fear is fear itself or reagan telling gorbachev to tear down the wall. they were the result of events that could have not been planned for. presidents get assessed less for standing in the pulpit then persuading the congress and the country that this is what we out to do. that's part of the job. it's how how they react to the unexpected, to the unpredictable and the events in charleston were quite and it example.

that speech impressive as it was, and i think memorable as it will prove to be did not exist in a vacuum. america was shocked i what happened in the manual ame church that wednesday night, but two days later i don't think any of us were prepared for the emotional catharsis we felt listening to all those family members of the victims who were clearly dealing with wrenching emotions and who yet one after another, testified to their faith and their fortitude managed in their own way to tell the alleged assailant killer,

that they forgave him. i think over the weekend, it didn't matter what your politic, your race, where you're from, americans looked in the mirror and, americans looked at the mere and said could i have done that? i suspect most of us said no we couldn't have. i don't think you can quantify that. you can't take a poll on that. it was within it was within the context, within the climate, not the political climate but the moral climate that was created by those people that the president spoke in charleston. it's the interaction between the two that historians will have to weigh for years to come. >> he went on with the trade bill and he was asked about his best week and in response at the news conference he said i will tell you my best week was marrying michelle and the birth of my daughters. let's get the calls for richard norton smith. we have a call from our independent line. >> can you hear me? >> sure can.

>> i'm a huge fan of mr. smith. thank you for being here today. i want to acknowledge what you said about july 9. years ago i read a book about the hidden hand presidency. it totally changed my mind about this man because i originally assumed he did nothing to stand out or diffuse the uses of senator mccarthy and the houses activities and commission, but i learned through his quiet dignity and behind the scenes he did a lot to combat and ultimately ensure senator mccarthy's' demise. he was going to do himself in with his outrageousness, but moving on to president obama. when he first came into office i viewed him as of the essence of cool and confident and i really

set i believed in my heart he was more like a successful marketing campaign. since since he has been in office, i believe the time, the challenges, the international events have given him opportunities to develop the resume, if if you will, that his prior and earlier life didn't provide. i gave him high marks for being sane in a crazy world and also having to deal with a dysfunctional congress. it's so acrimonious frankly the redistricting that allows extremism to stay in office than to do the hard work of governors. >> the caller is thinking about something we don't often like to admit. every president president, i don't care how impressive a resume or how long

a career he's had behind you the fact of the matter is every president has on-the-job training. it's universal in this job. the one thing i've don't want to forget about eisenhower, there's a new book at the end of this month called the president and the apprentice. it promises to be the best book yet about the eisenhower nixon relationship and i would strongly urge that she and others get a copy. >> let's hear from annette in chicago. >> she's on our democratic line. >> good morning. i'm calling about the legacy of president obama. i believe he should go down as one of the best in the world because since he has been in office he has been trying desperately to bring people

together. no no matter what race they are and trying to help the american people as well with the affordable care act to help individuals that don't have insurance. he helped the lgb t community. just things that everyday people care about these things. being able to able to feed their children and find jobs. barack obama has been working desperately trying to get all of those things for just regular everyday people. i also think he should go down as well as a president _-dash. [inaudible] so if the total disrespect of

this man brings so much hatred for him, you have to ask yourself why do republicans hate him so much and why don't they care about everyday people? >> thanks for your call let's hear from richard norton smith. >> we are living through an era of intense override station and i think in some ways you can say there's been other times where the parties have been at each other's throat but the difference now has something to do with the media and the way we get information. we can't escape it. the nature of the 247 news cycle and the internet has empowered, frankly, people who appeared to have no other particular agenda than tearing

down whoever might be in office. the fact is, four of the last five american presidents, if you go back to ronald reagan, were polarizing figures. one reason is they were agents of change. woodrow wilson was the same, if you want to make an enemy in washington, try to to say change something. whatever the changes were they were trying to pursue i think history will record each of them as a consequential president. a president who made a significant difference in the lives of their countrymen and arguably of the world. that by very nature upsets the status quo and that in turn generates a lot of opposition and the mistrust that you allude to. but i think you're right it's amazing if you look at lincoln and fdr and if you look at even

ronald reagan, if you look at presidents who today are widely admired, the fact is they were at the time the tested by some unusually vocal. >> we are at cspan wj on twitter. a couple said the president will be considered great. if he he is a failure, thanks for clearing that up. the democrats have a monopoly. some talked about on-the-job training. from your perspective, has any any president come in with meeting that sort of on-the-job training question might. >> i think all of them do to some degree. i think the exceptions are those who don't. for example look at the first george bush. many people think of him as a

primarily foreign policy president. it was fortuitous that those skill sets and that temperament, diplomatic if you want to call it that, happened to be in the white house at a time of critical decisions at the end of the cold war, which by the way did not have to and as peacefully as it did. german reunification did not have to take place with relative ease there are any number of things that could have gone wrong. by by the way, that's another way we judge presidents. not only by what they achieve that we can see in terms of bills passed or programs initiated, but by all of the terrible things that they prevent from happening.

the fact that george hw bush didn't go for example, to the collapse of the berlin wall which would have been the photo op of the century, that may seem to some as an odd example of leadership, but in fact it was an example of self-denying leadership. he could have gone and got a few points in the gallup poll at the expense of alienating gorbachev whose country was coming apart at the scene. bush had bigger fish to fry including putting together the international coalition against saddam hussein. sometimes it's what presidents don't do that entitle them over time, to the appreciation of history. >> we have an independent caller from texas. >> the fact that people themselves, were in the world

trouble that were in were in trouble with everybody and were not the good guys here. iran is going to fall through. why? we are demanding outrageous rules that they're not going to allow. it's obvious oprah winfrey show would take anybody off the street and pay them to go into the presidency with attitudes like yours and people that allow such thing to go on. it's the segregation of the united states. for you to to do your job and not face the facts i just don't understand how everybody's being so quiet. how quiet. how the monopoly on the media and the rest of the united

states is just held hostage and kept in the dark. >> all right tony will hear from richard smith. we talk about making a president look good. you think that's part of your job? >> know on the contrary my job isn't to make them look good or bad, what i i was suggesting was the danger of the journalistic perspective forming instant opinions. i think this is a classic classic example, last time i checked the media seemed to be a pretty open and diverse group in terms of opinions that were being discussed. >> here's wendy from our republican line. >> i was just going to say about obama's legacy, as far as our

foreign-policy goes, complete disaster. as far as race relations go here, i have never seen this country more divided. i'm only 38 but it's never been worse than they are right now. i'd like to know what mr. smith has to say about that, please. please. thank you. >> foreign-policy and race relations with pres. obama long term. how do you think that will play out? >> i think it's safe to say that foreign-policy is in many ways the most treacherous ground for any president, but particularly for this president. i this president. i mentioned the iranian nuclear program and the uncertainty that attends to the future of those talks. clearly there are a lot of people were very disappointed with the president's policy in the middle east. there are many people who are traditionally friends of israel who be