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 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].>> washington journal continues.

host: a familiar face to washington journal viewers richard norton smith joining us this money from grand rapids michigan. talk about where things stand on

the legacy of the current president, especially in light of court decisions on gay marriage and the affordable care act, the victory in congress over the trade bill, and his recent comments on the shootings and the eulogy in charleston as well. thank you for being with us this morning. what brings you to the grand rapids? tell us that first. guest: i have moved here to undertake my next book, a comprehensive biography of general ford, and of course, at one point, i was directed to the ford library museum. a homecoming for me. it is nice to be back and nice to be back on c-span. host: 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 news stories

happening and this was the leak of his presidency, from a historian perspective, what do you think? guest: the word is eventually. this is a classic example of the difference between journalism and history. 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 as soon as possible the news as it happens. they can write about the best week of the obama presidency and the many ways, understandably so. historians, on the other hand, are trained to take the long view. it takes years and sometimes decades. an example is dwight eisenhower.

popular with the public but not so much with the academic community. the first pool of scholars rank him 26th. which gives you some idea of where a lot of scholars were coming from in their own policy. five years later, we began to get access to eisenhower's papers and very quickly, we discovered the grandfather we thought, who played golf during the 1950's, was in fact a much shrewder and frankly more manipulative and skillful leader. today, i do not think you will find any outside the top 10. when you look at barack obama, some things we know, obviously. six years into his presidency. we know he is a consequential president and that is not always the case.

we know he has pursued days ideas. he has taken big risks. whatever you think of the affordable care act, for example, history will record that he managed to do something a whole string of his that assessors had been unsuccessful in doing. he did it in gridlock, intense polarization and, frankly great suspicion of government generally and the expansion of government authority in particular. host: the headline the wall street journal talks about, the president said in a news conference that he saw his recent wins as a culmination of hard work, sort of giving the credit less to him i suppose and more to his aides. guest: and that is very shrewd.

you do not advance your cause by claiming personal credit. let me give you another example of how it president's legacy can be totally different from what we think at the time. when out of office with the lowest poll ratings in the history up to that time. 25 or 30 years later we had vietnam and watergate and all the sun we look that catch women and we saw the real deal, we saw an authentic leader, we saw someone's who had all the big things right and a lot of little things wrong. we forgot about the hawaiian sports shirts and the letters to music credits, that actually became endearing at a time when so much about politics is

stylized in kabuki theater. harry truman said i want to how far moses had gotten if he stopped to take a poll in the middle of the desert. truman became in many ways a model of a decisive leader who took big decisions, who took responsibility and by and large, history has been kinder to him than some historians were at the time. in terms of barack obama, he said he wanted to be a transformative president. that is the term political scientist use. we will not know for 10 or 15 or 20 years how transformative he was. it matters who was elected in 2016, if someone was elected carrying on the obama programming, for example, that is a factor historians will take into account.

just look at the talks on the iranian nuclear program. secretary kerry is quoted as saying it could go either way. that is hugely significant not only in terms of immediate diplomatic policy, but in terms of legacy. if kerry manages to negotiate a deal that the country can live with and that forestalls the iranians from getting a new rear bomb for x period of time, that has real significance in the middle east and the on. it would be a huge feather in barack obama's historical cap. if he fails, the blame will be assessed against the same source. host: richard norton smith is our guest, talking about the

legacy of president obama. -- in the week of the spring court decisions and the passing of the trade bill, the bread -- the president also spoke at the funeral for the reverend shot in trust in, south carolina. the headline over the weekend from the new york times is, a eulogy that found its place in history. let's take a look. president obama: none of us can or should expect race relations transformation overnight. every time something like this happens, everyone says we have to have a conversation about race. we talk a lot about race. there is no shortcut. we do not need more talk. [applause]

none of us should believe a handful of gun safety measures will prevent every tragedy. it will not. people of goodwill will continue to debate the merits of various policies. as our democracy requires. a big place, america is. there are good people on both sides of these debates. whatever solutions we find will necessarily be incomplete. but it would be a betrayal of everything the reverend stood for, i believe, if we allowed ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again. [applause]

once the eulogies have been delivered and the tv cameras move on, to go back to business as usual. that is what we so often do. to avoid uncomfortable truths about the president that still affects our society. [applause] to settle for symbolic gestures without following up with the hard work of more lasting change. that is how we lose our way again. host: richard norton smith, how could a speech like that affect the legacy of president obama? guest: there is no doubt that memorable presidential speech or's -- speeches are part of our popular and scholarly memory. we still quote fdr on the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, or ronald reagan on,

tear down this wall. the difference is those were scripted, the result of events that could have been planned for. one of the fact that people do not often stop to think about is that president get assessed less for standing in the pulpit and announcing the national agenda and then persuading congress and the country that this is what we ought to do. that's a start of the job, but it is how they react to the unexpected, the unpredictable. and the events in charleston were a classic example. but that speech, let's remember as impressive as it was, and as memorable as it will prove to be did not exist in a vacuum. america was shocked. by what happened in the immanuel church wednesday night.

two days later, i do not think any of us were prepared for the emotional catharsis we felt listening to all of those family members of the victims who were clearly dealing with wrenching emotions and yet one after the other, testified to their faith and fortitude, managed, in their own way, to tell the alleged killer that they forgive him. i think over the weekend, it did not matter your politics, did not matter your race, or where you are from. americans looked in the mirror and said, could i have done that? i suspect most of us said we could not have. i do think -- i do not think you can quantify that or take a poll on that, but is it within the context within the climate, not the political climate, but the moral climate created by those

people, that the president spoke in charleston? it is the interaction between the two that historians will have to weigh for years to come. host: after his legislative win on the trade bill and his victory in the courts, he was asked about his best weekend in response at the news conference he said, my best week, i will tell you, is marrying michelle, emily and saw shall being born. excellent weeks. let's take a call, on our independent line. caller: can you hear me? i'm a huge fan of mr. smith. thank you for your presence today. it totally changed my mind about this man to die richly assumed

he did nothing to stand up to or try to defuse the abuses of senator mccarthy on the house of activities commission. but i learned through his quiet dignity and behind-the-scenes imaginations, he did a lot to combat and really, ultimately ensure senator mccarthy's demised. he will do it himself and his alcoholism and outrageousness, but moving on to president obama, when he first came into office i just thought he was the essence of cool, aloofness confidence. but i believed in my heart he was more like a successful marketing campaign than a substantive individual. but since he has been in office, i believe the times, the challenges, the international events, have really given him

opportunities to develop the resume, if you will, that his prior, early life did not have ip or die give him high marks for being sane in a crazy world and also having to deal with a dysfunctional congress that is so acrimonious due to frankly the redistricting that allows extremists to stay safely in office. host: we will get a response, susan. thank you for your call. guest: the caller was putting her finger on something we do not often like to admit. every president, i do not care help impressive a resume or political career you may have had behind you, the fact of the matter is, every president has on-the-job training in this job. it is universal. before i forget, her mention of dwight eisenhower, there is a big new book coming at the end of this month called "the

president and the apprentice" and it promises to be the best book yet about the eisenhower and nixon relationship and i would strongly urge that she and others get a copy. host: let's hear from a net in chicago, democrats line. caller: yes, i am calling about the legacy of president obama. i believe he should go down as one of the best unifier's in the world because since he has been in office, he has been trying desperately to bring people together, no matter what race they are. and trying to help the american people as well, like with the affordable care act, you know, to help, you know, individuals that do not have proper insurance or insurance at all.

he helped give the lgbt community, i mean, just all the things people care about, everything people care about these days. being able to feed their children and find jobs. barack obama has been working desperately to try to get all of those things for regular and everyday people. i also think you should go down as well as the president where republicans say hey, and i do not they give it is because his race or what but sometimes, i question whether it is or not because when he was doing the state of the union speech, a guy stood up and called him a liar. the total disrespect of this man, with so much hatred toward him, you have got to ask yourself, why do republicans hate him so much and why don't they care about everyday people? host: thanks for your call. guest: there is no doubt we are

moving through an era of intense polarization and i think in some ways, you can say there have been other times in american history where the parties have been at each other's throats. the difference now has something do with media and the way we get information that we cannot escape it. the nature of the 2 -- the new cycle and the internet, it has empowered, frankly people who appear to have no other particular agenda than tearing down whoever might be in office. the fact is, four of the last five of american presidents come you go back to ronald reagan, or polarizing figures. one reason is because they were agents of change. woodrow really -- woodrow overlooked -- woodrow wilson famously said, if you want to make an enemy in washington, try to change something. whatever you think of the

changes they were trying to pursue, and some were conservative and some were more liberal, the fact is i think history will accord each of them was a consequential president, a president who made a significant difference in the lives of their countrymen and of the world. by its very nature, that upsets the status quo and in turn generates a lot of opposition and mistrust that you allude to. but i think you are right it is amazing if you look at lincoln and fdr, if you look at frankly, even ronald reagan. you look at president who today are widely admired, the fact is they were, at the time detested by some who were unusually vocal. host: we are on twitter.

a couple of tweets -- a caller talked about on-the-job training as president from your perspective as a presidential historian, has any president come in with meeting that sort of on-the-job training? guest: i think all of them due to some degree. i think the exceptions are those who do not. for example, look at the first george bush, who many people think of as a primarily foreign policy president. that skill set and that temperament, diplomatic, if you want to call it that, happened to be in the white house at a time of really critical

decisions, the end of the cold war, which, by the way did not have to end as peacefully as it did, germangerman reunification did not have to take place relative of ease. and that is another way that we judge presidents. not only by the programs initiated, but by all of the terrible things that they present form happening -- from happening. the fact that george w. bush didn't go to collapse the berlin wall. that may seem an audit example of leadership, but it was an example of self-denying leadership. he could have gone at the expense of alienating --, whose

country was falling apart. he put together the international coalition against pseudomonas say it. so sometimes it is what the president's don't do that over time, entitles them to the appreciation of history. host: let's hear from tony on the independent line. caller: i don't approve of your job of trying to make decisions as to who shouldn't look good and honest. the world trouble that we are in we are in trouble with everyone. we are not the good guys here. iran is going to fall through as we are demanding outrageous

rules. they are not going to put up with it. it is obvious that oprah winfrey showed that we can take anybody off the street and pay for them to take the president. and for people to allow such things to go on, it is the degradation of the united states. and then for you to do your job and not face the facts, i just don't understand. i don't understand how everybody is being kept so quiet, how the monopoly on the media and the rest of the united states is just held hostage and kept in the dark. host: we will hear from richard norton smith, he talked about making a president look good.

you think that is part of your job? guest: no, on the contrary. i was suggesting that the danger of the journalistic perspective forming opinions -- and by the way, this is a classic example. the last time i checked, the media seems to be open and diverse in terms of the opinions of that were being voiced, not least of all on the channel that you are watching. host: on our republican line. caller: yes, i was going to say about obama's legacy. as far as our foreign policy goes, it is a disaster. as far as race relations go, i have never seen this country more divided. i am only 38 but worse than

they are right now. i would like to know what mr. smith has to say about that. host: foreign policy and race relations with president obama long term. how will that play out? guest: in many ways, foreign policy is the most treacherous ground, particularly for this president. i already mentioned the iranian nuclear program and the future of those talks. clearly there are a lot of people who are disappointed in the president's policies in the middle east. there are people who believe that he has not been adequately support his of that traditional ally. people look at the arab spring which has curdled into something on springlike -- on

unspringlike. those are legitimate questions. there are questions that you can be sure historians will be debating for a long time. but that goes back to my point. like him, dislike him, whatever. the fact that barack obama and whatever his legacy is willing gauge the interest and attention and the support and hostility of historians and others for a long time to come, it only testifies to the significance of his presidency. and to the magnitude of what he has attempted. host: richard norton smith is our guest. this conversation grows out of

the reporting after the trade deal, and also out of the affordable care act and expanding same-sex marriage. they called that obama's best week ever. guest: you mentioned the supreme court. here is something we know and can measure. a significant part of george w. bush's legacy is his supreme court nominees. chief justice robert and justice alito, and a big part of obama's legacy will be his appointment of nominees. the two bush nominees -- the two

obama nominees. host: let's hear from jay in south carolina. caller: i was at a party the other night, and people were talking about inauguration addresses. they talked about jfk, and then someone mentioned gerald ford. it is a pretty awesome inauguration address. i was wondering how that came about? guest: that is a great question. the president used to laugh about it. you have to remember, this was a unique inauguration. because of the unique circumstances surrounding the transition from nixon to ford, he couldn't prepare an inaugural address.

so this was something that was put together at the very last minute. he looked at it the day before he delivered it. and there was a line that he thought was over the top. he thought it was harsh. it is the line that we all remember, "our long national nightmare is over." and -- went to the mat and said that it was the phrase that people would remember. he was right. he was the first to acknowledge in later years that he had misjudged it. if you want to read a great inaugural address read woodrow

wilson's first inaugural address. delivered in march, 1913. host: that is not in our video library. are you still there? caller: yes. host: what struck out to you as being great? caller: the brevity of it. he seemed to be the right person at the right time delivering the right speech at the right moment. he just seemed, his humanity came out. host: i'm glad you joined in this morning. let's talk to john from maryland. caller: i think it is a little early since he has 1.5 years left. and so many things can happen,

as we have seen with the week that was, with the trade success and the two supreme court decisions. by the way fdr tried to stack the supreme court so he could get more favorable rulings out of his appointees, and that didn't fly. but when president obama put elena kagan in there, they were his people. they think like him. sonia sotomayor was caught saying, we are not supposed to say this, but we do make policy. and that should have knocked her out. elena kagan, she never s erved as a judge.

she was solicitor general and her main case was obamacare. of course when obama came to the supreme court that didn't work crews what people were thinking. it sounds like as a presidential biographer, you are in the same load as michael bash watch. he was bragging about obama being the smarter person -- link the smartest person to ever serve in the oval office. "what is his iq? " host: all right, richard norton smith, any thoughts? guest: i would suggest thomas

jefferson and john quincy adams probably are the most cerebral of american presidents. i think woodrow wilson is up there as well. host: the american political science association did a ranking of where the president's stand. lincoln is at the top. of the modern-day presidents, he eisenhower is placing ahead of president obama. clinton and jfk and george bush also ahead of obama. do presidents receive a more favorable view, does absence makes the heart grow fonder? guest: that is a great question. generally speaking, presidents

leave office at the -- of their reputation. what happens is, once they leave office, they cease to be in our face. they cease to be political figures, party leaders, they graduate to the serial position of older statesmen. they go off and visit earthquakes and raise money for charities. this is another reason why it takes time before the first draft of history journalism, becomes the second, third and fourth. the more controversial a president is, the more

polarizing, the longer it takes for those emotions to cool. richard nixon was one of the more controversial presidents, it would take 50 years before anyone could write about him with objectivity. we are coming up on 50 years there are several new books out. that is another point. there are three new nixon books this summer. there are three new books on fdr. it reinforces my point. i'm not saying that we have to wait 50 years or 70 years to pass judgment on the obama presidency. but it will be a wild. host: the business insider headline "the last week cemented obama's legacy." caller: i honestly believe that in the final analysis, this

president will go down as the most divisive president in the history of this country. so many of us democrats and republicans, have spent a lifetime creating a seamless society, a homogenous society ringing all people together collectively. it seems to me, ace on his background and his affiliations, based on what he fails to do, he is creating a divisive society by design. the reason, i don't know. what are his true politics? it isn't the true democrat, as my father knew. it is very difficult for someone like myself to get a handle on what he really is intending to do. i don't think that the republicans dislike him as much as they distrust him.

not because of his race, but because of his programs. how he ramrod it through nancy pelosi the affordable care act. how he did all of these things without regard, without an attempt to meet with leadership on the other side of the aisle. host: we will hear from richard norton smith on the divisiveness of obama. guest: the caller is entitled to his view. i would suggest that abraham lincoln was the most divisive president. his election caused several southern states to leave the union, followed by several more. for most of his presidency, he was regarded as a mortal enemy for half of the union. it is only in retrospect that