issues may be achieved. the russian side was diligent in going to its share for work as regards to pragmatic updating of russia proposed draft guidelines. to compromise existing differences, and in position of various delegations adhered to. recent discussions in vienna and the fact that the delegates under the guidance of chairman working group, mr. peter martinez, succeeded in achieving a balance served to prove that a consensus of pertinent safety

and security issues not to be so difficult after all. we believe that the sets of guidelines that have been drafted gives an excellent opportunity to provide for an actual framework to deal with challenges to safety and security in outer space. we also hope if approved to be very meaningful and self-sufficient in the long-term. to ask attempts to take more expansive approach to visualizing potential legal regulations in this domain will hardly be a successful in the absence of development practice of space operations. the success in achieving this goal will be core elements in the process of validating of space traffic management. we believe the important idea of establishing united nation

platform is an instrument for accumulating multi supports institutional information. as apart of national effort to implement the guidelines, russia is currently working on creating an open information service, intended to increase awareness of states and other users. so here, russia has self-motivation and methodology. also, we have more than 20 research centers, and institutes under the umbrella of russian academy of science, and the space state corporation that conducting serious research and development on space topic.

we have for other development several spacecraft dedicated observing solar activity. and the detailed technical presentation you may found at the website of world secure foundation, as we present, make representation, earlier this april, in the fantastic space event, organize would by world security foundation and hosted by the u.s. state department. so expansion of reliable space situation situational information, it will remain the size factor of ensuring space operation. speaking of space traffic management in general, russia is not against this topic deliberate dimensions.

but we are rather unhappy with the trend we notice, when stm artificially branded a number one political issue. crucial questions arise when one attempts to visualize and agreeable organization pattern for the related institutional operational aspects of space traffic management. there are many questions for states to address. for example, it would be important to understand the sources of legitimacy or super imposing of states criteria for acting in prescribed way, as well as the mechanism of for securing. we cannot help but notice the current ideas on expressed publicly are those that are based on assertions and

important dramatic change of condition for current space activity. some experts go as far as conditions for the space activity some experts go as far as proposing to identify new and that would be between air space and the near out of space. in advance and the idea do recognize that the basic norms of the space law related to nonplacement of nuclear or other weapons in outer space will not apply to this newly identified stratum. we strongly oppose this idea. we're not also supportive of the idea that the right to self-defense could be invoked in

outer space. here are some states that do not refer only to article 51 of the u.n. charter. they also deem it appropriate to provide for preventative and preemptive self-defense in outer space. the charter of the united nations certainly does not provide for such types of self-defense either on earth or anywhere that's thus it would be prudent to attempt to arrive a common understanding of preserving the concept of the uncharter. a working paper presented by the russian federation within copuos specifically on this issue contains among the other things a question that could prove to be very useful to start meaningful discussion on this

topic. it would be much better to arrive at universal understanding and have it approved by the u.n. security council and the general assembly, finally russia invites the united states and all the partners participating in the process to give a good thought to and act constructively to achieve a task of drafting by 2018 the entire integrated set of the guidelines for regulation for safety of space operations to secure space sustainability. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much for inviting me to this very interesting session. i'm director of space policy,

japan. so to begin with, i would like to briefly explain japan's current activity on outer space japan is one of the space nations. japan is conducting our own space program and we cooperate with the international community. and also international corporation especially large corporations japan is now in the international space station program in cooperation with the united states, russia federation and canada and the european union countries. and we decided to cooperate for this program project by the year 2024 and also japan will host the next round of the

international space exploration form, so called isef meeting in 2017. our space activity has become much more diversified. there's secure and outer space activity has become much more important so we emphasize the importance of the rule of law in outer space. in this context lts has long-term guidelines and can play a very critical and important role to share and promote this concept in the world. actually, japan participates in the support of this process from the beginning. during the six years of the negotiation process we contributed from the point of associates to this process of the chairman of the committee itself and the chairman of sdcs and chairman of the working group such as space weather.

but however we are also facing agreements on this point but finally in this june we could have the first guidelines. this is a quite important step for the rule of law in outer space. actually, we couldn't have had any kind of agreement for these 40 or 50 years but now we need to have some kind of document. so this set of guidelines shows the importance of the rule of

law in outer space and playing an important role to the process of rule making so at this stage i would like to explain for detail japan's effort with regard to this first set of guidelines. for example the issue of guidelines one, two, and three, these guidelines deal with the national registration favor and supervision until now, japan doesn't have any kind of concrete comprehensive space law but in complying -- in order to comply with these guidelines we are now preparing new legislation, so called japan space activity law. under this law, the supervision and control of launch and the operation of space objects can be made by only one law.

this law makes much more clear for japan's space activities and also guideline 12 and guideline 13. these guidelines deal with sharing information about space objects and space debris. also for japan we put the importance on the issue of the space situational awareness ssa and cooperation for the best policy on space now japan is implementing space activity as a country including the u.s. and also we tried to compact this. currently we have only to look for the ssa activities but we are now developing much more comprehensive pictures of japan's ssa activities. the capacity building and the awareness rating issue. a space faring nation, japan is

always implementing our cooperation project to basically in the region. for example japan established the framework of the japan regional space agency forum. is we deal with so many projects in the area of prevention and global issues such as the environmental issue and also the active engagement of international space activities. at the same time japan tried to make these activities to disseminate the concept of importance of rule of law in

outer space to these countries. so the most important thing is to implement the first set of guidelines that show the very important best practices for the future. at the same time we may have to

develop compromises in the discussions about the remaining set of guidelines. actually, there are some draft guidelines that fit the discussion, but the point is always very conflicted. but we have some other issue which we may have to address urgently such as the

conjunctional assessment. >> we want this to continue and that will participate in the me ghosh yagss from the guidelines and continue to do so as well as the well established space var nation the uk has developed in the legislation and standards and practices that are relevant to the implementation of the first set of guidelines and rather than going through the guidelines one by one, i have the group of five themes, so

looking at policies one two and three. and then the responsibilities as well as the compliance with a lot of international and we use the methods to evaluate the safety of proposed safety activities and then that focuses on the reliability and functions of the safety and has it with the safety and hardware and the risk and public property and the

qualification of individuals and internal and external and our evaluations are informed by this practice and those established by the international organization and standardization, the committee for the space data systems and the britain institute and the space degree and committee and the space debris guidelines of the which it fee of the space. we have the insure the policies and that's the circumstances and so that end we published in the space policy in december of last year. or guideline for and these magnetic spectrums in the uk is

regulated and operating on an legal basis of the communications act of 2003 and the regions and we insure that the lift time is compliant with 25 years recommendations and e with require the space operators to have the end of life into an orbit in the region so that they

don't in return come part of the guidelines. we check with the operators of the systems and in terms of the orbital safety and guidelines 12 and 13 and 27 and 28, the uk is engaged in a number of international activities and to improve of the dayty and the collaboration with australia and then we're also home to the space data and that's in with the controlled relying of data and that's critical to the space flight operations and we hosted the late meeting in april of this year and share it in support of to better understand

how the debris is populated and the removal of the debris is a necessity and that's the research into the technology and efforts required of such activity such as the removed debris add amission and we should answer reduce the amount of debris and moving now to space weather or guidelines 16 and 17, we have identified the weather strategy in 2015 to guide the action in the uk on the ground zm in space to space weather events.

and that's amount part of the environment and association and collaborating on the space weather and forecasting and models and the uk space agency on the economic cost of space and that's 29 and 26. some of the good examples of the resent is the uk's participation in the international space and

major disasters. that's a very quick counter in the uk and activities. thank you. [ applause ]

>> i want to thank everybody for staying within the 10 minutes. this is a great opportunity and a great panel. and when you talk about the knees for the integrative set of guidelines is it russia's position that it's all going to have to have con sen souse reach or a smaller set go forward?

>> expertise of our minister of foreign affairs. >> thank you. do i see anyone else? i'm blinded by the lights here. okay. well, then i'll take an opportunity of the chair to ask a question. i wanted to ask you about europe's effort to develop a space tracking space situational awareness network. this is under guideline 12, i think. this would come under

guideline 12 about sharing orbital information. i want to know what progress you've made and i also wanted to know whether or not you're in conversations with other countries such as the u.s. about how that eventual network will be able to share data with other entities in other countries because we've seen a lot of people working on these capabilities, but we don't have a system for sharing that kind of data. >> thank you for the question. indeed there's an initiative in europe today and we are building this cooperation for the moment with five other states. we do not talk deeply on this initiative. i think today there's a proposal on the table.

it was a u.s. probably to create an expert group on information exchange on space objects and events, so we need to work on that issue. the objective would be to discuss the possibility to exchange information so we are cleara clear objective, but then how can we implement this proposal. there could be international cooperation. it could be regional cooperation as in europe today. there could be different proposals, different means to reach this objective of exchanging information on space objects and events, and i can't say today what would be the reason for such a work. we need to work on this.

>> thank you. do i see any other questions? if not, i think everybody is hungry. if not, we will go to lunch and it's just straight out the door, is thank you all, and let's give a big round of applause to this fabulous panel. [ applause ] steve will continue as there and kathd thi rogers is the share. on thursday the president will make his six visit to germany from skpen on friday the

president will attend the asia pacific corr operation summit in peru before coming back to the u.s. >> watch on-demand on c-span.org or listen free on the app. >> with donald trump elected as the next u.s. president, learn more on the influence of america's presidential spouses from c-span's book of the first lady. that's the personal lives on the influence of every presidential

life. it's a tv series and features interviews with 54 of the nation's leading and then first ladies published by public affairs is available wherever you buy books and now available in paper back. >> we're asking students to participate in this year's documentary competition by telling us what is the medical center urgent issue and the in coming congress to address in 2017? the competition is opened to all middle school and high school students grade six through 12. they can work alone or in a group up to three to produce a five to seven documentary on the issues selected. a grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall industry. $100,000 in cash prizes is

awarded and shared between 150 students and 153 teachers. this years dead line is january 20th, 2017. for more information, go to the website student cam.org. two panel of industry and government officials talked about the impacts of technology and the sharing economic while the con septembcept of ownershi patented copyright law and then hardware, software and applications in the digital economy. this is about an hour and 35

minutes. good afternoon. we're here to talk if technology is going to own ownership obsolete. this is a partnership in a new america, arizona state university and slate magazine that explores emerging technology and the affect on society. central to this partnership is blog new york city and slate. in addition to content on slate we launched futurography, height of learning, each month we choose a new technology idea and break it down. we ask, what's the state of the science, who are the researchers leading it's development, what are the primary ethical and policy debates involved. this month, it is the end of

ownership which serves as an inspiration for this event. a couple housekeeping items. please, silence your cell phones. we will have q&a at the end of each panel. during the q&a, we will be live streaming the event. please wait for the microphone before you start speaking or nobody will be able to hear you. make a comment in the form of a question with a question mark at the end. got it, question. you can follow the discussion online using the hashtag ftownership, all one word, and follow us at future also one word. i would like to invite the speakers for our first conversation to the stage. conversation to the stage. our first speaker is lauren belive, senior government relations manager for lyft. welcome, lauren. >> we have holly main, senior director for mid-atlantic sales

for spotify. welcome, holly and susan lund, partner at mckenzie global institute. welcome, susan. our first conversation is why own anything when you can access everything. i am going to sit down and we can start our conversation. lauren, let's start with you. cars are an exciting space right now. they have been much the same for decades. the industry is changing fast. talk a little bit about the future of cars, how it is changing, how fast it is changing and what might not change, what might change and what might not change in the next decade or two in terms of whether we buy cars, whether the

cars drive themselves, and what that means for our ownership and our relationship to cars. >> first, thank you so much. i am so pleased to be here. right off the bat, i get the same question probably every single day. what's the difference between lyft and uber? it really comes down to how we were founded. uber was founded to be a taxi alternative. they started with luxury black cars. lyft, on the other hand, was founded to be a full alternative to car ownership. we have two co-founders who were studying all these different inefficiencies on the market. 80% of seats on highway were empty. people own these cars, these assets but they are only using it 4% of the life of the car. the other 96% of the time, the car remained park. when you think about what car ownership means today, people spend on average $9,000 a year on cars when you think about gas, maintenance, insurance. when you look at how the trends

are changing in the american cities today, you have millennials that are moving into cities and getting more and more of the market buying power. do you think they would like to have the burdens of ownership or perhaps the access to services and services of rides through technology? it's been a very interesting way this trend is happening already organically. in 1983, the year i was born, 43% of 16-year-olds got their driver's license. in 2014, only 24% of 16-year-olds got their driver's license. that was something i was 100% sure i wanted when i turned 16. you are starting to see this happening organically. with lyft, what we've been seeing is a trend toward the self-driving car. we see it as a way to help eliminate these inefficiencies in the market. if you think that 96% of the time, a car is parked. that means you have cars in cities on roads and in parking spaces just sitting unused.

if you can reimagine cities and the way people utilize cars, we can get rid of parking spaces. that could be a real way to bring more commerce into cities instead of parking, parks, more housing for people. we are really excited to see what that means. at lyft, we believe that in urban environments, people will stop owning cars completely by the year 2025. that's fast time line but one i think is already on its way. >> that's very soon. >> what about in suburban and rural environments? >> that's something we'll see trends go a little more gradual. first likely in urban environments, slow speeds. as the technology grows richer and the testing grows more concrete, you will see that move to suburban and rural environments. >> we just had news today of the first self-driving truck shipping 50,000 cans of budweiser about 120 miles down

the highway. i should note it was following a path that had been very well mapped out for it in advance for two weeks, and i believe there was a police cruiser following along behind. we are a little bit a ways from all our beer being shipped around the country via a truck. >> holly, can you talk about the trends of music ownership to music as a service? >> i think there are a lot of similarities to some of the things that lauren touched on. i think for spotify, we were in the streaming business before streaming started to become mainstream, which is where it is today. we are a ten-year-old company, swedish in its roots but we feel happy to see streaming starting to pick up. we've been waiting for that to start happening. our general feeling is that with the shifting consumption driven primarily by millennials and the advent of technology and smart phones and the devices that all of us as individuals are dependent on, that we are able to bring more music to more

people with more diverse backgrounds and people that may not have had access to it or even known that they liked it, certain genres and things like that, to more people than we were ever able to do when it came down to buying that cd or that piece of vinyl for those of us that are my age. i probably dated myself. vinyl is coming back. it proves the old adage what is old is new again. we feel from our position streaming that we are seeing all of those things start to pick up so if people want to pay for something and kind of own a more customizable experience with music, they can certainly do that. i think the trend is, people want what they want when they want it and they want it customizable. it is more about experience than ownership, having that 400 lp collect and things like that. >> a lot of the benefits to the consumers are easy to see. you talked about having what you

want when you want it. when we talk about turning goods into services, you have the chance to get access to things that you would never be able to afford to own. there is another side of this, which is, what about the people involved in these economies? what about the workers? this is something you have looked at closely, susan lund. when we talk about cars, you know, lyft and uber have provided employment opportunities for a lot of people. at the same time, some of those same people are anxious now about this transition to self-driving cars. are those jobs going to be obsolete? when we look at something like spotify, the musicians, we've heard some complaints at times about are they really able to make a living when people stream their music instead of buying it at a store. what are some of the trends in terms of how employment and jobs and the economy are being

affected by these transitions? >> the short answer is, they are being affected a lot. there are two big things we are talking about. one is automation, like self-driving cars. then there is the independent work. what happens to the workers. you have a job with one full-time employer. the automation part is still to be seen. if we do move to a sharing economy, the auto industry and the chains is a major employer in the u.s. today. if we move to a point where none of us own cars and there is a fleet of cars driving us all around, i think we would have something like 90% fewer car sales each year. that is a huge hit to u.s. manufacturing. what happens to all those people. situation where it has serious i don't have great answers on the automation point. we did just release a study for those out in the lobby for those

interested on the gig economy, what we call independent work. the government statistics on this are really poorly done. the way policymakers and most people -- this is a pretty young room. say your parents thought about employment as a payroll job with one employer. those are the jobs numbers that are released the first friday of every month and everybody is watching carefully. we do a very poor job of tracking but actually part of the population doesn't make their living having one traditional employer. we did our own survey in the u.s. and five european countries. what we found in the u.s. is that 27% of the working age population, almost 1 in 3, people today, don't just have one traditional job. they are either a full-time freelancer or self-employed person or independent contractor or they are using the gig economy like driving for lyft or uber or supplement to their other main economic activity. so i think along with the sharing economy, it's interesting for people who want to be their own boss and not have a traditional job, things

like uber, task rabbit, up work and airbnb able you to more easily than ever put together a bunch of different income streams and make an income that way. it is a whole new world. the trend has been, we think, growth in this. there is other research to suggest over the last ten years, the share of people in alternative work arrangements has grown quite significantly. the sharing economy might actually spur a faster shift in that direction. >> there is some ambiguity when we talk about the sharing economy in terms of what we are talking about. there's a few different related strands that we're discussing here today. when he we talk beauty cars and

car sharing, in some cases, people are sharing a car together and in other cases it's one car going around and picking up different people throughout the course of the day. in terms of music, not sharing but a transition to something you used to own to something you now subscribe to. it has basically gone from a good to a service. in a sense, what you were talking about, susan, with the economy, employers are sharing workers. they never owned their workers but they used to have a defined number of workers who gave them their full attention. presumably. now, there is a sort of sharing among these gig economy companies. we have talked about cars. we have talked about music. another really obvious one one, other types of media. netflix, people are streaming movies and tv. can each of you name a nonobvious area? it is easy to go from well-defined examples of things

that are now being shared and moved from a good to a service. you can say everything is moved from a good to a service. for the most people we still own our clothes, personal devices, that sort of thing, our home appliances. what is something else besides your own area that you see being shared now or in the future? >> great. >> great. one thought that just comes to mind is the way that cities are changing, the nature of work is changing, seeing the rise of incubators and shared work spaces and people coming together and sharing their brain trusts that helps advance them in a professional manner in some ways, but also changed the nature of work in a lot of ways as well.

you are not going to a static one work environment anymore. you're seeing these honey combs of work systems across cities and environments as well. like we worked. >> you touched on it, clothing. you have rent the runway. that's one. there is luxury services. there are apps where you can schedule massages, v luxe is an app that comes to mind. massages, blow dries, they will come to your home and do it for you. some of it is convenient. some of it is i want it when i want it and how i want it. snacks, graze. you can have a customizable snack box delivered to you. there is a lot. >> from a labor perspective, we went through long esoteric discussions on what couldn't be filled by a freelancer or an independent worker.

the answer is very little. you can imagine apps in retail, fast food, dry cleaners, people pick up a gig through an app and say, i'm going to work this shift and come in and do it. we see it in medicine. highly specialized surgeons slayer their services on a piecemeal basis and get paid for each surgery they do. they will go to this hospital and the next one and the next one. in the world of work, ronald coats wrote this seminal article about why is there a corporation, why is there a company. he said, because it is easy to manage people and reduces transaction cost to much people -- to have people in your company than contracting everything out in the marketplace. what apps and digital platforms are doing that is completely changing the equation. it is cheap, efficient, transparent. you get this whole pool of potential workers. i think it is a long transition. you can imagine the size of large companies shrinking in terms of their full-time employees.

there is some knowledge you are going to want to keep in house. a lot more can be done on project task-based basis with independent contractors. this is a shift. it is not new. we have seen the evolution of outsourcing with companies for the last 10-20 years. these new on-demand platforms and apps for labor could actually -- we may see another wave of that shift. >> i was thinking, what is new and what is old in terms of sharing. obviously the idea of sharing things is not novel. for a long time, we've had

public libraries. we've shared taxicabs in a manner of speaking. we've rented tuxedos and prom dresses. we share a lot of services that are provided by the government, infrastructure, public transit. i wondered, are some of those more old school forms of sharing at risk from these new forms of for profit sharing. libraries might be one example. public transit might be another one. how do you think about lyft's effect on public transit in a world where we can hail a car at any time, does that just encourage the kind of sprawl and the car dominated environments that we thought we were maybe beginning to move away from? >> that's actually a wonderful question. we don't view our selves as a competitor to mass transit at all.

door to door and that's a shared ride and for a reduced cost and in some places $3 and you can get a ride in a lyft if you share it. 70 percent of the lines are rides right now. >> one of the things that i am seeing is that there's a consumer demand that drives all of this. uber and lyft came to the scene and people have a door to door ride without trying to get a cab. they know it's coming. and then that's kind of a whole much more easier experience and that's something that consumers really love. you see other technologies that

emerged and just did not work out, and we're not sitting here wearing google glasses right now. it was just not consumer ready. >> y'all can feel free to jump in at any point if you want. i wanted to ask what we will own in 20 years from now. what does not lend itself to being transformed to a service that you subscribe to and something that's on the smart phone. anybody have ideas on that?

>> i am not a car person but there are a lot of people that love cars. it's fun to drive. i think with what we're going to own and care about and what we want to own. i think it brings choice and you will care what you own. >> yeah, i like that i think you would both say that people care about cars and still care about music, but you're still thinking they will move from ownership to streaming. there's powerful feelings around this and we heard a story of someone that claimed that apple music had stolen the music and

it had replaced them with biles that were available on the cloud and apple music and some of them were gone and then there was a whole sort of investigation to get to the bottom of what happened. doesn't that show that people do want to own their music or at least the songs that they like and the most artist? >> well, i think about my own personal. >> if i'm having a dinner party and what music to play, maybe i will not stream. if i want to do things that are more kus tiezed and things that are created, maybe it's a better platform for me.

what we will own is the less of experience side and the joy. it's a little bit of what susan touched on. some of it is going to be actual experience and not the channel or the hard material lis i can thing. >> yeah, you said that vinyl sales are going up.

>> you know, i remember my very first car was a 740 turbo fire engine red volv objectio and my totalled it. people have a love affair with cars. in the 1960s to 1960s, getting your drivers license and going onto the open road was a freedom and now it has become much more of a burden. you think about how much space in your house is dedicated to hardcover books and dvds that you don't need to utilize that days. in the united states right now, there's more parking in the entire square mileage in the state of connecticut. there's different ways on how you can

utilize space. it will be organic. the world is not going to go autonomous overnight. human driven cars and autonomous vehicles operating side by side as technology continues to emerge. it will be interesting to see how this works. >> i would say to contradict what i just said. the next generation could you much less about tangible goods. this could be a generational issue. teenage daughter who is finally learning to get a drivers license. there is no need because she can take lyft and uber around. she may never drive like i do. they are

growing not without the notion of things is a tangible good. people like meme might say i read a lot of books. i put it on my bookshelf. they may not do that. they may in fact be in the world that is much less about physical good. much more digital. >> getting back to the gig economy and not owning the job, but having the different gigs sustaining them. are these people making a good living? do they feel like they have job security or are some of these unemployed despite having gigs? >> i do want to get into how the government counts things. we didn't ask about income, and so the income is very difficult to do accurately. we did ask a 14-point of how satisfied unsatisfied are you with different elements of your work life. we ask this of everyone. people with traditional jobs as

well as independent workers. 12 of the 14 metrics, people who are independent workers are more satisfied and this includes income level and income security including health care benefits are equally satisfied with traditional workers. we do know they're very happy with what they're doing. there's other work like jpmorgan institute found people's income found people who do get work or independent work have less income and payroll employees. way way of filling in. then income is

quite volatile. >> went back to the team of owning things you care about. if you don't have a full-time job, a career is something you can care about. maybe those are not things you are able to be as passionate about and pursue a different life. there is this question of security when you don't own something, can it be taken away from you? not just to get. if you are uber driver, you know your company's plan is to make you obsolete eventually. your media, beyond spotted by you could have not spotify goes down. we have the dns outage the other day. the attack on a domain name server to down off the services across a web and netflix went down. nobody's been dying dvds because they have netflix. is there a downside to

access over ownership and the sense that something could go >> at his technology. i feel that every day at work when my computer crashes. computers are great when they work. sure there is a downside. you are reliant on technology and things like that which is 95% of the time works in our favor, but there's always that moment where it might not. just a thought on that. even in the nondigital world, things could break down. your car would need to go in for services and it is part of life. for us, you touched on drivers.

our drivers at lyft are as much as a consumer of the platform as riders. yes we are going towards an atomic future, but so was the whole world. we see in some ways that are driver numbers in the next few iterations are going to be increasing which we're going to look at ways to support the drivers with what we need. that's something that we take very seriously at lyft just to let everyone know. >> go ahead. >> this has been an optimistic panel but cyber security is an issue and privacy. where everything is streamed and spotify knows what i like to listen to because they're suggesting more things to listen to. our phones know where we are and so i think the issues of cyber security and privacy are a down side and could be major blockages to realizing the

future if we don't solve them. >> yeah, that prevents a lot of them from signing and i think it's very much generational and they do not think much about it and then you talk to older demographi demographics, and that's the reason that they do though the want to online bank and that's the reason why my father has a flip phone because he will not buy a smart phone because he is convinced it's going to track him and it maybe on to something. yeah, for spotty and lyft as well, the data is so protective of it and from a consumer standpoint and to be can did of a product development standpoint. it's creepy and we can probably figure out the personality and the day on what you stream. we also have like 85 passwords that we have to log in to everyday to make sure that it's protective. that's why we want get into partnership and we won't release

the partnership data. it's a huge concern. >> yeah, i'm really glad that you brought it up and it's a concern that something is taken away from it and people that do own it can monitor it and there's a strict to it. if you have something at ahome, you can look it up at home and google is tracking it and they're building a profile of you for advertisers and that's a down side to the tron situation. i want to talk about the upside and then we will go to questions from the audience. seems like one way that i have seen that companies that offer subscription or sharing services are available to give people a little bit of sense of o ownership and one of the smart things on spotify is that i started to use the preversion of spotify and start to build the play lists on there and once you do the time and effort, you feel like you own those and then we

want to listen to the play lists and then they're within spotify and maybe you sign up, and i wondered if you could talk a little bit about the idea of how do you personalize a car that's not yours? i have heard that the ceo has talked a little bit about their ideas and stepping into a car and your smart phone could give you the experience that's your own. >> yeah we actually have a wonderful partnership and it's the idea of you can rein vent the idea of a car and coming off of work and you're going to nets game and maybe you can call a sport's lift and for us you can have a few different spans in the car and then the pregame in the car and going to the game. it's a whole different idea of how people are thinking about it now and going through traffic and maybe there's a wifi or a quiet list and you can drive through and you workout side f

of the city and you can make the list and do the morning e-mails before the lunchtime meeting. that's one thing that you can think about in different ways. the other piece is that you're rein a car, you look at, this is something lyft is doing now, like senior mobility, where people who may not be able to drive for themselves anymore, now at the touch of a button they can be able to have a car at their finger tips to go to medical appointments, to go goes ri shopping and do all the things they want to do. it's changing the way people are living their live overall. that's ownership they're able to get back. that's exciting. >> we can go and see if anyone in the audience has a question that they want to ask. remember, if you are called on, to wait until you have the mic to ask your question. >> hi there. i'm curious about the idea of

workers unions, how the economy and these different court cases i this i in l.a. -- or california, with uber and its workers, how does this change the way unions work, and their relevancy in the future? >> do you have any thoughts? is that something you've looked at? >> well, i can't comment on the specific court cases. i'm not a lawyer, thankfully, but i am an economist. which some people might think is even worse. i think the whole idea of unions and guilds is an interesting one. you can imagine them getting new life. so the free lancers union gets group health insurance rates for its members. the hollywood screen writers guild is a great example. they dosome compensation negotiation, but they provide a range of training and benefits, like retirement and health insurance. so i think that there's definitely an opportunity, and it could be guild and unions, to

do things like benefits, income security, training and career progression, and then the fact is a lot of people want to be a gig worker, or free lancer, like, sure, i'll do economic research for you, but i'm not good at marketing and sales for myself. and i certainly don't want to file my taxes. so i think there's a whole ecosystem of services that people want to be their own boss, to do all of that back office work that they're not good at and kopt know how to do and don't want to do. maybe it's unions starting to move in that direction. >> we have an economy and a social system that has been built up around the idea of goods. manufacturing goods, distributing them, of selling them at retail stores. and we know how to build an economy in a society around that. i think we're still probably figuring out how you build a

society around an economy full of services. and, you know, included in that is the people who are working part-time jobs. one interesting trend i would note, my former al league alli griswold has a newsletter about the so-called sharing economy. and i was reading her latest issue of it, and she was talking about a series of companies, a series of startups in these realms that are explicitly hiring their employees -- hiring workers as employees rather than contractors, and giving them a share of the equity in the company. these are not so far the leaders in their spaces, they're upstarts. we'll see how that model fares against the contractor model. but at least maybe that would at least provide some hope for the idea that the sharing economy could lead to stable and fruitful careers. >> yes? >> i'm wondering about linking platforms going forward.

i don't have a facebook, which is normally not a problem, i just log into things with my e-mail and there are some things i can't access, but it's really okay. but one reason an app would want to use facebook is for sort of central i.d. verification. so thinking about consolidation of i.d. verification going forward, that's a concern. are we thinking we might have a consumer super user i.d. or something, provided by a google or facebook where through that i would log into my uber and spotify, and if there are any conversations about that, that you've heard, what are some of the concerns around that, too? and/or opportunities there? >> what are your options for logging into spotify? maybe just to start. >> so ours is all based on your user name which is linked to an e-mail address. i have not heard of having like a super consumer log-in.

that's horrifying to me. to be candid. just to have everything in one place. yeah, i wish -- >> that's a very good question. >> that's a great question. >> yeah, facebook has wanted to be that sort of identity service. google plus at one point had designs on being an identity service for the web. that sort of didn't pan out. but i think we actually had an event here a couple of months ago that i moderated about virtual assistance, how they're becoming your portal to all these different online services. if you have an amazon echo, you can use that to -- i don't know if we have the lyft yet through echo. you can hail a car. you can use it to play your music. there's the question of, do those assistants, do they gain control over what you have access to and what you don't have access to. the interonability, maybe you heard tesla is working on a

shared tesla network. once tes louisianas are awe ton moss and able to drive themselves, you might have your tesla drive you to work and then send it out and sort of rent it out to other drivers who can use it while you're at work and then it will come back and pick you up at a tesla shared suite. this is a nice idea. but the other day he revealed that you would only be able to rent out your car through the tesla shared fleet. so tesla controls the algorithm that drives the cars, so they consider tesla to be the driver so you don't own the car in the sense that you can't rent it out to someone through lyft. does that worry you, this sort of battle for control? >> i think the competition is a very healthy thing. the more competition you have in the market is a good thing. >> it is a little bit concerning. i mean, these platforms are in the win or take all component of the technology. the digitalized idea is really an interesting, and i agree, concerning element.

as far as i know, i don't think i ever gave facebook my social security number. it might think it knows me because i've created an e-mail account. you can create fictitious accounts to get around this. if this could somehow be linked to a social security number, or true identification of me, is interesting and horrifying. >> i think centralization is a real issue. if you have a retail environment, you know, who gets store space, something figured out on a decentralized basis. tons of different people can lease that commercial property to any number of tenants. and you can go to the mall and you could shop at, you know, tower records or go down the street and go to best buy. but when you're buying so much online, whether it's through the apps on your phone or whether it's through the amazon echo or that sort of thing, it's not clear we'll have a level playing field. i know that spotify has been the

competition that's healthy and all that. but the fact is that a big new rival is made by apple. and apple controls basically the digital equivalent of the mall. they get to put the apple music app front and center, and they can make it harder for you to get to the spotify app and they can take a cut off the top when you do use the spotify app. i think the centralization is a real serious issue. i think we have time for one more question. >> my question has to deal more with, is this a shift because of desire, or more of a shift out of necessity to sharing? we're coming out of the worst recession in a long time. many millennials face the burden of student loans. if the economy improves, do you think we'll see a shift back to ownership? right now the economy is still growing at a very slow rate. i know personally i would like to own my own car, but can't

afford it because of student loans and other things like that. so do you think sharing might decrease once the economy starts improving? >> that's an interesting question. is it partly just economic anxiety, to borrow a term that's popular right now for other reasons, is it the economic anxiety leading the younger generation to be willing to stream things and share things rather than own things. there's always that question with new technology when a younger generation adopts it. is that the future or just because they're young, and as they get older, their habits will change. any last thoughts on that from any of you? >> you look at the united states and the history of the united states, we're a country that's built for cars. highways, freeways, parking spaces. our sidewalks are a certain size so that cars can park on it. i think right now we're in a huge transportation revolution, where people are racing towards really reinventing the american city in a lot of ways and it's

going to be driven by this new -- or people are going to be able to consume a car. that's going to be exciting. in terms of what the shifts are for ownership or not, at lyft we hope that we will continue to share roads to make sure that we're reducing congestion. but we'll see how that movie ends. >> we have to wrap up unfortunately. thank you so much to our guests, lauren belive of lyft, holly maine of spotify, and susan lund, thank you so much for joining us. [ applause ] now for the second phase of our afternoon. i would like to invite monica potts to give a short presentation. she is a fellow with the new america foundation asset

building program. she writes about poverty, politics and culture. monica potts, thank you. [ applause ] >> okay. so i'm going to talk about what the sharing economy is like for people as it's lived on the ground. i think i'll address some of your questions about economic anxiety. and sort of the big thing i want to touch on, if i forget to mention this later, just add this sentence to the kind of the end of every point that i make. and that's that we do want to make sure people are participating in the sharing economy because it's what they prefer and they're not buying things because they don't want to own them, and not because they can't afford them. that this is the result of moving down the economic ladder. and so i want to talk a little bit about young adults, millennials mostly, and the economic condition that they've found themselves in before we

talk about the sharing economy. so first, the oldest of us now are entering our late 30s. the youngest are in college now. it's important to talk about the way our adult hoods are shaped by the internet and other trends which also involved a lot of economic insecurity. it's not just the great recession, it's also the recession that happened in the early part of the last decade. which is when i graduated. so i was born in 1979, i'm by a lot of measures one of the oldest millennials. i graduated from college after 9/11. so my first job after college was with the city of new york. the city government was just coming off a hiring freeze, because of the recession. and because of 9/11. and i had no idea -- i knew i had a job when i graduated but i had no idea when it was going to start, i had no idea when i was going to need to move to new york. i had to be ready. my first job was up in the air for a really long time. for me and everyone i knew, the

whole economy was really uncertain at that time. we spent our 20s sort of catching up from that. this was especially true when we compared ourselves to the generation older than us when the internet seemed like it was creating all these new industries and people were walking off getting jobs after getting their diploma. and those who went to college were better off than our age mates were who stuck working in the booming service economy, barely above minimum wage. they were uncertain. they weren't getting full-time hours. they weren't able to move up the economic ladder. and so those of us who went to college financed it mostly with debt. since 1985, the cost of college has increased 500%. so more people are borrowing money and more people are borrowing more money. the average student death in 2004 for people who graduated that year was a little less than

$20,000, and has grown to $30,000. so college debt is fine in that translates to higher earnings down the road. but we experienced a great recession, and what was different for the great recession for millennials was that economic downturns often hit the youngest workers hardest. but the youngest group of workers hit by the great recession were hit harder, and they took longer to recover than that same age group did in earlier recessions. in like the 1980s and 1990s. at the same time is the cost of living has gone up. the city where the jobs are really increasing, boston, new york, d.c. and san francisco, cost of living has gone up really, really dramatically. what you find is people who are trying to cover the basics, about 75% of their income is going to cover the basics. to just put a point of comparison, 50% of people's incomes were going to housing, health insurance and education. so a lot of millennials are

spending almost all their money on rent and health insurance. that means a bunch of things. that means that they're living in these basic cities and not able to get to the point they're owning homes. the group of millennials in their 30s now bought fewer homes. they're not building wealth. they are living in places, they mentioned on the earlier panel, underserved by city services. they're using things like lyft and uber to get home, because the city that they live in doesn't provide buses and metros to take them there. that's a different change. their work lives are also uncertain as was mentioned earlier. almost one in three people are supplementing their income in one way or another, or working solely in the gig economy. and i'm free lancing as well.

some people are free lancing straight out. it has its benefits. it means that there's a lot of freedom, but there's also a lot of insecurity. so if you're a bartender and you also drive for lyft, it means you could be working all the time. the benefits to having a job that i don't think it was mentioned before, jobs are there for you when you experience a downturn. if you're a lyft driver and your car gets totaled, you're not going to be able to earn money in that time. if you're a worker and you get sick, there's nobody paying for your sick days. that really changes the relationship people have to work. so things like the sharing economy tend to make lives possible for people. so if you are living in a city and you really can't afford your rent, you can go away for maybe a couple of weeks at a time and rent your home out on air b & b while you're on vacation. but that results in a geographic

inequality. if you live in a place where people don't want to go, you won't able to rent your place out. if you live in a place where they don't have the big booming jobs or uber drives aren't in demand, the ways you can supplement your income is kind of less. and in many cases, people -- it's because people are not getting more -- enough money from their 9 to 1 jobs. they' they're scarcer and they don't pay as much as they used to. people aren't saving money for retirement. these kinds of trends can have huge consequences down the road. if you're not buying homes and not building wealth, if you start doing that in your late 30s and early 40s, you have catching up to do. i think that's what we're going to see a lot in 30 and 40 years when millennials start to retire is that they were really set back by this time period. the relationship that has to the sharing economy is just that if

you have -- if you've been supplementing your work with things like uber, and uber fleets are replaced by driverless cars, you haven't been building skills that other employers will necessarily see translate to their work, and how do you move on from an economy where you were just piecing together work where some of those pieces start to disappear. and during that time you weren't contributing to a 401(k), and you weren't buying a house and building wealth, and able to do -- and unable to save. and i also want to think about the ways that the sharing economy could take the air out of some of the solutions, some of the older kinds of sharing we used to do that we mentioned before. there is an old form of sharing that we had which was where we let the government do things like spread our risk around, and do things for us. and government programs like public transportation, where we, like all together, paid for a service that was able to get us around in cities, and also in

even suburban areas and more rural areas. and that's also important because new technology like driverless cars, as they take over, people who can't afford to participate in that are locked out of these new technologies. y if you can't afford to buy a driverless car or afford a lyft or uber or afford the smartphone that does that for you, you'll see increasing inequality that's broadly based around geography. we used to use the government to share risk. i think there's also, because work lives are so ip secure and consumer lives to some extent are insecure, i think there's a bigger appetite among younger workers to let the government or unions or more traditional seaming institutions take on some of that security for them and take on some of that risk for them. some of the things like public option and health exchanges, there's a political appetite that wasn't there before. it's important to think about, to continue to think about inequality and what people may or may not be able to afford if we're talking about ownership

versus accessing services on a continuing basis. so that's it. [ applause ] >> thank you, monica. now i'd like to invite jenna mclaughlin, and the speakers joining her in the second conversation to the stage. jenna mclaughlin is a reporter and blogger covering surveillance and national security. she covered national security at mother jones as a fellow. jenna mclaughlin. >> hello, everyone. this conversation is something a little bit new for me. i tend to focus on national security and privacy and some of the scary things that came up in the last panel. but these issues of ownership are broader reaching than that. i'm excited to talk to my panelists about it. for our panel, it's called the

illusion of ownership. we touched on some of the concerns about losing our ownership of data, services, but we will talk about some of the other pitfalls. so i'd like to welcome to the stage my participants, charles duan, director of the patent reform project of public knowledge. and public knowledge and he'll tell you more about it, but is working to enhance patent quality. and prior to joining public knowledge, he was a research assistant for professor paul owens. so that's fun. and patrick ross is the chief communications officer at the united states patent and trademark office. he'll be able to tell us a little bit more about what the administration is thinking about these issues. so welcome.

so to start our conversation, just i'd like to start with this kind of, what are your guys' thoughts about the end of ownership, the pitfalls that might occur that were not addressed in the previous panel? what kind of things do we need to be thinking about besides, you know, will we be able to access our ubers and lyfts and things like that? >> i'll go ahead and start. thank you for having me here. i'm glad to represent the administration on this. i do feel that president obama is truly our innovation president. we think about these kind of issues every day. so it's great to speak on it. provocative title, the end of ownership, i remember after 9/11 talking about the end of history. but we're still living it, right? this election would be a good example of that. i think you can think more broadly about the spectrum of ownership. and so to the previous panel, my

18-year-old son, he turned 18 today, is obsessed with cars. all he can think about is cars. his college won't let him have one as a freshman, but i know we're going to have that conversation this summer. he gets all his music through apple music. my daughter is 21, lives in los angeles, where better to own a car. she doesn't own a car. she takes a bus to and from work, and then uses uber or lyft to get around and see her friends or go to museums or bring groceries home. but she loves vinyl. so i think it's important to remember, just as technology is changing, we still have vinyl, even though we went to cds and mp-3s. based on your economic situation as we just heard from monica, are your own personal tastes. we're going to have different approaches to each different product or service we buy in terms of ownership. and i think that's all to the good. >> yeah, so, you know, thank you

for inviting me to be on this panel. and thank you for putting it together. in terms of these issues we've been talking about, you know, i find it very exciting. i take advantage of uber and lyft all the time. but it's worth considering kind of why ownership is still important. and so i heard a story on the podcast where it talks about a design firm that designed the houses that were reconstructed for people who lost their houses in the chilean earthquake. and the houses they designed, they called them half a house. they would build a house, you know, looks like a traditional house, half would have the rooms and kitchen and bedrooms and everything, the other half was unfinished. it was because they wanted to give the people who were moving into these houses the chance to have some ability to make these

their houses. to customize them, build them in configurations that would be useful to them. the government provided building assistance services. they talked about what they looked like. you go to it, and half the houses look all the same, and the other half, a lot of them have done all sorts of crazy stuff with them, some built porches. and i think that really says something about why ownership is important. it's that it allows people to take advantage of the creativity, and to do things that also are unexpected. professor at m.i.t. has done a lot of studies on what's called lead user innovation. the idea that when people -- when people purchase things, sometimes they come up with really creative uses that you wouldn't expect. you know, they might turn paper

plates into frisbees, for example. and that sort of creativity i think is something that really drives people forward, just on an individual matter. i think this is really important to people in just their daily lives, but also as a -- we take advantage of the learning that each of us can do. we put it up on the internet, teach other people how to do it. go to the website, lesh all sorts of things that you wouldn't have expected. that is valuable to society. and it's something that depends on the basic right of ownership which allows you to do unexpected things with what you have. >> i think that's a really interesting issue and something we can explore in a lot more depth, in terms of, you know, we aren't really sure sometimes how much we own specific things. our homes, you know, that's something physical. you sit in your house all day, you're like, this is my pillow, this is my chair, i own this, i can paint it a different color. but in terms of my phone, and the software that's running on

it, you know, there are updates to that every couple days sometimes you think. and you don't really read through what's going on in that update. oftentimes it's something good. oftentimes it's a security update that you definitely should use. but we don't necessarily know what's going to happen with those. we don't necessarily have a choice in terms of what is coming from that. so how does our perception of ownership in the digital space sort of spill over to the physical, and how much do manufacturers actually own certain objects? >> you know, i think the really interesting thing these days is, for a long time, you know, a chair, i assume i own a chair. i own my notebook. computer software, i don't know. you have the thing that you don't actually right. so for a long time it was like a simple distinction. there are a lot of court cases that address that. software is one thing and

physical hardware is another thing. your thermostat has a computer in it, you know, your cat feeder has a computer in it. you have this kind of merger of things. the boundaries of ownership aren't really as clear anymore. the companies who are manufacturing these devices are still taking advantage of the same techniques they used in the software field saying you don't actually own this, we're only providing you with license, so we can take it back whenever we want, or you're not allowed to use it on sundays, or who knows what. it's a little different between saying, you're not allowed to use itunes for an improper purpose, versus you're not allowed to use your thermometer for improper purposes. what's happening is people are starting to recognize that as devices have more software in it, and as we have more of these

contracts, in order to own their own -- to own their physical devices, it's not as clear whether or not ownership is as simple as we expected with just owning a chair. >> i think that's right. i think ideally we don't think about it, right? we're just getting our product or getting our service. you mentioned, we own our homes. i own our home, we're rep oh vating my kitchen right now. technically the bank owns it, because we haven't paid it off yet. i did one of those two-year contracts with my phone that we pay each month. i guess verizon owns my phone until we hit our two-year mark, right? i was fortunate enough to be in dayton two weeks ago. yes, fortunate to be in dayton. it was actually a good trip. i was there representing commerce secretary pritzker for manufacturing day. toured five factories. it was interesting, so ownership in terms of intellectual

property ownership, a lot of auto manufacturing parts going on there. but through the supply chain. and other parts. sometimes somebody comes, an inventor and they tell the manufacturing plant, i need this designed. so the manufacturing plant might sit down, and if they're actually getting involved in it, they might become a co-owner of the ip. in other cases, maybe it's license. so i saw these grills being made for dodge ram trucks. well, i assumed that the designer, you know, was licensing that to ford. or maybe they were selling it to ford. but we don't think about that. you just drive the ram truck, right? all this stuff is happening in the background. and it all works. and so we don't have to sit and think about intellectual property every day and we don't have to think about ownership every day as long as everything works. >> absolutely. that's certainly something that kind of goes on in the background and you may not notice when something bad happens, i guess. one thing that i think about a lot when i'm writing is the idea

of technology and the law. technology has rapidly progressed through the past few years. we've seen it in all these new services. but has the law always kept up with that? in terms of privacy? i honestly do not know all that much about patent law, but i know that you both do. so i would love if you could talk a little bit about that. >> if i could just first talk. my director lee, she talks a lot about this. and how we're moving into this intangible economy. and i don't think i've heard that word today, but common in this space, right? as we have the new products and services they're disrupting business model. i think air b & b can certainly talk about the mayor of new york and talk about some of the disruptions that they're experiencing in terms of regulations. it actually goes broadly. i do think it's important, though, to recognize that often you don't need to completely

rethink the law. so we've been using the term sharing economy. but in reality basically, it's like a rental economy, right? in the '90s i was covering the tech boom. and i would appear on this program called the new economy show. by its very name the assumption the economy was new. pets.com changed the world, changed your dog food provider. then we had the bust. then it turned out to be just the regular economy. the sharing economy is changing the ways we can interact with each other with products and services. but ultimately it's still driven by economic forces. i think susan would agree with that. so you can work within the law, but you do have to recognize that ther there are going to be implications if you're an entrepreneur, and you need to maybe try to get ahead of those, which is what director lee advises people. >> one of the things i think is interesting, you know, we talk about how ownership affects law.

all of the things that when you have a device that you actually own, and you can inspect it, you can figure out how it works. what that means is you can figure it out, tell people, hey, there's a problem with it, maybe you shouldn't buy it, or get involved in the recalls and stuff like that. in the black boxes, we don't know what's inside them, and they put in restrictions to make it harder for us to open them up and figure out what's going on inside, figure out the security flaws. and some of those protections are even -- they're technological protections. technology is to prevent you from getting inside. but you might try to circumvent them. there are laws that make it potentially criminal to try to circumvent that kind of thing. that's somewhat concerning, pause it means we can't fully understand, even the things that we supposedly own. you know, the whole thing with the vw emissions scandal is one of the good examples of that. people couldn't figure out that

volkswagen had the computer program inside them to keep the emissions testing program. you can't go and open up a computer and figure out how the program works. they put a whole bunch of layers of encryption on it to make it difficult to figure out what's going on. the car manufacturers have sought to block security researchers from actually doing that sort of investigation. i find that is unfortunate, because i think it's a real public service when people go out and figure out that these products might have some sort of defects or some sort of problems. and to the extent that some things are able to prevent them from doing that, that seems pretty worrying to me. >> absolutely. as a journalist, obviously i speak for public awareness and transparency. that's an important aspect to it. but also, i feel like this could be an issue in tems of creativity. i mean, when you have a device,

or something that you use either you want to modify it in one way, or use that product to create something of your own, does your lack of ownership there cause problems for your creativity and in what ways could you envision that? >> i definitely think that i have an issue. one of my favorite websites is idea hackers. where people will take, i don't know, a chair, and they'll turn it into something like a completely -- my favorite one is they took file boxes and turned it into an expanding table. you would flip out the file box and you could actually make a table of whatever size you want. people do really cool stuff with materials that you would not expect. but there are a lot of companies out there who they really want you to use the product the way that they expect. lexmark is the most famous of these. they sell toner cart ridges where they say you can only use

the cartridge once. once it's done, you're not allowed to do anything else with the cartridge. what that means is that if you come up with some sort of unusual way of using it, for example, i think there were people who figured out how to put food coloring into ink jet printer cartridges so they could print on cakes, if you can come up with something cool like that, your's not allowed to do that because the manufacturers have taken advantage much the legal techniques to avoid that. >> yeah, i'm glad both of you mentioned creativity, by the way. so i'd like this notion of being the end user of creativity, like can your ikea example. like with the supply chain, we have creativity throughout the chain. so somebody came up with a way to design those pieces of ikea furniture where you could assemble them with just an allen wrench. some of us have had challenges

with ikea furniture. but you think about lyft, right? it just seems intuitively obvious to me, and i enjoy lyft and how easy it makes to tip the driver. i like that feature. but we just heard that lyft recognized this need, and designed some algorithms to solve it. so that was creativity at the front end. so it's important to recognize, we think about it and the end user, and that's not a bad thing. but there's a full chain of it. >> right. absolutely. then there are all kinds of new technologies coming out there that might have changed these questions. how is the patent office considering things like 3-d printing. how could that infringe on these things that other people have created. >> we held an event a few months ago. we call it additive mfg. i guess we're kind of nerdy. but yes, it's 3-d printing. one of the manufacturing plants

i toured only do 3-d printing, and they've been around since 1986. this has actually been out in the marketplace for a while now. there are certainly implications in terms of copyrights and patents and trademarks, the ability to download something that may have a trademark from somebody else, and manufacture it yourself. i think the consensus, though, is that this is truly a revolutionary technology that is really going to improve our lives. at that manufacturing plant, they were designing these parts that were going to be used actually in machines to make other things. and they were able to create passages and thrill-throughs, for example, like fluid oils for viscosity, that you literally physically cannot do with a thrill. there's no way to drill through metal and get these, right? we're going to have to work it out, just like with any disruption, we'll have to figure out the nuances.

some will make headlines. but more broadly we'll see more economic growth and opportunity for this. >> one of the most exciting things about 3-d, there are a lot of -- one of the most exciting things is it takes manufacturing that used to be in the hands of people who knew how the entire supply chain worked, they knew a fabrication plan, and they knew the designers, and they knew the specifications of how to do the drawings, it takes all of that, and it puts it into like the hands of you and me. i don't know any fabrication plans that can cast metal for me. but i know how to type things, right? if i go in with a design and i can -- i can design it using any one of the computer problems for 3-d modeling, i can send it off to shapeways and they give me the thing that i ask them to print. i think, number one, it's really great, i'm really excited about

the potential of 3-d printing for replacing kids' toys. i have a 3-year-old and he loses his favorite lego every week. i'm very excited about that. what i'm more excited about is the fact prototyping. the idea that if i want to try out a new idea, i have to send it out to the factory, it will take a month at the manufacturer, and i find out there's a problem with it, so i have to redo it and it takes another month. with 3-d printing, let's just reprint it and it will take an hour. >> we think about the auto industry, and traditionally, you'd get the new model every four, five years. right? well, the car i own, they actually completely changed the interior from the 15 to the 16 model. i suspect that 3-d printing was involved in that in part. because they can make these fast prototypes cheap and on the fly. test them, run through, and so i

think we're going to -- we may not even ten years from now since we're talking future attempts, we may not even have model years of cars. they might keep reiterating them in realtime. you keep getting the latest one. it changes the way we think about things. >> definitely. i'm curious whether or not you both think that types of 3-d printing will butt heads with the big manufacturers, however you like, with we talk about apple. and the iphone, i think i know hundreds of people who have broken their iphones. i'm not one of them, knock on wood. but i might tomorrow, break the screen. we were discussing earlier in the green room about how it's incredibly challenging to replace that screen without spending a lot of money. do you think that things like 3-d printing, other solutions will be good for that, about you butt heads with the big companies? >> i was talking about my

experience a couple of weeks ago of replacing an ipad screen. the process, in case you want to try this out, involves prying open the glass with one hand, while blow drying the glue that holds the glass together with the other hand. because the glass is so thin, it breaks off into small pieces. so you're sitting there blow dryer in the other hand, pryer with the other hand, and it flies into your face. it's a wonderful experience. i did manage to do it. but what it says, i think, is something about the way that some of these manufacturers are changing these devices that -- i also have a keyboard that i purchased about six years ago. that thing is entirely held together with phillip screws. i can take a screwdriver and open it up, replace the logic board, clean off the keys, screw it back together and it works

fine. that process takes me maybe about half an hour. when companies move from things like standard hardware to these screws that they use on laptops, and to gluing things together, and to parts that can't be replaced, or custom fit so you can't replace them with other parts, it makes it a lot harder for people, you know, to engage in ordinary repairs of their stuff. and that means that if the iphone breaks, a lot of times unless you have a lot of skills and a lot of time and are willing to go to a specialized repair shop, you probably just have to throw it away. that, i think, is unfortunate, for a number of reasons. it's unfortunate because it might be just a small part that's broken, but it's also a recycling problem. if you can't separate them all out, there's no way to send it to a replacement plant.

the sort of trend is a little concerning. and 3-d printing does make it a little better, because it does offer the option of recreating very customized parts that you might not be able to find. there's the particular, you know, curved bezel on the iphone that is broken and you can't find the replacement for it. you can 3-d print it and you can have it yourself. that, i think, is kind of cool. but a lot of companies, they're not terribly happy with the idea. they want to be the only one selling repair parts. so i think there will be something of incentives. >> absolutely. as a journalist who works with people who are really interested in things like security, i know that there are a lot of users out there who have different priorities. maybe the standard iphone -- they have pretty good security -- but the standard android user, most people have androids in the country. but they don't have great security.

and when they kind of push out this software, and there's a flaw in it, and they choose not to update it, and all these users are vulnerable, either to criminal hackers, sometimes even state actors, depending who it is, i've known people who were certainly at risk to are that. how do we properly incentivize companies to be able to develop those things when they don't even give us the choice to do that? >> this is something that commerce secretary pritzker has focused on a lot. cybersecurity. and mtia is a part of commerce, and she works a lot with them and other sub-agencies including the u.s. patent and trademark office. it's a real challenge. we work with a lot of startups. generally what you see, especially a tech startup, you see that engineer, the wos any ak, let's call it. you see the eadvantagist, the jobs. and maybe they get in somebody who actually understands the money part, which is good.

and then they just plow forward and they get those customers and get the services. so, you know, secretary pritzker and undersecretary lee like to remind people, you might early on be thinking about cybersecurity. they're hard to back load. once you start getting down the chain, right? in terms of creating the incentives, we're doing this in public education, doing round tables, talking to schools. we have a program called camp invention where we work through first through sixth graders, like a camp that you bring in old ibm selectrics and provide them. but it's a serious problem. >> it's an interesting issue when it comes to iot devices. we all know about the recent allergy caused by iot cameras that were easily hacked because

they had a fixed name user password, that nobody could fix, not even the user. the thing is, there are kind of two approaches to dealing with security vulnerabilities. the first one, which i think is -- this is what you would seem to want to do, lock it koun as much as possible. make it really, really hard for anybody to figure out what's going on. you know, it sounds very attractive. but the issue is that most of the security vulnerabilities that are discovered are not discovered by the company. they're discovered by third parties who, you know, do research on it, they do the penetration testing, and they realize there's something the company overlooked. a lot of times, especially the think companies, there are design companies in the manufacturing companies and the software is second and third down the list for them. software security may not at the top of the priority chain for them. whereas it would be for users of security researchers. that kind of leads to a

different approach, which is, open the device up as much as possible, let people figure out what's going on. and that way, take advantage of the crowd, they can figure out what are all the issues. they can report on them. and then you can ib kre mentally improve the device at a much more rapid pace. so i think there is that aspect of just owning and understanding the devices that is fairly significantly helpful to cybersecurity concerns. >> you talk about security researchers. there's also obviously some areas of the law where we could fear penalties with the kind of messing with those devices, interfering with patents or the computer fraud abuse act is something i run into sometimes. people are percent indicated because they may be doing research to help the company. but they're penalized because they accessed that system without authorization. what other sort of ways could

people run into issues with doing that kind of thing? >> you know, the most often cited legal concern for this sort of activity is the section called the millennial law copyright act. that sec hon was originally designed as a way of enforcing on the drm technologies, on like, you know, music or dvds or ebooks. if they put on some sort of ekripgs or technological protection measure they call it, that protect the internal copyrighted contents, then efforts to sir com vest that measure would be punishable as a crime, and in civil lawsuit, in a number of other ways. companies have, you know, sought to use that as a way of protecting not just copyrighted content, not just like movies and ebooks, but also tractors, and medical devices, and all

sorts of internet things products. because they all have software on them, the software is copyrighted so therefore the theory is any technological protections on the device are provided. the assertion of that law, you know, apparently fairly in a strange way, that i think is a little concerning. there are similar other issues with like cfa, of course. >> yeah, so digital money and copyright act is an interesting thing to bring up. there have been isolated cases that involved some kind of questionable interpretations of that. you may know that the u.s. copyright office actually had the procedure. i think you guys have probably participated in that. where you can actually go and articulate ways in which you think it's not being used and they can create exceptions, and they have created exceptions. we're not a law enforcement agency at the uspco, but we did several years ago start a conversation broadly on

copyright and innovation in the digital economy, and we did a great paper in 2013, and a white paper in 2015, green paper is like here are the problems, white paper potential solutions. i didn't know that before i joined the government. but we did it through the department of commerce. and we received so many comments. i know public knowledge participated in those as well. we had round tables around the country. one thing ke we kept hearing over and over again, actually the marketplace is working some of them out. so that was encouraging. that's not surprising, right? we've been talking all day here about what consumers want, what do we as end users want. if you have a bunch of consumers that are unhappy, there's probably going to be somebody who's going to try to target that. not saying everything's a dog, but it's interesting to see based on what we heard that things are working themselves out in some ways. >> i will open it up to the audience.

remember, our previous instructions, to please wait for the mic. and when you're asking questions, make sure it is a question and not just a statement. if anyone? >> i feel pad because i already asked one. that's why i was giving it some time. i'm curious about changing attitudes in this space to where it's patent law and ownership. are there partisan trends there? are there trends, or fault lines opening up between younger people who have different ideas and the ownership role patents play in that? i don't think about patents at all because i don't create anything. but i'm wondering if i'm representative of a millennial who would create something and approach this without any of those questions about ip. so going forward, are you seeing any trends or resetting there? >> that's an excellent question. we do seem to live in partisan times, right? i will say, you don't think

about patents that much, i'm totally fine with that. i mentioned my kids earlier. they've been forced to think about it far too often when they're at the dinner table. i will say for the most part, intellectual property policy has been a pretty bipartisan issue. in 2011, congress passed overwhelmingly bipartisan in both the house and senate the american bed tax, which we've implemented, and it's actually provided some tools to help improve patent quality, provide a stable funding, provided a post-grant court, so anybody can challenge a patent and bring it before this court. it's faster and cheaper than a u.s. court. but i think what you're seeing here is that to the extent that there are divisions in the base

in the patent community, it has to do with your business model. are patents essential to your business model or are they peripheral. in some cases like trademarks, they're important to everybody. lyft with the little, you know, flowy writing and the pitching, that's a pretty important part of their portfolio. patents, it varies from industry to industry. that's where the friction lies. >> that's a great question. one of the interesting trends i see, particularly among younger people is that we talk a lot about the sharing economy of cars and music and thipgsz. there's a sharing of the economy of ideas, too, i think. it started with the -- you know, i think it starred with the idea of open software. instead of i created the software, and so, therefore, i want to make a lot of money on it by selling it, i created the software, so i'm going to share it with people and other people can improve it and we will have a big community of people helping to put together this really cool, you know, operating

system, or open office word processing system. and to get different models of innovation, even for other things. i think one of my favorite examples is a kick starter, right? the idea that somebody could have really cool idea, and a lot of times they have patents or trademarks on it, and sometimes they don't. but the way they talk about their idea is by saying, let's get a crowd of people who will be willing to contribute enough money to make it worth my time to manufacture it, put together this piece of hardware or do a number of things. i think that's in a sense really turned on its head the traditional way we view monetizing ideas, which i have an idea, i have a patent, and the exclusive right to and now i can make money. i'm going to ask money for it first and then make my idea. so i think we're starting to see new business models and new norms about how innovation can happen.