potentially because she has self -- help insurance, which he just could not afford. the question now becomes come if in fact this is working for a lot of people but still improvements to make, why are we still having a conversation about repealing the whole thing on and why are we having folks say that any efforts to improve it are somehow handing obama a victory ? if this is the primary agenda item in the republican political platform. here is what i know. the american people would much rather see us talk about jobs, would much rather see us talk about high college costs, would much rather see us talk

about how to rebuild our roads and bridges and infrastructure and put people back to work. they would much rather us talk about how we can boost wages and improve their individual family autumn lines. -- bottom lines. if the republicans want to spend the entire next six months or year talking about repealing a bill that provides millions of people health insurance, without inviting any meaningful alternative, instead of talking and economic situation of families across the country, that is their prerogative. willme point i think they make the transition. that is my hope anyway. if not, we will keep on doing what we are doing which is making it work for people all across the country. going to say one last thing about this. just because this does frustrate me. chosen not tove

expand medicaid for no other reason than political spite. you got 5 million people who could be having health insurance right now at no cost to these states, zero cost to these states other than ideological not to they have chosen provide health insurance for their citizens. that is wrong. it should stop. those folks should be able to get health insurance like anybody else. >> given all you were saying about the affordable care act, do you think it is time for democrats to start campaigning loudly and positively on the benefits of obamacare? on ukraine, you said in other situations that the military option remains on the table even as talks go on. is the military option on the

table with russia, and if so, would that be through nato forces, or through other aid to ukraine? that otheraid military options are not on the table in ukraine because this is not a situation that would be amenable to a clear military solution. what we have to do is create an environment in which irregular that the seizing of holdings cease, that a national dialogue by ukrainians, not by russians, not by americans or anybody else, but by ukrainians takes place, and they move forward with reforms that meet the interests of the various groups within ukraine, they move forward with elections, and they start getting their economic house in order. that is what is going to solve the problem. obviously, russia right

now still has its forces amassed along ukrainian-russian border as a gesture of intimidation, and it is our belief and not ours alone, but the broad portions of the international community to leave that russia's and is in that disruptions and chaos that we have been seeing -- hand is in the disruptions and chaos that we have been seeing in the southern and eastern ukraine. there is an opportunity for russia to take a different approach. in the meantime we will repair and additional responses should russia fail to take a different course. we have had an impact on the documented. is well it could yet significantly worse. hurtingan interest in

ordinary -- we do not have an interest in hurting ordinary russians for the sake. mr. putin should follow through on a global hope coming out of these geneva talks, but we are not going to count on it until we see it. we will prepare for other options. with respect to the affordable care act, my point is that we have been having a political fight about this for five years. we need to move on with something else. that is what the people are interested in. i think democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the fact that millions of people like the woman i just described who i saw in pennsylvania yesterday, we are helping because of something we did. i do not think we should apologize for it. we should not be defensive about it. it is a strong, good, right story to tell.

what the other side is doing an offering would strip away protections from those families and from hundreds of millions of people who already have health insurance before the law passed, but never knew if the insurance company could drop them when they actually needed it or women who were getting charged more because they were a woman. i am still puzzled why they have made this their sole agenda item when it comes to our politics. it is curious. aboutat i intend to talk is what the american people are interested in hearing, our plans for putting people back to work him our plans for making sure our economy continues to grow, our plans to make sure that we are training people for the jobs that are out there right now and making better use of our community colleges and linking them up with businesses, and how

we will continue to bring manufacturing back the way we have over the last several years, and how we are going to put more money in the pockets of ordinary people. they want to talk about repealing a law that is working, that is their business. what democrats should do is not be defensive, but we need to move on and focus on the things that are really important to the american people right now. >> thank you. there are people who object to the law and say they have had problems with the law, and there are significant numbers of opponents of the law. what makes you think a significant majority of the american people will accept this law, or are we destined to health care, 50-50, red state, blue state? >> you said there are people say there are problems with the law. that is not the majority of the

people. there may have been folks who are affected in ways they are not happy about why the law. that is a far smaller number than the millions of people who have been signed up. that does not mean we should be concerned about it. that is an area where we should be open to, ways that we can make it even better. objective facts and real problems out there. the other side is just p olling, what is the general opinion of the law, which is attached to general opinions about me and democrats and partisanship in the country generally. longer we that the see the law benefiting millions of people, the more we see accusations that the law is hurting millions of people being

as some of debunked, you in the press have done, and the more the average america who insurance notalth affecting them in an adverse way, it becomes less of a political football, which is -- it should not be a political football. it should be something we take for granted, that in this country you should be able to get affordable health care regardless of how wealthy you are. the larger issue, whether we can move past the polarization and the bitter political debates between democrats and republicans, of which obamacare isjust one small part, that going to take more time. for lack of trying

on my part, and i think that i speak for all democrats in would much prefer a constructive conversation with republicans about how do we get stuff done, and let's focus on areas that the american people really care about. on jobs, we know infrastructure would put people back to work now and improve our economy in the long term. it used not to be a partisan issue. why don't we come up with a way to make sure we are rebuilding our roads and bridges and improving our traffic control system? there is no reason that has to be political. there really is not any ideological disagreement on that, and i guarantee you after this winter, if you look at the all across bigre i chunks of the united states that people would like to see an infrastructure bill. let's get it done. -- how longu think

do you think it will become before health care not become a political football? >> it is hard to say. i was at the lbj library the other day, and most of us want to pay close attention to those debates, because they are distant now in the past, but that apparently took several years before people realized the care actually works and it is lifting a lot of seniors out of despair and poverty. through thiseen cycle before. it happens each and every time we make some strides in terms of strengthening our commitments to expand someand we of the social insurance programs. there is a lot of fear mongering and a lot of political argument and debate and a lot of accusations that are flying back and forth about socialized medicine and the end of freedom and then it turns out that it is

working for a lot of folks and we still live in a free market have the constitution in tact, and we move on. i do not know long how long it is going to take, but in the meantime, how about we focus on things the american people care about? thank you, everybody. >> [indiscernible] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> hearing from president obama that millions of americans have signed up for private health plans through that health-care exchanges. disarmplan that would separatist militants in ukraine.

russiann president -- president putin took questions by phone, e-mail, and text. edward snowden called in by way of video. he discussed government surveillance with president who didn't. >> thank you. [indiscernible] a question from a person who actually revolutionized the -- by linkingling about american secret service, edward snowden. >> the whole collection of private records -- [indiscernible] statesy in the united investigations concluded that these programs are ineffective

in stopping terrorism. they also found they unreasonably intrude into the private lives of ordinary citizens. and that these kinds of programs are not the least intrusive means available to such agencies for these investigative purposes. i see little public discussion own involvement in these policies. i would like to ask you, does russia intercept or analyze in any way communications of millions of individuals in and do you believe that simply increasing the accepted this of these law i investigations -- thank you. ok, so, mr. putin, you understand the question overall.

we have seen you talk to world leaders. american [indiscernible] talking about surveillance [indiscernible] interested whether russia collects any kind of personal information on the users. thisudiciary has said method of wiretapping is not --ective enough to terrorism. he also said something about intervention and privacy. it has been said that he observed and monitored the inate about this issue russia, and he asked you whether russia is interested in has ever been involved in intercepting

the calls of millions of people of ordinary citizens and whether you believe it is justified action, whether you think it is fair to introduce these kinds of mass controls? snowden, you are a former agent, a spy. we are going to talk one professional language. [indiscernible] our intelligence efforts are lawctly regulated by our for how special forces can use special equipment as they intercept phone calls [indiscernible] a commissionto get

to talk to a particular person. we do not have a mass system of interception. and according to our law him it cannot exist. of course, we know that criminals and terrorists use [indiscernible] andtheir criminal acts, special services have to use technical means to respond to their crimes. of course, we do some efforts like that, but we do not have a mass scale, uncontrollable effort like that. i hope we will not do that and we do not have as much money as they have -- and we do not have

-- [indiscernible] arespecial services strictly controlled by the society and by the law. >> in about a half-hour, a supreme court oral argument that could change the future of software patents. the court is considering whether -- that is happening at 4:50 eastern. at 6:00, a conversation with antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. they speak with marvin calbert at the national arrest called. -- kalb at the national press club. and then, the future of conservatism. economy,sion about the health care, social policy, foreign policy, and other issues. that is from the manhattan

institute, and you can see it at 8:00 eastern. >> in a few short months the capitol visitor center will be completed. work of thisr the congress will be described for future generations. vendors others -- visitors will titled " out of many one." in my first speech to you as speaker, solutions cannot be found in a pool of bitterness. the framers expected the floor to this house to be a place of passionate debate, a place where competing ideas and philosophies a crucible for many ideas to blend together to forge a strong nation. also -- thisshould for should also be a place of civility and mutual respect, and a place where statesmanship and

not just electoral politics guide our decisions. president reagan was right. there is no limit to what we can accomplish. we do not mind who gets the credit. eightrs ago, i broke -- years ago i broke with tradition and gave lie and not girl speech -- my inaugural speech from this place. i said because my legislative poem is here on the floor, with so many of you, and so is my heart. sitting in the speaker's chair is an honor i will always cherish, but i believe there is actual, even greater honor. there's one that each of you share with me. it is the stone on us by the citizens of this country, one by one, as they go into the voting booth and elect us with their

sacred ballot. it is the honor of raising our hands and taking the oath as a member of this house of representatives, and then to sit at one of these patches -- benches. so on january 4, i will be privileged to rejoin you on these benches, where my heart is, here on the floor of this great house. >> find more highlights from house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cables companies and brought to you today as a public service by your cable and satellite provider. named virginia tech as a research center. andguest will be brian fung

others. journal"ee "washington starting at 7:00 eastern tomorrow morning. right now, from this morning, conversation about the nevada ranchers and off with doug bureau of land -- with doug bureau of land management. host: good morning. we want to talk about this gentleman, cliven bundy, and his ranch in nevada. guest: he is the new most famous person from the state. he is a 68-year-old rancher. he has been grazing his cattle in an area that the government wants him to stop. his family has been doing this since the 1870's. the federal government has no jurisdiction to tell him to stop.

this all resolved in the last week in an armed standoff. the blm tried to forcibly remove his cattle. then a bunch of militia members came in and the blm stood down. so the question is, legally, what will happen? the federal government does not want to get into a firefight. this has been going on for 20 years. will he, won't he? maybe the cattle will be taken away. host: this is a reference to the bureau of land management.

you moved west of the mississippi. in nevada, 80% of the land is under federal control. guest: 87%, depending on who you talk to. the population is very concentrated. there is a barrier that is very urbanized. most of the state is federal land. you are subject to federal regulations. so you'll probably be frustrated. 99% of ranchers obey laws. they do not go so far as calling in friends that will take a stand against the government and say there is no legitimacy here. that is the situation that we have seen in the last few weeks. where do you go from here? they will either take an example or what will happen from here on out?

host: in excess of 80% of nevada, the bureau of land management is in charge of 40 million acres of land. 50% of the land in 11 western states, including alaska. guest: about 157 million of that involves grazing or ranchers. in leasing permanence and allotments and having these decisions they have to make about letting cattle graze. you pay usage fees on federal lands. that is a major piece of what they do. host: this is just one of many photographs. people have gathered outside of the ranch in support of clive bundy. it is also a political issue for harry reid.

guest: there have been a number of theories raised about why this is happening now. there are a few parts. reid's public land aide was just confirmed. that led to more speculation of bundy supporters and conservative media. reid is trying to clear the land so he can build solar plants. they have been launched and dead for over a year now. there are theories about why is harry reid's guy head of blm. they see some kind of a federal

government doing a favor to profit off of a solar power plant deal. when you piece the timeline together, it does not hold water. it shows you how politically charged the atmosphere is. everybody is looking for a finger to point. when you get down to it, it is a very mundane and boring case. the court decision goes back to the mid-1990's. it has gone on for so long. we are in a situation where at the highest levels of federal government, you see why this is happening. host: there is a lot on the web. you write, from the "las vegas sun," this proves a conspiracy theory. the land that was identified for the solar plant is 90 miles west of las vegas, in another part of the state not close to this ranch. guest: it is about 200 miles away.

the plant in question is a project. chinese money came in, but they pulled out in 2013. this is the tip of nevada. the land that bundy is trying to graze on its in clark county, but the northeastern tip. we're talking about a serious separation. they cannot go quite that far. host: bottom line, what is the next step? guest: that is a good question. you have these issues come up every time you deal with a public lands bill. every state in the west is dealing with major issues about trying to regulate territory more because of this potential endangered species for the sage grouse. you're probably going to have

more regulations on federal land. the ranchers are not happy about this or advocating the bundy strategy. they are sympathetic to the opposition. this is too much and we cannot make money. our territory for grazing shrunk. in a way, they have a point. these days, when we talk about legislation, if you want to get rid of the ownership for economic development, you need to do conservation. this is a direct transaction that does not involve the rancher. as you go through these q&a periods, they are getting boxed out. if anyone takes an example -- he did get the government to

step down. a few days ago, this is not over. host: now she is a washington correspondent for the "las vegas -- "las vegas sun." you can send us an e-mail to turn what c-span.org. mariel joins us from brookfield, florida. isn't it the taxpayers money that buys this land? -- why can't it be help and feed people?

i don't understand that. i would like an answer. other partnk of the of the question i would like to ask, but that is mainly what it's all about. we purchased this land. the taxpayers are the one that purchase the lands that they have. thank you. i do this without too much history? you got to go all the way back to the 1800s and a time when the federal government was trying to offload this land. offload it for free but that didn't flip until the beginning of the 20th century when we realized you had to make sure the quality of the land stays solid. you are talking about an area of the west, sagebrush land, which to the untrained eye, i thought

it was kind of like desert, there's a lot of vegetation and short, bushy plants. you bring up the point that it is our land as taxpayers. that is the case and there are a lot of times when people are able to use these plans for a lot of functions. everything from camping and recreation and off-roading, to hiking and grazing. when you deal with the situations with public land, it is more closely regulated. it varies. it is not uniform. that brings up another thing. the regulation that we ask the ranchers to pay a fee to graze. everyone is supposed to pay attention to that.

as taxpayers, we have a right to public lands, but in another sense, you could argue that there are rules for when you take your cattle to certain places. you have to pay for that right and he is not. other ranchers are. it is a very murky thing. most taxpayers are not ranchers. if you want to walk around that land, that is a lot easier to do. host: this has been going on for 21 years? guest: his family pay for permits and leases. in 1993, there was a change to the regulations based on the regulations adopted to protect habitats. that was around the time that the issue came up in the west.

bundy's last lease ran out and he said he did not want to pay this anymore. he said i do not like the fact that you're making the regulations more restrictive. the government has the right to do that. he said he would not pay it anymore. this is been going since then. host: i want to go back to this. it is fascinating to look at nevada alone. guest: all that orange. host: at what point did we start buying up this land? guest: the government did own the west back in the day. it has been changing ever since the late 1800's. there has been an open policy for decades, then they decided

to buy up some of the federal land and regulated more tightly. it became more conservation minded. i cannot give you a certain date as to when parts belonged to whom -- this is been the way of life in nevada for a long time. it is been an issue with ranchers and miners and people who want to develop geothermal energy sources. it comes up every time you talk about changing in some way the authority of who is in charge or the ownership. that does change all the time, but it is never easy. host: our guest is the washington reporter for the las vegas sun. joe is the next caller from covington, georgia. caller: how are you?

i just want to ask -- tell us a little bit about stable development. i know it is 40 cities. as for street services all coming out of the epa. around 1992 -- i got into clean air. we have these guys with machines who -- we are not seeing co2. we got in touch with them. it does not mean anything. guest: they are sustainability of public lands, energy sources. i'm sure they all dovetail together. host: this is one of the photographs for the ranch we are focusing on. this is near cliven bundy's

ranch. is the government taking a different avenue of approach? guest: there has been criticism. they started gearing up last year, giving him final notices. they started moving in in late march and early april. the bureau of land management created a first amendment zone. that made everyone quite angry. you cannot protest in one area. then, they had law enforcement members come in. there were not any shots fired. there were physical altercations. then, the roundups started. how can you go for a harder approach?

the heart approach only brought in a hodgepodge of militia members. they have this standoff out of control. what do you do? do try to sweet talk people who do not want to recognize the federal government? do you go in with bigger guns and potentially kill people? or do you let it go? i do not think there is an answer yet. host: we have been looking at some of the photographs, many courtesy of the associated press. kevin is joining us from woodbridge, virginia. caller: my question is -- you go back to the 1800s. in the united states of america, this land was taken for the native americans. my next question is -- the government owns land.

the american people cannot go on. how is it that the government can decide what land we can go on and not? guest: that is getting into a whole other level of security and clearance issues. this is not a clean history in this country. who took what from whom or what war was thought with neighboring countries? this is been the history of much of the world, unfortunately. when we get to things like area 51, which is always a fun topic -- now we're getting into areas that have nothing to do with the bureau of land management. this is like a whole other level of policy, security planning, and things like that. host: let me show you the headline from politico. there telling the sheriffs to

disarm the bureau of land management. they say they are overstepping their bounds. guest: he has criticism for everybody. he accuses them of playing political games. he says they are overstepping their bounds. he refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the federal government in this area. he now criticizes the county because he says that they should have come in and intervened. the county sheriff says this is a federal issue. now he is saying i will recognize the authority of the state of nevada and the constitution of the state, but not the federal government. the state of nevada recognizes the federal government. the constitution recognizes the federal government. it is not clear -- i do not believe that bundy is in a position where he will start to say ok, we will sit down and play nice and shake

hands. that makes it that much more collocated. host: senator rand paul is also chiming in. in the washington times, he says that the bureau of land management has used bully techniques. guest: they did come in with armed law enforcement officials. you could say that for sure. you could also say what are they going to do? they try to make a deal to take away our cattle and sell them. the calls are incredibly popular. they have a very strong libertarian streak. one of paul's biggest ground swells of support -- it does not surprise me that

they are jumping in. host: let me share with you this e-mail from mike in colorado. he says there is a long-term squatter who refuses to pay his rent despite losing all court disputes. guest: before we got to the standoff from last week, the federal government already said that he owes over $1 million in back taxes and obligations. he will also have to pay for the cost of this stand off. it did certainly cost a pretty penny to have that transpire. host: our next caller is nancy from ohio. welcome. caller: how are you? it was my understanding that mr. bundy did not invite the crowd or forces with guns. he was not happy to have them

there. am i wrong in thinking that i heard the federal government has euthanized some tortoises that live in that area? or was that just a rumor? host: thank you. guest: i do not know anything about euthanize tortoises. i do know that this did not start out with the supporters coming in. it was bundy and his large family hunkered down at his ranch at the beginning of the month. that was where this began. in nevada, they talked to a number of people who said that they heard the news and got in their trucks and drove from idaho -- we saw one person from new hampshire. the support, i do not know whether bundy called for it himself, but it has not been

refused. it has been staving off the federal government, which is what he wanted. it may be a happy two incidents, but that is where we stand. there were a few hundred people who came. they are still there. this is not done and the protests are still happening. host: it has become a gathering spot. guest: that is basically -- it has become a huge national focal point. that means that the frustration with the federal government over these regulatory issues runs pretty deep, even when you are not a rancher yourself. that raises the question of what is next?

even if nobody does step up, what will happen with the federal government asserting its authority? caller: i would like to make a comment on the endangered species. this has been used for many years to control land and people. seems they could have a win-win situation. they have made decisions that the land is more important than the people. there could be a win-win situation -- i don't know why everything has escalated. this man and others have lost their property. help them raise tortoises. that would be great. work together. this is a bureaucracy run amuck. i have seen it for years. it is a national tragedy and i would love to hear what you have to say.

host: thank you for the call. guest: you've raised a very important point. the threat of endangered species is a major role. like it or not, the law says that if you declare an endangered species, that becomes a crime. back in the 1990's, it was a question of the tortoise being an endangered species. the west is dealing with that right now. the department of interior had to make a judgment call on whether to lift the ban. if it does, it shuts down the state. why doesn't the government favor the land over the people? they tied the lands to the species.

if people want to retain an authority, the freedom to run as they want, they have the ability to not let their livelihood jeopardize these species, based on the mitigation of that habitat destruction. that is paramount. we're having this come up right now, as the same players are involved right now in trying to create a way to make sure that these lands were these cattle are grazing, is not -- the quality stays to a level where it will not be regulated. that involves a whole host of reasons. at the end of the day, the endangered species issue is a major crunch point. if you live in these areas, it is the worst thing that can happen. you follow the government.

host: have you talked to senator reid? guest: not since he left for d.c. i have talked to his staff. yes, certainly about things. they are frustrated with the bundy situation and the fact that he has been targeted as being the force behind all of this. they have used stronger language than that. xxxxx they think it is ludicrous. they use stronger language who they think is behind it as well but we all heard reid say a few days ago that he did not think this was over. this will not be resolved easily in bunkersville, nevada, and not just in congress. it will be a combination of tamping down what is exploding locally and also figuring out federally what can be done that will actually achieve the ends they want to achieve.

as i said, this may be blown up on a scale which we have not seen in an extremely long time, if ever, but these sentiments exist every time you try to designate a new piece of conservation land or wilderness or dealing with an issue like the sagebrush or endangered species act. the ranchers are often the most frustrated. very seldom do you have people saying that i defied the federal government entirely, but there is sympathy for these underlying sentiment because they come all the time. host: and social media is playing a big part in this? guest: it plays a big role in all things. from people participating in a protest to people watching, the story blew up on the internet as of last week. it became the number one story

in the country for a while. how does that happen otherwise? a small settlement in nevada turns into a huge deal because everyone is watching and sharing. that is the way it goes. host: thank you for adding your perspective to the issue. >> on tomorrow morning assad "washington journal" we will look at a program from virginia tech, one of six size the federal aviation administration has named or unmanned aircraft research. our guests are a technology reporter with the "washington post, john green, head of the mid-atlantic aviation partnership and the director of the virginia center for autonomous systems. "washington journal" is here on c-span every morning at 7:00 eastern. >> were over 35 years, c-span

brings public affairs offense from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. there c-span, created by cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you by your local cable and satellite provider the watch is in hd, watch it -- like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> coming up in about one hour a conversation with supreme court justices antonin scalia and ruth gave -- ruth bader ginsburg. the nationalak at press club here in washington. you can see that at 6:00 eastern. in a few minutes on c-span, a supreme court oral argument on the change of the future of software patents. the court is considering whether a court can patent international

financial transactions. we will show you that oral argument in a few minutes. first, a conversation on the case with a reporter from bloomberg news. >> set up this case and its significance. >> this is a fight between a patent holder and a company called alice corporation and another company called cls bank. infringed they patents that cover a system that do something called intermediated settlement. i will try to unpack that all a way of if two parties are engaged in a financial transaction and did something where you would actually exchange assets in the future, a derivative contract, it is a way of making sure both

parties have the assets they have promised to exchange on that future date. is question on that case whether that system is something that itso abstract doesn't qualify for patent protection. in particular, what is new about this case is it happening in the context of software. this is a software implemented system. ruled onhe court ever a patent for software? wherehas ruled on a case it can assume software is patented but can't answered the question can software be patented. backdropt least in the . it may be that they just assume the answer is yes, it can be patented and they will look more specifically at this patent.

you look at how this case moves through the appeal ross us? >> sure. sued is a company that cls. ultimately came before the court of appeals for the federal circuit which is a specialized appeals court that specializes in patent law. every case when it is appealed goes to this court and this is a court that is often times very divided and that's what happened in this case. that not considered just the full court, but a three-judge panel. i forget exactly how many pages of opinions, but upwards of 100 pages, four or five different pages, a very fractured court. it was probably a big reason the supreme court decided to step in, because they saw the lower court that handles patent cases

was in such disarray on this issue that the supreme court felt like they needed to jump in and give an answer. >> and as your story points out, which is available online at bloomberg.com, this case involves retailers, everything from google to microsoft, and the fundamental question as you put it is what qualifies for a patent? the reason so many people are taking interest in this case is software is ubiquitous. perhaps half the patent lawsuits out there involve estimates we have seen, involve some sort of software component in the patent. about it ande carmakers care about it. , business is divided roughly between those companies

that rely on them patents for protection, that includes microsoft, for example, and companies more worried about i'm going to be sued by somebody who has a week patent and that includes folks like google and amazon. >> you were inside the courtroom and you can often glean where justices are based on their questions. give us a sense of what it was like in the court. rex was definitely a sense that this particular patent i described at the beginning, that there was some skepticism toward that patent. said, it was not at all clear what was going to happen and -- beyond the particulars of this case on whether there was a consensus on the court that we need to set some clear rules to limit the that cansoftware qualify for patent protection. not at all clear the court can

do that and the legal issue, the combination of the legal issue and technical issues did, the justices seem to find those were difficult to deal with, trying to figure out when something becomes acidic enough and the software realm that it should qualify for patent protection. >> this underlines the complexity of the issues the court is dealing with. >> patent law is an area where the court is getting a lot of attention. casess one of six patent they have in the current term smart peopleices, though they are, are not necessarily the ones who are most up to date on the latest technology and are not the most necessarily in understanding how modern computer inventions work. them toa challenge for

figure out how to draw this line. >> you touched on this just a moment go. in mid-toon expected late june. what will the court be deciding? >> that's a difficult question. the question as it is framed is very broad all stop i think we can expect they will say something about these particular patent at issue in this case. perhaps try to draw a line between the sort of thing that is so abstract it doesn't call for patent protection and things that are truly innovative, truly new in a way of creating a website or mapping out the ocean floor or any of the many, many innovations in software, trying not to draw that line, they may take a crack

at it but they may not, with i've votes to say anything all that definitive at this point. lex thank you for helping us explain what this case is all about. they're more details available online at bloomberg.com. we appreciate you being with us. >> my pleasure. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 13298, alice corporation vs. cls bank international. mr. phillips? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, it is common ground between the parties in this case that section 101, by its terms, and with the sweeping interpretation this court adopted in bilski applies directly to the patents here. these are system and process patents that speak directly to section 101. the only issue, then, is whether the judicially recognized exception that this court adopted many, many years ago applies under these circuman >> and just repeat, it is common ground between the parties that -- >> that that our patents speak

directly to the language of section 101, that is, they are a process, and they are machines, and they are and they are improvements to the process and the machines. they don't they don't dispute that by its terms 101 applies. the only argument between the parties is the abstract idea exception that exists and whether that bars us from otherwise satisfying section 101. >> mr. phillips, on the abstract idea, you know that the bilski case held that hedging qualified as an abstract idea. so how is intermediate settlement a less abstract than hedging? >> if our if our patent merely claimed intermediated settlements, although i have to say i don't really know exactly what that means because i don't think that's the same kind of economics basic economics concept that a hedge risk treatment is. but if it claimed that, we wouldn't we wouldn't have a distinction from bilski. what we claim is a very specific way of dealing w