than the unified voice of the american people. this week, pulling products out of a pool of plastic. the inventors, ceo of carbon. plus dr. david grumley who trained the next generation of best and brightest. cyber security expert and reporter john schwartz from dow jones. this week on "press: here." good morning, everyone. i'm scott mcgrew. reporters collect things from stories they have done, and this is a teacup made out of plastic.

it is the first thing i ever saw printed on a 3d printer, probably 10, 15 years ago. they work by adding layer upon layer. they're slow and work with only a limited number of materials. that's hard plastic which means by teacup is very frigle. the bottom is already broken off. we've come a long way in the past ten years. e engineers are printing out bi bicycle seats. look at how carbon makes 32rks prints. extracting what it wants right out of a puddle. it reminds you a little of terminator. carbon engineer thought the same thing. the ceo of carbon and the brains behind this new way of printing, joined by john schwartz of dow

jones and joe men of reuters. i have a prop. yours are better. that is a bicycle seat. and this is not a model. this is the finished result. >> this is a product with adidas. amazing finished product. >> this, again, not modelled. they are going to be manufactured somewhere else. these are the things that will actually go on people's seats. you are wearing yours right now, right? >> that's right. so the whole idea historically, you know, 3d printing has been a pro toe typing industry, an $8 million marketplace, hardware, software and materials even the products. injection molding is a $300 billion juggernaut, but that's manufacturing. our technology allows us to print 100 times faster. we figure out how to have finished materials out hoft printer. when you are printing so fast and you have the materials for

finished goods, it opens ip up at scale. >> it looks like magic. we were showing that thing coming out of -- it is a ball coming out. we're speeding up the video a bit. the same idea. you are pulling a 3d object out of a puddle of material. >> we think of this as software controlled chemical reaction. this is about as deep tech as you can get. it's chemistry. it's physics. it's software coming together. it's design. we have a great detail chemical physical model. we have mass transport, heat transport, reaction kinetics coming together allowing us to make things that are unmoldable at scale and it opens up a new world of product for our customers. >> in addition to these, are you still involved in football helmets. >> we are. >> and i think dental labs. can you explain that because that seems to be the largest marketing opportunity for what you and others do. >> yeah. so we figured out a way to use

light to craft things. and it's a platform that has a wide range of different resins. every resin has a different set of mechanical problems matched to different market applications. so we have dental resins, and the dental resins range from models for making like invisaline products. we also have the world's first fda approved dentures. it is a $14 billion marketplace. >> aren't you also in the auto industry? >> yes. >> because normally 3d printed parts are incredible fragile and they're trinkets. >> yeah. >> they're used as prototypes, as you said. these are incredibly strong because of the lattice work inside. >> it is mostly about the chemistry. so the materials that we use have the properties to be a finished good. and we -- and the software

controlled process and geometry coupled with chemistry gives you those finished products. >> how do the molecules know how to glom on to the bit? >> so light will solidify these partially. and we develop a process that uses oxygen and light in combination. and that's the big breakthrough published in science and ted talk. what happens is we're basically pulling a product out of a puddle. and the idea was, and the idea from terminator, could the source of the mass of the part be derived from the puddle underneath? if you bring a platform together and you took it apart, oxygen keeps the puddle in a liquid state. light triggers the liquid to solidify. that allows a river of resin underneath the part as we pull it out. that's how we do what we do.

>> and you created a lens, almost like a contact lens, which is permeable, and that is the secret of your manufacturing. >> it is breakthrough that allows light and oxygen to come through. >> is it something you are going to again license out? it seems like this is a revolution in manufacturing. therefore, all kinds of applications in all kinds of factories are possible. >> it is a platform. and we've got customers that range from foam replacement from running shoes to bike seats to a whole host of different applications like riddell helmets. we have plastics that open up automobiles. we have surgical applications, dental materials. >> do you have licensing revenue that you built into a predictive sales model or sales revenue? i know you raised a lot of money. you have raised $680 million. in the industry, $650 million

was invested this year. if you look at the performance at some of the publically traded company like nano dimension or slm, they're down significantly. >> right. >> i'm trying to figure out the amount you raised versus public companies. what do you do to differentiate you from others? >> yeah. great question. it is this idea of can we take 3d printing from a pro toe type world to manufacturing? so the tam in prototyping is $8 billion. injection moldings is $300 billion juggernaut. if you have technology that opens up that, most products are made by molding and casting. it fills up the volume. it cools. you open it up. that's what injection molding is doing. making electrical connectors. new electrical connectors. we're making designs that are unmoldable.

90% of the issues are electrical failures. 90% of those are the failures of the connectors. it opens up new product opportunity. >> what can't you do? what is not yet possible? >> we don't do metals. >> could you some day do metals? >> no. no. >> physics are not in your favor? >> correct. >> four years ago you won a bunch of awards for medical capabilities. here you are making bicycle seats. shouldn't you be curing cancer more? are you doing that on the side? >> you're right. life sciences is a big part of my career living at the intersection of since, engineering and medicine. where we're going, consumer products can go quick, right? having a product that can market acceptance, meet property, automotive takes longer. we decided dental would be the place where we started. having the world's first dentures, there is 60 million

americans that can't afford dentures. giving people access to great health care is a big part of what we do. that's exploding. that's a business opportunity. of course, you could argue we do enough with dentures. it is a big opportunity. now we have new materials that with bio absorbable, allowing it to dissolve and open up new products. >> one last question in. that is, i asked earlier what's not possible. let me ask what is possible. what's the next logical step for you? what is the thing you would then make next? plus, you have mastered all the other things. >> our platform is the world's first subscription model ever for manufacturing hardware. what that really means is data century. every part has a qr code on it. every part has a record in a cloud, aws.

it's got a life. it's got a birth certificate. we have a lot of post market opportunities where people can recycle products. but having a data centric world opens up a warehouse in the cloud. you know, there is billions of dollars of inventory sitting in climate controlled warehouses that is dormant, waiting. the opportunity to reduce -- you know, really disrupt supply chains, those are just business model and software. >> having the deep tech that enables this to come. >> with computing, it brings it back. >> home business hmodels are enabled. one thing that's been held back is having a digital fabrication technique. that's what we do. >> joseph has understandably raised hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital. we appreciate you being with us this morning. >> thank you very much. up next, one of the nation's

top cyber security experts says the u.s. military ought to be given more freedom to attack our enemies. when "press: here" continues. obama: he's been a leader throughout the country for the past twelve years, mr. michael bloomberg is here. vo: leadership in action. mayor bloomberg and president obama worked together in the fight for gun safety laws, to improve education, and to develop innovative ways to help teens gain the skills needed to find good jobs. obama: at a time when washington is divided in old ideological battles he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. bloomberg: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

welcome back to "press: here." we have one of the world's top

expert on cyber security and two experts that have written books on the subject. we will cover two ideas to start with. one that the u.s. military should be more free to conduct cyber offenses against our nation's enemy even without explicit permission from national command authority. the second is the issue of packing. when a company discovers a software problem, they issue a fix, a patch. but dr. david discovered those patches may do more harm than good because hammers find new flaws in the packets. the ceo of his own cyber security company. before we get started, as a moderator, i try to find a balancing point between intelligent conversation and not getting so far into the weeds as to only have an issue that only a few people can understand what's happening. i'm not going to do that this week. i will give you more leash to take advantage of the fact we have an expert here and dig deep with dr. bromly. if you don't understand what's happening, neither do.

i saw out of the corner of my eye, you guys going that's more or less accurate. thank you for being here. let me point out, someone said of you you are adamantly revered by academics, spies and technology executives alike. thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> all right. what was the issue? what was the thing? >> it's not that they -- that the hackers find flaws in the patches. there is nothing wrong with the patches. it is that they reverse engineer the patches to figure out the flaws instead of fixing it and they can attack through there for anybody that hasn't patched. what's really alarming about your research is you found an automated way to do that in seconds. so there is nobody that can patch within seconds. i mean, the max can't. so is that as scarey as it sounds? >> well, first, i don't want to awill remember people. i think what we're discovering is there is often unintended consequences in cyber. you just described one of them. if mie you soft releases a patch, i can compute the difference between the two and

find out what changed and then i can create a loop for that. >> because the other people have not patched yet. the patch is brand-new. therefore, you have all these things you can attack. >> yes. >> i'm with you guys so far. >> it's not just about patches. one of the things we found, right, is if i exploit you, well, i mean, an exploit is just two bits on a wirement you can copy those and use those against him. you have to think through those effects. i can discover exploits from others. and that can really give me an advantage. >> let's stick with patching for a second because patches is one of those -- the biggest problems in the entire industry. but it's not sexy at all. so you never see stories about, you know, difficulties with patching cycles and big companies have to check for compatible. you patch one thing, you might break something else. it gets really, really tricky. is it overall, is our ability to

apply patches in a timely manner getting better? getting worse? how bad is it going to stay for how long? >> well, i mean, so you really have to break it into terroriie. google, if they find a new flaw in chrome, they can get a patch out to 90% of the world in 30 days. on the other end of the spectrum, one conversation i had with an executive of a company that made millions of devices was we'll never patch them. people should just buy the new device. that's what he said. >> i did co-write a book on him years ago. let's talk about the arms races. i want to bring it to a current topic. facebook talked about how they're better prepared than ever through spending to defend

themselves. this brings me to this notion where they are very good at fixing things that have already happened to them but in terms of anticipating what will happen, say the 2020 election, they will probably see more incidents they will have to fix. does that build into this narrative where most consumers feel very paranoid about not just facebook but other companies in particular? >> absolutely. cyber security is actually a somewhat young field. we're continuing to learn. but i also think that for a long time we got cyber wrong. we often thought about cyber as, okay, we're going to create a perfect defense, this line that no one can get past it. what people are realizing is about the speed of reaction. if someone says we're better prepared, we can more quickly respond. >> one of the metaphors these days is resilience. you assume breach. then, you know, so you layer defense. you know, all these things. you assume they're in there. you get in too far. if they do turn off the lights,

you have some backup plan to get the lights back on again both literally and metaphorically. do you think the overallstate® of critical infrastructure resilience is where it needs to be? is it dramatically better than it was five years ago or has offense moved faster than defense? >> saying it's better than five years ago, yeah, that's true. but it's nowhere near where it needs to be. it's vulnerable. it goes beyond when you think about maybe a power plant. it goes into hospitals. it goes into aircrafts, stuff that was designed to last a long time. just doesn't get updated every day. so we need to start thinking of these concepts that produce. but we also have to think about how to do that. >> you mentioned weaknesses and vulnerabilities. you are doing some work with the dod to protect them. you have very high security clearances for all of this. and what can you tell us about where we are as a country vulnerable in our defense

network that -- that you are working on? >> so, we started for an owner to help transition a product. what we're trying to do is apply those concepts to a lot of these legacy systems, things like aircraft tanks, ships, they were designed in the '50s. it's older than i am. how do we start checking it for modern vulnerabilities that no one ever previously anticipated? also building trust. the way the dod works is a lot how i work. i buy something off amazon, and i have to trust it works. i don't have a lot of ability to check it myself. that's how dod works. it's not from amazon, but they're buying a jet. how do we give them the ability to check that? >> i have tv. we were talking about it earlier. i just assumed it was going to be a huge defense network with computers talking to each other. you are talking about somebody hacking a tank.

>> yep. >> which is very similar to an iot. that had never occurred to me. >> yes. >> i mean, are you seeing instances of them trying to probe on the infrastructure? we always hear about that. has that remained somewhat stable? or is it increasing? >> i think it's escalating. five years ago, the u.s. always talked about deterrence. today we're seeing leaders of the nsa. they're saying, no, it is persistent engagement now. >> and defend forward and all these difference phrases for basically already being in the enemy network. so maybe a neutral network where the enemy might come to mess them up before they could fire something that's coming. it is a lot more confrontational, at least than it used to be. but sticking with the theme of a symmetry, one of the things that makes people nervous is mutual assured corruption against a

group like isis isn't going to be much of a deterrence. north korea doesn't have a lot to use. a lot of people say u.s. has the most to lose as cyber escalates. if you are talking about us being more aggressive, isn't that going to come against us in a pretty alarming way? >> so first every -- every engagement you have to think about the obvious. the way you approach cyber in afghanistan is quite different than tech logical sophisticated adversary. it's a new field. they are trying to learn as they go to build up that capable. the question that do we have the most to lose, i think that's part of the thought process in how we go about things. and often the u.s. recognizes that we need to be aggressive. but they will pull back a bit because they don't want to -- you know, the main job is to protect the american people, and they don't want to do something that put us at risk.

we have done a lot of research in this. it is not as simple as putting up a wall or firing a gun. >> i want to ask you a couple more questions, so we'll go online. for the rest of the people watching television, we'll be back in just a minute.

welcome back to "press: here." we were talking during the break about zuckerberg. he was at georgetown recently talking about free speech. it was an interesting speech because you could see him almost stepping through what he was trying to think of. i mean, obviously, it was a prepracticed speech of how he was going to square all of these different things. and they just don't square, joe. >> that's exactly the problem. i mean, he's framing it as free speech and it's america and martin luther king. it's great that he was able to speak and that's what makes us great. but that's not what commercial businesses do. that is not the issue. the issue is amplification. and because their ad and their content is prioritized for engagement, controversial even false stuff circulates better.

it performs better algorithmically. that has nothing to do with free stuff. >> a drug company can't say, we can cure cancer and say, well, it's free speech. same sort of thing where they said, where do you draw the line between lying and free speech? >> yeah. it is interesting. even the king family took offense to what he said at georgetown. he spoke before the house financial services committee. this free speech thing in a weird sense kind of plays into them moving away from responsibility for political advertising for instance. he was pushed on that at least four or five times when we spoke before the house and he said we don't look at the content of all of political ads. it made sense. he's saying, this is free speech on their behalf. therefore, we can't monitor. >> the flip side is we want mark zuckerberg deciding what ads can

go and what can't. he'd do a good job. but you can see where somebody would say, no, this democratic ad is going to go, but this republican ad. >> but they have fact checkers. there is no way that they would be able to subject political ads to fak checking. they just don't want to do it. by an amazing coincidence, facebook is under all kinds of pressure from regulators around the world and he's given them a free pass. >> it's interesting, too. they just contributed to the lobbying efforts in d.c. more than ever before. >> the thing is -- >> right, they knew each other through college. >> yeah. >> but the whole thing to me with facebook is always a moving target with them. there is always, well, this happened, true. yet, we are going to do this. so they always seem to be hedging their bets. they seem to be talking around topics until they have to

explain. >> well, you can see the pressure that he's under. you have elizabeth warren talking about she dared him to, you know, send her ads that were false. and conservatives are saying, hey, you are sensors our speech. so one side is saying, lessen sor ship. the other side is saying more and both have the power to give you a really hard time. >> yeah. it is really interesting. a lot a lot of stuff, even more sophisticated, you know, tech savvy conservatives are saying, we actually don't have evidence. there is nothing printed in peer reviewed literature that i have seen. i don't think there is a case for that. but it's like they're working the reps. they want to put that claim out there preemptively to make zuckerberg more nervous to do anything that would hurt them. >> thanks.

"press: here" will be back in just a minute. obama: he's been a leader throughout the country for the past twelve years, mr. michael bloomberg is here. vo: leadership in action. mayor bloomberg and president obama worked together in the fight for gun safety laws, to improve education, and to develop innovative ways to help teens gain the skills needed to find good jobs. obama: at a time when washington is divided in old ideological battles he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions.

bloomberg: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. that's our show for this week. earlier in the top of the show, we had dr. joe desimone of carbon on. he was the winner of the entrepreneur of the year award. and i encourage you to enter. i will send out more information. thank you for making us a part of your sunday. show,

"sunday night football," only on nbc. thousandsen joig wild rides and other mid-winter fun downtown detroit. at winter blast. close of 20,000 heading into little cesars arena. it's the nhl on nbc. the red wings, they're up against the top team in t