>> guest: netscape does not it was sold to aol in 1998 and the netscape browser which was their mainduct really does not exist today the main browsers most people are using is google chrome for the apple safari browser but most of those of broward's own their progeny to the early netscape days. >> guest: scott cooper one of criticismses and of silicon valley entrepreneurship today is that ventures or entrepreneurs will come in with a product that they are hoping will be sold to ang larger company or a larger company will buyge that product so there is less competition. >> guest: i will tie at least our experience and certainly how we think about investing as we are actually not interestedly in backing founders and companies where their goal is to try to sell the company. the reality is that does happen many times. about 80% of the excess in our business when a company is exiting happens through ,acquisition. but when these companies start we want to believe at least they are going after an opportunity that's big enough in the product is expansive enough to handle letting go public ul

>> guest: netscape does not. netscape was sold to aol in 1998. the netscape browser was their main product does not exist mday. it's the main browser that most people are using today is google chrome or the apple safari browser but most of those browsers own their progeny to the early netscape days. >> host: scott kupor, one of the realities and one of the criticisms of silicon valley, entrepreneurship today, is that inventors and entrepreneurs will ctme in with a product that they are hoping will be sold to a larger company or a larger company will buy that product so there is less competition. >> guest: yeah, i will tell you our experience and how we think about investing is actually not interested in backing founders and comedies where their goal is to try to sell the company. the reality is that does happen many times and in fact, 80% of the exits and our business when a company is exiting happens through acquisition but when these companies start we want to believe at least that they will go after an opportunity big enough and that the produ

>> netscape does not. it was sold to aol in 1998 and the netscape browser doesn't exist today.kind of the main browser mostly by using today's google chrome or the apple safari browser but most of those browsers and their progeny to the early netscape days. >> host: one of the realities and criticisms of silicon valley entrepreneursshould today is inventors or entrepreneurs who come in with a product that they are hoping will be sold to a larger company or a larger company will buy that product so there's less competition. >> guest: we are not interested in backing companies where their goal is to try to sell the company. the reality is that does happen many times, probably 80% of the excess in our business when a company is exiting happened through acquisitions but when companies start we want to believe that they are going after an opportunity that is big enough in a product expensive enough that they can support a standalone company and go public, you are right which is acquisitions do happen. i don't think about the -- the anti-competitive -- we are happy to see new innovat

and it we always like to use, we talk about netscape earlier.when he sold itself aol in 1998, the entire size of the internet publishing globally was less than 150 million people. as human call, people using this horrible screeching dollop motives to get internet access. if you think about that a company like a pet .com which is in the news because we've had a recent i io call to .com. that's hard, no matter how great of an idea of was to have done food online, could never be big enough to acquire new customers and ultimately sustain the kind of individual economics and business and ultimately of course of business failed. but i think the big lesson of the '90s as the size of the market really matters because it drives how profit it is to acquire customers and how many you can get to and how much profit you can drive from those companies. and to me as a different example which we often live in a world where you need to willfully suspend disbelief in order to go along for the green that entrepreneurs have to do. there's a difference in my mind be

you were at netscape. not only were you at netscape, it is my understanding you came up with the word "netscape"; is that right? >> that is true. i came up with it sitting in mark andreason's office surrounded by boxes of honey homes. >> i wonder whatever happened to that andreason guy. what was the runner up? what was netscape possibly going to be called. >> there were no other alternatives. we did a brainstorming session with the engineering team and all of the names were awful. we were sitting there. i got called into the office with jim and the former vp of marketing. and they said we have got to come up with something. and after a month of working on it and coming up with nothing, it popped into my head, i said it out loud and people shrugged and said yeah, i think that would be it. >> greg sands who has been with the start-up communities such a long time. thank you for being with us this morning. "press: here" will be right back. >>> welcome back to "press: here," i'm scott mcgrew. one of the key que

adam: so what do they want to pretty in the book that netscape's to have beliefs.hat you mean about that what are their beliefs. alexis: one of the things that also distinguishes the companies is that a number of people that work there, a large enough contingents to make a difference will say there driven in some ways by this belief that technology should be used for good . so we see this in case of google. they worked with the department of defense on a very small contact called project name and pretty looking at how to apply ai to the recognition technology. this was a very small project. there's only been a handful of people working on it. when people found that inside of google this was happening, a number of people resigned in protest and there was a company wide letter circulating that we do not believe google should be in the defense business and google backed out. they let it expire. in a significant portion of the drive the people who work in these organizations, they want to build things. to do good. adam: subleased not totally unlike the government is co

the fundamental one if you thoughts about the government to be smart about its relationship with netscape, just people overcharge have no idea whether ask for. >> that's a very good question i think there's a couple of different ways when you get to get out of there when his we need to make sure we're putting people in congress who do understand the importance of engaging with technology. not just some ancillary locale but really as a power player in both domestically and geopolitically. that's number one. we are starting to see an influx of younger sort of more diverse people running for elected office. i have to hope within a few years we'll see kind of a nature people are representing us start to reflect societies interest more globally. but i also think though the people who are currently in office, it's not a surprise that technology companies are impacting our daily lives. this is not news in 2020. we have 2014 election disinformation campaign from foreign actors. that was a few years ago and we've not seen any congressional action and i think there's no real excuse for it other tha

microsoft was trying to protect its operating system from encroachment, what they called java.ware, netscapeying to push these out, it was protecting its operating system and was found to be liable area -- liable. in monopolization, what has to happen is a plaintiff or the government has to show there is harm to the competitive process by this act. what the company can do is say this act as a valid legitimate purpose. what a court is to do is to weigh the harm against the valid purpose. in microsoft they had little in the way of valid legitimate business purpose. either the court said it was a sham, or they have nothing to say. they did not have some other reason for the conduct of the event harming rivals. for companies like google and facebook and other big companies outside of tech, it showed them where the line is, that what kind of conduct they can do and not cross and antitrust line and when they could -- not cross an antitrust line and when they could. and you really need strong evidence. what other company we have not touched on is apple. if there were a case, is it against the hardw

and we can look at the different practices from the different netscape's. and we can see who is getting the calibration, maybe not perfectly but a little bit better. i use microsoft as an example in the book because they have been quite progressive in establishing a protection for users. when they had to comply with the duty part in europe. forget to make data protection available for our users in the io, we should make them available for microsoft users worldwide. so they created the option and very soon over 2 million americans have signed up for the data protection, more than the people that you had. i think this is something i found on my conversation with microsoft president brad smith that there is an appetite to do something, i think there is a lot of pessimism as you said in the sense that were too far gone with giving aware data to do anything but i think when you see companies like microsoft taking proactive steps to protect user data we should celebrate that and put them out as an example. >> that make sense that you want to assess and you want a

talk about the work with netscape and counterterrorism.hat do you think about that balance that exist here and abroad and if there is a certain balance in the first amendment? and that could oppose regulations more easily. >> i was talking with someone from the french embassy to say we don't have anything like first amendment. i was looking at hand in a blissful way and that to find a middle ground. and that there is some sort of movement and that there is no mistaking other than what it is. and i think it is extremely egregious with this hateful content if they cannot regulate them in some way then for tech companies to be more aggressive and not taking them down. this is what you see with facebook and youtube and google with that content that is problematic. and information about the coronavirus. labeling that as potentially suspect and one way to make sure they are stripping away completely. >> do you have thoughts of that is working or can work? >> is still early days. and that they took the heavy hand to identify the content. we can d