price-fixing, market allocation, rigging. that is probably 50% of our portfolio. the others on the civil side, which includes mergers for companies. recently you heard sprint and t-mobile merging. we were reviewing that. disney and fox. those are mergers that go through us and we determine whether or not they violate the antitrust laws of competition in certain markets. host: can you see and they trust on the surface, or is it a deep dive? properlythink to do it it is more of a deep dive. it depends on the market. if there is only very few number of players in a particular -- it is a highly regulated, therefore tough to break into those markets and merge, you you -- have to see if it violates the law. at at&ten you looked time warner on the surface, what did you think? we know what you saw when you got into the deep dive, but on the surface, what was the antitrust part of that? makan: the very first day it was announced i was a practicing lawyer and adjunct professor, not apt to comment. i said typically, when you have a vertical transaction, combining distribution with content, you are not directly competing, it is not a major antitrust problem. that does not mean you could not other power to foreclose competition. once you look at the economics analysis, i think there was one large of the merger, a transaction, i believe $108 billion. time warner was three specific companies run somewhat distinctly. there was the warner bros. studios that created the incredible content that they do. one of our finest studio production for both tv and movies. the second was a business unit that ran hbo and cinemax. again, incredible content on hbo. cable, a different type of product. was the turner assets they had acquired years ago from ted turner, that included tbs, tnt, cnn, adult swim, cartoon network and others. host: is a vertical merger different than a horizontal merger, and thus easier as well? makan: not necessarily easier, merger isical different than a horizontal merger. peopletal merger is two who compete in the same marketplace against each other and they are merging. we examine the facts and evidence and economics to see if they are substantially lessening competition. host: like sprint and t-mobile? makan: sprint and t-mobile would be a horizontal merger. a vertical merger is when they do not directly compete, however they are important players in the same supply chain, therefore, could violate antitrust laws. congress amended them in the 1950's to say both vertical and horizontal transactions are to -- subject to the same laws, but the economics of it will be different. if you have an important input your competitor at one level of the supply chain needs, will you be able to exert market power as such where you can limit competition in a way where you are lowering the output or increasing the prices to consumers? host: the assistant -- assistant m, howey general delrahi is this playing a role today in antitrust matters? makan: the clayton act is one of our federal laws, along with the sherman act. the sherman act is the original law that passed in 1890. twos a very simple, sentence law. all restraint of trade is illegal. the supreme court would use that later in a case and define restraint of trade. assuredly, congress did not meet every agreement. every agreement would restrain trade somehow. if you sign a lease for an apartment that i own, we are certainly restraining trade in the market for that apartment, so it must be unreasonable ones, and therefore started our request over the last 100 plus years of determining what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. the clayton act was an act about 30 or so years later. what that did amongst others, getaddressed how you can laws arehow the merger through the clayton act, but monopolization and price-fixing fall under the sherman act. what wem largely enforce at the federal level in our competition laws. host: are today's communication firms and tech firms, do they complicate antitrust? makan: they are constantly changing the marketplace in antitrust. they are adding new competition. what is great is that as you have more innovation, we have new methods of communicating with each other. old line ofhe copper wires to make a phone call to each other, or we can use internet protocol-based communications, mechanisms come over the internet, or we can use facetime. as each new innovation enters the marketplace, it changes our market analysis for competition. certainly you have greater ability to add and lower the cost to add more competitors, it becomes less of a concern when some of those competitors combine. host: if people want to use of google or facebook, where does the antitrust factor come into play? people freely use google or facebook, which has given them market capitalization today. antitrust could come in if for example, those companies are defined to have had a large market share, monopoly power in a certain market. let's assume by way of example advertising is its own market and they are found to have certain power to change prices without -- and not be subject to competition. if they take certain actions to prevent new competition from coming in, that is an area that could raise a flag for antitrust enforcers. host: europe has been relatively active on the antitrust format, hasn't it? a littlerope has been more vocal about their interest in engaging in the enforcement of antitrust laws. even though our laws have largely converged with our partners in europe and asia and other jurisdictions, there are about 140 agencies around the world. that is a very new phenomenon. 40 years ago there were not many. it is a good thing for consumers both in the u.s. and abroad, where you have enforcement of the antitrust laws to create and make sure competition is preserved. misapplied by is applying the wrong economic analysis, it could ultimately harm consumers. we had a good relationship. we worked closely with multinational mergers and our partners in europe. sometimes we disagreed about the direction of antitrust enforcement. host: is there a trend toward an international antitrust standard? makan: there has not been. there has been a lot of talk. we were one of the founders along with a couple dozen other countries to create what is called now -- in its 18th year, the international competition network. enforcementtrust agencies are members about. that has created a forum where we have very good, honest discussions. we provide recommended practices , recommended guidelines. it is not binding. unlike the wto, there is not a penalty if someone misapplied. it has created a very good crucible for exchange of ideas. everybody wants to do the right thing. that is the goal. andave proposed recently, fortunately have good agreement with earners in canada, australia, new zealand and several other countries. not that every country agrees with every principle of a new agreement, at least on the process, the investigative process, to create a common standard for that. play that i mean, do you have the right to counsel? things like attorney-client privilege? to the international committee to apply antitrust laws the same way we would with a foreign company to the u.s. company? i am proud to say that was an initiative we, along with several like-minded countries, advanced. there is very broad agreement on that hopefully in the next few months we will have agreement on the basic principles of enforcement. host: are you involved in the ftc's qualcomm antitrust case at all? makan: i am not. we shared civil jurisdiction with our friends at the federal trade commission. that is the case they had brought toward the end of the obama administration. we are watching it with a lot of interest because it could affect development of the laws, the same laws we also apply, but it is not a case i have been involved in. career as agan your scientist. how did you become the attorney general for antitrust? where is the path? makan: i studied physiology, which i love. to this day, i still love. came to law school to become a biotech patent lawyer. worked at the national institute of health, one of our finest institutions anywhere around the world to read real point of pride for the government for the science and research that is done there and the advancement of health care. i worked there in the office of technology transfer. i thought i wanted to be a biotech patent lawyer. went to law school at night. i did about six months work there. i realized my personality and real interest was probably better suited to the licensing side of the patent, which is really negotiating those transactions to develop therapeutics, largely and molecular biology, dealing with cancer and aids. this is the early to mid-1990's. revolution and the human genome project was just starting. through that licensing and transaction of intellectual property, is really governed by antitrust laws. that is a constraint we have. fortunately, we do not have a government agency who controls how you get your awards back for your investments in innovation in this country. innovation is what has made this country great over the years. i hope it continues. from that i got into antitrust law. i started practicing. from private practice i went to the senate judiciary committee, working for a foreign -- former chairman, orrin hatch, who was about to launch an investigation into microsoft. i helped with those issues in my career went from there to the justice department. i became an antitrust lawyer around that time. host: has significant in the antitrust tech world is the microsoft case? makan: it is a critical case. a seminal position that antitrust laws still apply to new technology. you might recall when the case was being brought by joel klein and the clinton administration a lot of people said the antitrust laws are not equipped to address competitive activity in the software industry. we need a new set of laws. a commission was created by congress, which i had the privilege of working on and serving on, to evaluate if the law needed to be changed. think the unanimous d.c. circuit court of appeals that upheld some of the violations by microsoft showed that one, the laws are adequate and can apply. enforcement that allowed for, and people can i stronglysides -- believe that enforcement allowed for the breakthroughs over the internet technologies and communications that we saw since 2000. because had it not been, you would not have had the browser. it would have been controlled by the operating system because it would've been incorporated and you would add competition to that. wouldplication developers still have to write to the microsoft operating system, rather than writing to browsers and mobile apps we have today. probably would not have had the mobile key medications revolution, with lots of competition and operating systems there. i think that was a critical enforcement action that show the importance of vigorous and timely antitrust enforcement. host: you mentioned robert jackson is your legal guru. makan: robert jackson is a very special figure in u.s. legal history. -- he had multiple jobs with the justice department. he was the head of the antitrust division, head of the tax division, solicitor general, he became the attorney general of the u.s. he was in the fdr administration. president roosevelt also appointed him to the supreme court. later he was a nuremberg prosecutor. division, antitrust why he was so critical, he was one of the first people to economics and free markets should govern price and regulation of business, and it was the latest form of government regulation -- that was a big debate whether we should have government regulation of prices in the industry. it was around world war ii, and we needed stability and steel and other matters we needed for the war. he argued that no, we should let free markets rule, and antitrust with the understanding of economics. he was the first one to advocate for that and argue for that. some veryly wrote influential defense on the supreme court, unrelated to antitrust law. in thee the defense case. he is a huge, towering figure. 80 years ago almost today, he gave a great speech about those issues. he also laid the groundwork for 1979, where a, judge wrote the antitrust era docs and brought crucial and bulls to the antitrust laws, rather than what he called at the time a policy at were with itself. -- war with itself. another important one is attorney general. he give a very important speech in the great hall of the justice department, which is still there, called the federal prosecutor. it is an important one for almost -- that every citizen should read. certainly every lawyer in the government should read. talking about the importance of having integrity and enforcing the federal laws in a principled matter because of the incredible power you are entrusted with. it was a speech to the u.s. attorneys from around the country who had gathered there at the justice department. two final questions. you know william barr? makan: i do. when he was still attorney general, had recently left and came to gw. i was in law school and it was his alma mater. he came to speak and i was a huge fan then. i continue to be a big fan of his integrity and legal acumen. and ived with the station am looking forward to assisting him and his -- and our future attorney general, soon. host: have you had another case before time warner? makan: we had. cvs-aetna,merger of where we requested the best iture.r -- divest they agreed. that settlement under a certain act needs to be approved by a judge. as we filed the settlement with the d.c. district court, judge leon was our judge. we are working with him to hopefully get that consent decree in place. is theakan delrahim assistant attorney general attorney general for antitrust affairs. he has been our guest on "the communicators." makan: thank you for having me. host: now joining us at the state of the net conference, cyber security caucus cochair, jim langevin. your -- what was your seminar about today? it seemed very lonely. jim: thank you for having me. i had a chance to have a fromide chat with corey rapid7. we talked about different challenges. the internet making it more secure, creating a healthier ecosystem, if you will. the challenges are great, but it is an opportunity to make a difference and make the country safer. i was talking about the government perspective, corey was talking about the private sector perspective. it was a healthy discussion. host: what has congress achieved when it comes to cyber security? jim: awareness has been raised among members and the public. because of the high profile hacks that have happened in the u.s. and around the world. there is no shortage of challenges or signs of the vulnerability going away anytime soon. the major bills congress passed is information sharing bill to make it easier for the government to share information with the private sector. the problem is, it has not reached full central -- potential. there is not enough anticipation to make a difference yet. it is one of the major buildup made its way through congress. we need to do more and hopefully we can in this coming session. host: what kind of safeguards are put into protect people's privacy? jim: we have privacy protections in the system. that was a primary concern and driver going forward. the bill would not have made its way through congress without those strong privacy provisions in the information sharing bill. i am confident we have achieved the right balance. bring a input into the development of the legislation. host: [indiscernible] jim: what i think people need to be mindful of now, their data is compromised in many different ways out there in the private sector. informationt sharing on threat signatures only. we have made sure that is all that we share. in the private sector you have major companies that have vast amounts of your personal, private information. that is how high profile hacks have occurred and information has been compromised. have a bill i introduced. it would make sure any time customer data is compromised, it would be notified within 30 days. right now, 50 different states have different laws about when customers need to be notified. we have to do better than that. host: you are also chair of the emerging threats subcommittee. did some of what you learned there affect what you learned in the cyber security area? jim: of course it did. my position is very much dod focused, on protecting our national security. a lot of my work over the years has better informed me about , from the dodo do perspective. host: what frame do the most, looking ahead, knowing what you know when it comes to cyber security? jim: we have no shortage of challenges. certainly as ai and machine algorithmsd advanced are more widely used and employed, we have challenges we have to face. defensive side as well as data integrity, making sure the ai, the data is not compromised. [indiscernible] there are no shortages of challenges. the thing that worries me the most is, had we better protect critical infrastructure? that is where the most damage can be done, to our electric grids, hospital systems, banking systems. there are major things in place but it is so, broad, we need to continue to strengthen it and have a partnership going forward to make sure we are better protected. host: do you find this is more bipartisan than other issues? jim: i do. that is one of the things i at theabout with corey form today. if ever you will find strong bipartisanship, [indiscernible] i have great partners i work with. michael mccaul mccall, republican congressman from texas. we cofounded a caucus together. , we worked very closely together. colleagues of my joined, but the list is growing. chair of langevin, new the cyber security caucus. thank you for spending time with us on "the communicators." we look forward to having you back for a full half hour. now come a we want to introduce you to corey thompson, president and ceo of a company called rapid7, which does what? our primary focus is analytics automation. one simple way to think about it is people have an incredibly difficult time managing the cyber security of their environment. we take the threat out of it by analyzing their system, looking for exposures, compromises, and an automated response. we make their teens more productive. -- teams more productive. host: does everybody need better cyber security? corey: every person and every company. the biggest issue we have as a society is that we have been deploying technology for many for a long time we do not care about cyber security. now we are starting to care about but have no idea practices, how to maintain it, configure it, so we are all catching up to things we should have been doing all along. host: what is the easiest way to be vulnerable? corey: the easiest way to be vulnerable, it is a difference between organizations and individuals. for individuals, using the same password a car us -- across multiple sites, the same password. batman is just as bad. if you use batman across a bunch issites, then if one site compromised, then all your sites are compromised. use long sentences with different characters. or use a password manager tool. for business is the easiest way to be vulnerable is to deploy technology with no plan to manage or maintain it. the primary issue businesses have, there is such a rush to deploy new technology with new services or operational efficiency, they do not know how to manage or maintain that technology. therefore, it [indiscernible] host: how did you get into this work? corey: i got into it originally when i was at microsoft. peoplene of those focused on deploying technology and did not think about cyber security. i woke up one day and we had a that infectedssue the internet and caused a huge amount of issues. essentially we had to go around the world on a tour of people in the organization and apologize for it, figure out what went wrong, and in short it did not happen again. one thing i will say, though i am not in microsoft, from then on they took cyber security extraordinarily seriously. but it started as curiosity to me, how to we get to this state and make sure society gets better in managing technology risk? host: you mentioned automated response. are we talking about ai? corey: yes. we are increasingly making it more intelligent. i would not say it is ai yet. the term ai is overused. -- is theed death machine curious? did we program the machine to be smart? and does it choose the right course? that is not artificial intelligence that has people in fear. we have automated intelligent systems able to detect what is wrong and automatically fix or corrected. we heard in the past host:host: -- we heard in the past about electric grids being hacked and penetrated, cars. is this going to be the norm? corey: i would say it is the norm. are talking about technology becoming more pervasive in society. we start talking about the electrical grid. they were never connected to the internet. samethey did, it had the or worse vulnerability than the rest of things connected to the internet. cars were never connected to the internet. so cars of had recalls and they still have recalled today. we build systems that are buggy. what happens now, there is a big difference between discrete vulnerabilities or discrete bugs and systematic bugs. a is a difference when i have single car that can fail versus when i can make all cars fail at the same time. technology, the issue we have to think about, fragmentation has value for resiliency. displaysngle node issues, it is not a systematic issue. we deployed technology with lots of capability and functionality, but we also got less resilient because a single issue can cause widespread disruption. that is what we are grappling with. new sectors of the economy adopt technology. finally, in your chat with congressman langevin, what did you hear from him? corey: what did you learn -- what did you learn? corey: he talked with speaker pelosi about looking for leadership, on really making cyber security a top priority. one thing that frustrated me is it is such a fragmented effort. the only way we can improve as a country is if you have strong leadership that provides a coordinated framework to go forward. his analogy with health care and leadership provided there was something that gave me hope. thomas's president and ceo of a company called rapid7. thank you for being on "the communicators." coming weeks you can look for more coverage on the state of the net conference. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events and aroundon, d c the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. pres. trump: over the last year the world has seen what we always knew, that no people on earth are so fearless or daring or determined as americans. if there is a mountain, we climate. if there is a frontier, we cross it. if there is a challenge, we tame it. if there is an opportunity, we seize it. so let's begin tonight by recognizing that the state of our union is strong, because our people are strong. [applause] the state of the union first post bond because of the government shutdown, will now take place on tuesday night. watch as president trump delivers his state of the new and address live from the house chamber beginning 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, followed by the democratic response by former georgia gubernatorial candidate stacey abrams. the state of the union live -- at 9:00 p.m. eastern. secretary of state mike pompeo announced friday the u.s. was suspending the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, the pact with russia that has been a centerpiece of security since the cold war. months tossia had six comply with the terms of the treaty, or it would be terminated. mr. pompeo: good morning, everyone. at the core, president trump's foreign policy are few, simple truths. the security of the american people must be our greatest consideration. the agreements to which we enter must serve american interests and countries must be held accountable when they break the rules. for years, russia has violated the terms of the intermediate-range nuclear fo t

Related Keywords

Georgia , United States , Australia , New Zealand , Canada , Russia , Washington , Americans , America , American , Jim Langevin , Michael Mccaul Mccall , Robert Jackson , Corey Thompson , Stacey Abrams ,