Welcome back again to the Bad Quaker podcast where Liberty is our mission. Today is Tuesday, April 16th, 2013. This is podcast number 302, and my name is Ben Stone. And on the line with me, on Skype, actually, is Stefan Kinsella. If you don't know, Stefan is an author and a practicing attorney with Kinsella Law Group. Stefan, that was, first off, welcome to the show. Thanks very much, Ben. And that must have been quite the random coincidence to get hired by Kinsella Law Group, considering that's your last name. That's a wild coincidence. Yeah, and I'm just tall enough so that my feet just reached the ground, too. So it's an amazing coincidence. My height is just right for my feet to hit the ground. Before we really get into the meat and potatoes of today's podcast, I wanted to mention that this is completely off of our main topic. And I'm throwing this at, for the listeners, I'm throwing this at Stefan without warning him ahead of time. But Stefan, you're a good friend of Jeffrey Tucker's, who a person I really like a lot. And I find that interesting because, correct me if I'm wrong, Jeffrey is a very devout Catholic Christian, and you are not. Well, I was a real Catholic, and so I know a lot about it. But I would not call myself a religious person in that sense, no. But no, I think we all have our own interests and beliefs. I mean, we're not only libertarians, so it's never surprising to me that people I'm interested in and close to have some ideas that are different than mine, or interests that are different than mine. Would you consider yourself a skeptic, or atheist, or agnostic, or how would you classify yourself? Oh, I'd say since I was 14 or 15 years old I've been a pretty hardcore outright atheist. And I really, and that's really the, actually I knew that, that was a baited question. And that's really the part that stuns me because Jeffrey is such a devout Catholic. And you are what might be considered a devout atheist, and yet we, all of us together, and you know me as a label myself as a bad Quaker, we're all pretty much walking arm and arm in the same direction with the same goals. And it, you know, there's so many anarchists that believe that if you're not this, or if you're not that, then you're not fighting with them. But here's three very wide spectrums of the battle that we're still moving in essentially the same direction. Well, I think we all care about truth and liberty, and we understand that liberty in a free society is a good thing, independent of the reasons we believe that, although I think they're similar. But it provides a framework that allows us to all have our own interests within that framework. So that's not a bad thing. That's actually a good thing. And I'm not hostile to religion, and I'm not anti, I wouldn't say I'm anti-theist, or even anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. I'm just not persuaded by their positive claims. Let's put it that way. Now, let's get to the real reason that I wanted to have you on. Your book Against Intellectual Property is less than 60 pages. Of that, probably, just wild guess, maybe 20% of it is footnotes and references and so forth. So literally a person can take this book, and you can buy it if you want. It's on Amazon or it's over at Mises.com. But you can also get the download of it for free. So we've taken away every possible excuse not to get your hands on this book. That's right. It's so clearly and simply lays out, first off, you do a wonderful thing in your book. You define terms. And I think this is where the failure of almost everybody I've spoke with about IP, almost everyone I've spoke with has no clue of the terminology that you're using. And most people that I deal with don't really even know what the actual laws are involving IP. And they have this imagined thing in their mind that they believe what IP really is. And you just hit right to the heart in your book and you just clarify it all and you say, look, this is what it is. And then you make your argument. I think it's just for such a small little book, it's just an absolute, almost a work of art. It's so beautiful. Well, thanks. I appreciate that. I wrote it in a fit of passion. Coming from a law review background where we have a very analytical sort of framework for the way we lay articles out, but also from an Austrian anarchist and libertarian perspective as well, where I thought, you know, this is not my favorite issue. I actually was a patent attorney at the time and I still am. But which is why I started saying I've got to write something about this because everything I read is so mangled, you know. It's still not my biggest interest, although it's dovetailed into a lot of other areas, but I still prefer myself as my personal interest, rights theory and epistemology and economics and, you know, that kind of stuff. But this does tie into it and you have to get this issue straight. But as for definitions, yeah, I don't think we want to be too picky about things and pick on people for using the right wrong words. And I've never tried to say that if you're not some IP law expert, you don't have the right to have an opinion on this issue.  I hate this sort of situation where the people that are the guardians of the gate, you know, they can say who's got the right to have an opinion on this. Look, you have a perfect right to have your own opinion on this, but when you start making positive claims about these very complicated areas and you really mix them up, you mangle them, you don't really know what you're actually claiming. So, yeah, I think if you're going to oppose the abolition of patent and copyright and trademark law, let's say, then you should at least know what they are if you're going to oppose it, right? So you shouldn't be mangling patent and copyright. And this gets to another issue that I've been increasingly focusing on, which is the necessity for being very clear in our terms. Even if you're of total goodwill and you have the best of intentions, if you're not clear in your definitions, you're going to be led astray. You're going to engage in unintentional equivocation or something like that. So when we talk about property, when we talk about intellectual property, we talk about justice, we talk about law. We need to be clear on what exactly we're talking about. And I mean, just as an example, someone will say something very sloppy like, well, are you saying intellectual property doesn't exist? And that's not the argument. The argument is not that intellectual property doesn't exist. I mean, if you define the term intellectual property to mean a legal system that includes patent and copyright, it does exist.  So the question is not, does it exist? So we need to be clear whether we're asking a moral question or a factual question. So like, is it illegal to sell cocaine in America? Yes. Should it be illegal to sell cocaine in America? No. So we have a clear distinction between should and facts, between the descriptive and the prescriptive realms.  They will bristle at that because they have such a natural law mentality that they think that by using these words you're sort of defining reality. You know, they think that you're justifying it. But I think we can as libertarians be open and honest and recognize what the system is and then we can judge it as good or bad and then we can hold up our ideal model that we want to compare it to. I was having a discussion with someone not all that long ago and the discussion was about a person who was accused of a pretty bad crime and it looked like, you know, from all outside evidence it appeared that this person was guilty and they were going to be going through the so-called criminal justice system. And my comment was in reference to there's no possible way. We call this criminal justice but there's no possible way that actual justice can take place in this person's case. Whether they're guilty or not is not even the point. There's no possible way that actual justice can take place and the person I was speaking to was a libertarian but they were extremely offended because they took that to mean that I felt this person should just be allowed to walk away. I tried to clarify it. No, let's talk about what justice is. If a person does something you feel is wrong, they have harmed another human being, you have a natural desire for justice. But is justice defined as the government comes, picks this person up, the government charges you and me to haul them in, keep them captive for a certain period of time? Will they capture another 12 people and force them essentially at gunpoint to be slaves for a time period while they listen to this case? And then the judge who was paid by the state and the police who were paid by the state and the prosecutor that's paid by the state and the defense attorney who's paid by the state are all going to argue back and forth and if they decide that this person is guilty then they're going to incarcerate him at your expense and at my expense. Well, he essentially does nothing. And then at some point they're going to either kill him or turn him loose. How is that defined as justice? And I tried to use exactly what you're saying there about defining terms. I tried to use that point to show that when we throw out a word like justice, you might have an idea in your mind of what that means, but that doesn't really mean that's what that means. Well, this is an example of the state co-opting things, right? The state co-ops and takes over institutions and practices in society that have a natural basis like roads, like law, like language, even like language, right? Communications. And then people start associating these things with the state. So it's almost inconceivable to people that you could have roads without the state. It's almost inconceivable to people that you could have justice or law or even quote-unquote government, which really just means governing institutions of society, law and order or something like that. So if you say you're opposed to the state, they think you're opposed to the government or to government. They think you're opposed to law. They think you're opposed to justice. They think you're opposed to roads because they associate these things with the state. So I believe the state has done such a good job of corrupting even people that are on our side that they have become essentially legal positivists. That is, they believe of law as the commands that emanate from some authorized sovereign. And they sort of bristle against that in an intuitive sense because they're libertarians, but they still are thinking of law as emanating from a sovereign. And so the problem is that when you start using words and you try to distinguish the meanings, they have a disconnect. They can't grasp it. They can't grasp that you're against the state and yet you're for government in the justice sense. They can't grasp that you're for law and order and yet you're against the state because they see these things as so inextricably bound up. So it's a challenge, but it's a challenge because the state has succeeded in dominating even the language and the whole conversation about this. And look, I mean, I get criticized from people that are really less radical than I am in a sense. I'm an anarchist, total IP abolitionist, you know, free thinker. And I'll hear someone saying, well, why do you use the state's words intellectual property then? I was like, well, because I have to communicate with people. So every time I do it, I have an implicit asterisk and I say, just because I'm admitting that the government treats this as a property right doesn't mean that I am agreeing that it's legitimate or justified. Just like if I admitted that someone was a slave during the antebellum south or US, doesn't mean that I'm admitting that they should be a slave. I mean, we can recognize reality and criticize it without endorsing it. I think you've hit on something else here that's really important. And it's something I learned from Robert Higgs. I was talking to Robert Higgs one time and we were talking about the inefficiencies of government. And he said, keep in mind that, you know, you think of things like the law and roads and all these things that people in security, people think this is what government's job is.  It seems like everything the government does, it fouls it up, it makes it worse. But like Robert was telling me, you're missing what the real government, what the real job of the state is. And the job of the state is to empower itself and perpetuate its existence. And it does that with blinding efficiency. The thing that the state really does, that it really cares about, if you can imagine care into this non-entity of the state, the thing that it really thrives on, it does with blinding accuracy and that's to perpetuate itself. And stealing words is one of the things that it does. No, it's like a disease. I mean, look, remember Harry Brown when he ran for president? His little message, his meme was, the government just doesn't work. Now, I know what he's doing. He's trying to counter their propaganda that they used to put up this patina or veneer of legitimacy to justify their actions. But if you discard the propaganda and you understand what the state really is, then the state does work. The state's very good at what it does. And that's one question I've always had. I used to say the state is good at nothing except destruction. It's not good. It cannot create anything. It can only be parasitical and destroy. But then the question is, well, why would it even be good at destroying? Like, why would the army of the government be a good demolition? I mean, that's actually not an easy task. I mean, it's easier than creation. That's probably the reason. But I think there's another thing they're good at and they're good at propaganda. Now, I don't know if they're good at propaganda because they just step into a society that's ready to receive this sort of message because everyone is sort of paternalistically minded and they're looking for someone to fill the vacuum or because the state actually tricks them with government education and with the king's message that I'm going to protect you and be your father figure, et cetera, or maybe some combination of the two. So I would say the state is good at two things and not to its credit, but the state is good at destruction and the state is good at deceiving people as to its legitimacy. I think that's a really good way of putting it. I was kind of, I don't want to bring up, you know, there's a phrase that kicks around the internet, a pod beef, where one prominent person takes on another prominent person and then it ends up getting kicked back and forth. And I don't want to turn this into something like that, but I was very disturbed at, oh, the guy's name escapes me. There's a prominent libertarian and an Austrian. Bob Winsall? Yeah, Bob Winsall, yeah. Well, that's actually apparently not his name, but that's one of his names, but go ahead, we'll respect whatever, you know. I did not know that. Yeah, it's apparently a suit on them. Well, I was very disturbed that he takes the position that he takes with such gusto, but it doesn't seem, me just listening to him, it doesn't seem he actually has thought through that position. He just throws out one series of attacks after the other without really even substantiating them. And I almost couldn't resist having you on the phone. I just couldn't resist saying, how does a person think that way? How do they not step back and analyze the argument they're making and say, look, I'm just appealing to authority over and over and over. And if the person doesn't have respect to that authority, it's a meaningless argument. Ben, I don't know. I mean, look, I'm sometimes blunt. I'm a very fierce guy and I try to be civil and polite, but I'm also blunt and I'll be honest. And I think actually it respects people to be honest with them and to tell them, you know, if you ask me a blunt question, do you agree with me? I will say no if I don't.  So I think there's nothing wrong with having a blunt conversation sometimes and being honest because it kind of cuts to the chase, reduces time. I, you know, you've seen the phenomenon. People get to a certain age or they have a certain investment in certain ideas and they just can't change your mind anymore. They're too invested in it. It would be too embarrassing or they're making money off of it. I don't know. So Bob Wenzel and I or whatever his name is, we had a debate because he had been like this libertarian Austrian guy and he just started getting popular and started kind of taking potshots at Jeff Tucker and myself because of our IP criticisms. And he, you know, I've gotten this a thousand times.  But he claimed he was at a book in the works. He's said this three or four years. I don't think he's serious, but he, I finally said, if you want to talk about it, I'll agree to have a debate with you. But the debate turned into it. It was just the debacle. It was just horrible. I mean, it was not civil. It wasn't reasonable. He didn't want to discuss ideas. So the question is, why didn't he want to discuss ideas? And I'm not assuming I'm right.  And if you can prove to me that I'm wrong, I'll listen. That's fine because I'm interested in truth and justice and what makes sense and what works. But he was just taking potshots. And I think he was just trying to get traffic for his sight or he just, he had been called on his, you know, he knew that he was going to be exposed for his boast that he was going to come out with a book proving IP, which was nonsense. I mean, it's just nonsense. If everybody's writing, I mean, look, I've seen everyone who knows anything about IP and I know the two or three or four people who have some semblance of an argument for IP and they're trying to come up with it and they're trying to make it work. And my prediction is they won't because that's what happened to me. I was trying to do this too for three or four years as a young lawyer, libertarian patent lawyer trying to find a way to justify my own career. That's why I got so interested in it. And finally I gave up and I realized, oh, now I see why I keep running into roadblocks because there's something fundamentally incompatible with this and the idea of private property rights and individual freedom and the free market and competition and the idea that you can compete with people and you can learn from people and there's nothing wrong with spreading information or learning from other people. And if you want to go onto the market and for whatever reason, whatever motivates you, if you think it's necessary to reveal to the public some information by selling a new product that has a new feature or by selling a book, then you think it's worth it for whatever your personal reason is to reveal this information to the world. Well, but once you reveal information to the world, you cannot expect people to not act on it, incorporate it into their brains and their minds. And you know what?  So if they want to print copies of the new Harry Potter novel and compete with you or if they want to sell a mousetrap that's similar to yours, hey, it's a free world. Get over it. Figure out a way to deal with it. Figure out a better business model if it doesn't work for you. So that's kind of my attitude and why people can't adapt. I don't know. Although I will tell you in a way, I'm not a big promoter type. I'm not a big politician type, political activist type. I believe in recognizing reality and realizing that in some ways we're kind of doomed. In some ways there's hope. But I do believe that like in the case of IP I'm actually been heartened by the fact that so many people have instantly fairly quickly adapted to and learned from this, from this IP idea. So I would focus on the fact that, I don't know, let's say 70% of all radical libertarians get what we're saying. Some of them get it right away. They get it within a paragraph. They go, oh, I see I've been misled all my life. So the fact that there's 5 or 10, 15% people out there that are fighting this and they're maintaining the old generation's mentality view about IP, which is quasi-statist or quasi-pre-internet age ideas is actually not that bad. I mean, I think we've made a lot of progress. So yeah, there's a few outliers out there. There's a few people. I think that as time passes, the generations will wash them away. All the young people are with us. All the left libertarians are with us. All the technical savvy libertarians are with us. All the Austrians are with us. All the anarchist libertarians are with us pretty much. So I think that's actually very encouraging and heartening.  He was basically a natural engineering genius. And when I was about, I guess I was about 14 or so, he encountered a problem among certain orchards that were infested with a particular disease. And he just, in his mind, he saw the machine that could fix this problem. And so he went to the machine shop and spent probably, oh, I don't know, maybe five or six months developing from scratch the machine that he saw in his mind when he first encountered the problem. He got it all done, took it out to the fields and started testing it, and it worked flawlessly just like he had imagined in his mind. And we started making a lot of money very quickly because his machine was the only way to kill this particular disease. The disease is called verticillium wilt. It's very common in cotton, but it doesn't harm the cotton because cotton is harvested very quickly. But in an orchard it will kill trees. So then we got a notice by a chemical company out of Michigan that a cease and desist order that he couldn't do this because years earlier nobody had the machine to do this with. My dad invented the machine just out of his brain. But they owned the rights to the process even though they didn't have a machine to accomplish the process.  And even that young I realized this is people who have and see by them owning that and shutting my dad's machine down it cost farmers in the San Joaquin Valley hundreds of thousands of dollars as their fields, as their orchards died and they could do nothing about it.  Well yeah, but still I'm observing this and I'm seeing it. Not only did it kill the invention, my dad literally pushed it out behind the shed and let it rust to death. Well that's actually a heartbreaking and perfect example. Look, I get criticized. It's amazing what I get criticized for. I am a principled property rights libertarian. I am for the right to engage in collusion with other competitors even if it's not efficient. So that's my principle approach to antitrust law for example. Although I understand the empirical arguments for it. But in IP it's also property rights based. But because almost everyone gives these utilitarian or empirical or wealth maximization arguments for IP I try to say listen, if that's your argument you need to be aware of what's really going on because your argument is not shown by the evidence. And you'll give examples like the one you just gave which needs to be written up probably.   I'm trying to talk to you on your own terms and to show you the actual consequences. The human devastation that comes from these laws. I mean you guys say that we need these laws because we need to encourage innovation. Can you even show a single invention that was come up with because of the patent system? And they really never can. But you can show many examples of these inventions and innovations that are scuttled because of the patent system like your father's. And it's probably heartbreak. Now look I don't blame people for using the patent system. I mean like if your dad, if you had told me your dad filed for a patent on it and you had to use it this is the system we're in. I mean that's a more practical or moral or tactical question. How do you live a life in a society that's not perfect? I mean I drive on the roads, you know I probably will get social security payments someday, etc. None of that means the government should own the roads or there should be a social security system just because of the actions of a given person. But no it's horrific and if you can point to some examples of clear violations of property rights brought by the patent system like in the case you just described. The problem that I see then is that when you talk to people that have these kind of ad hoc scattered views about IP they never have a systematic approach to IP. The ones that do have a systematic approach to IP are virtually insane. Like they basically think IP is the only property that exists and it should last forever like Galambos or maybe even Spooner in some of his days and some of the Neorandians. If they had their way then the world would cease to exist.  There would be no innovation. You'd have to get permission from everyone to perform anything you wanted to ever do in your life with your own property. Human life could not survive. The only reason they get away with these IP schemes is because they blunt the edges of it. So what's frustrating is when you talk to a fairly reasonable libertarian who has strong opinions about IP even though they know almost nothing about it which is what's frustrating. My view is you should kind of be a little bit humble and a little bit tentative about this kind of stuff because it's obviously dangerous and if you don't know a lot about it at least have an open mind and reserve your judgment, right? So you tell them an example like your father's example and what's the obvious response? They'll say, oh, well I'm not in favor of that. In other words, you can mention one abuse after the other. I could give you 50 abuses or consequences of a patent or copyright system and almost every libertarian who is allegedly pro IP will say, oh, well, I'm not in favor of that. So everything you can mention that's a consequence of the system that's obviously unjust, they will just back... In Louisiana, we say they'll crawfish. They'll back up and say, well, I'm not in favor of that.  You tell me that you don't want to abolish the patent system but you're not in favor of it because you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  What's the good part that you're in favor of? And then the response is, well, I'm not an expert in IP. Don't ask me.  Why do you oppose abolishing the obvious injustice of IP? And they don't even realize that if you could pass an amendment to the Patent and Copyright Act tomorrow in Congress that would get rid of these outrages that they agree with you or outrages, it would basically neuter the whole system. It would go from like 100% IP system to a 2% IP system. And all the IP advocates, Mont Santos and the recording industry and the movie industry would be going completely ballistic. And they would be calling these alleged IP supporters, friends of ours who want to reform the system, they would call them abolitionists. They would say, you're trying to get rid of the incentive to invent and create. So it's really frustrating. I almost would rather battle a hypocritical Hollywood mogul who doesn't even pretend to have any morality behind their stance. And we're trying to reconnect. Are we reconnected, Stefan? Yeah, I'm here. Oh, okay. The Skype dropped us for a moment there. Sorry. I'm just saying that in particular cases like your father's, there's no excuse for justifying that whatsoever. The libertarian has to step back and pause and say, I cannot support this. This is a clear outrage. It's a clear, I mean, what's the purpose of libertarianism if it's not to make people's lives better and more free and more prosperous? And if you have a case like this where someone is, they're not harming anyone.  And now their dreams are dashed and they're impoverished or they're just complete waste. It's a tragedy. It's horrible. We cannot support this as libertarians. Let me break and save this file in case Skype crashes on us again and come back right on the other side of our commercial break with more with Stefan Kinsella. From June 17th through June 23rd of this year, the Free State Project will celebrate its 10th annual Porcupine Freedom Festival, PorkFest. My wife Cindy and I plan on attending and Bad Quaker staff members Hannah and Matt are trying to raise enough money to attend as they did last year. Considering fuel, campground fees, and PorkFest tickets, we estimate it will cost BadQuaker.com a little over $2,000 for Cindy and I to attend. For Matt and Hannah to attend, it should cost an additional $700. If you'd like to take part in sending the Bad Quaker crew to PorkFest 10, here's how you can do it. Go to BadQuaker.com. You can click on the donate button on the right-hand side of the page. You can give us Bitcoins with our Bitcoin number located right below the donate button, or you can use our Amazon button to shop at Amazon. If you'd like to support BadQuaker.com on a regular basis, you can use the link to our forum and become a supporting member for only $4 a month or just $25 a year. Thanks, folks. Thanks for sticking with us through the break. Ben Stone from BadQuaker.com with Stefan Kinsella. And you know what I was thinking of when you were talking a second ago was Murray Rothbard made a statement about economics. You know, economics is called the... What is it? The dreary science or something like that? I can't remember what it's called. The dismal science.  There's no dishonor in that. Just don't have a solid concrete opinion about it if you don't know anything about it. And I think that's the problem with IP is that so many people have this solid opinion that they've created and they don't necessarily... they haven't necessarily thought it through. But like you were saying a minute ago, in one way or the other they've got something invested into it, whether it's their own emotions or, you know, I was talking to a gaming software writer once and he couldn't stop and analyze what he was saying because the only thing he could think of is if I didn't have IP people would copy my game and I'd be broke. And I'm like, dude, they're copying your game one way or the other and every time they copy it it makes you more famous. Right. Well, yeah, I mean we have piracy anyway so it's like you can't stop it anyway. But you know, the way I think of... I think most people... look, most people are not libertarian, legal or property theorists. So to the extent they're intelligent and they thought about this a little bit they sort of have an intuitive or a rough understanding that there's no conflict between the practical and the moral which is what I ran emphasized, right?  So they understand incentives come from private property but they also understand a sense of justice about it. So they sort of think they're linked and I think they're right but they don't have it all worked out. So they sort of assume what they've heard is that we have these property rights which the government has come up with like property rights in land and cars governments also come up with a system to protect property rights and ideas because we need to give people incentives to innovate or create or whatever. So they sort of just absorb this idea without thinking a lot about it into their background and they blend it together with justice, right? Because they think that they're not separate. They think justice and practicality are combined or united or dovetailed together. And when you start saying that there's something unjust about X, Y, and Z you have set the whole balance because they don't have a whole theory worked out and now you're basically telling them you've got to abandon what you previously counted on before it's not as easy, it's not just some rule of thumb you can't just count on what the government tells you about what property rights should exist and you've got to make a choice now between justice and pragmatics or something like that. And they get all freaked out and now they're like, I'm not a philosopher I haven't read a lot in this area I don't have time to go figure out whether I'm going to be in favor of results or do the empirical studies to figure out the results or whether I'm in favor of justice or what this all means and I think they just rebel and they just say, you know, screw it you guys are trying to upset the natural order why can't you just be in favor of letting it be as it is let's let authors have a copyright in their novel let's let people that make movies have a copyright in their movie let's let inventors have a copyright in their inventions but let's have reasonable controls on abuses let's have a better fair use exception to copyright let's have the ability to challenge bad patents let's improve the quality of the patent office maybe we need to reduce the scope of software patents maybe we need to choke back on patent trolls but the basic system we need to keep in place because we need to keep incentivizing innovation and creativity so I think that's the approach it's almost, I won't say it's an anti-intellectual approach it's like an anti-intellectual approach spawned by laziness spawned by complacency I mean, these people are settled in their opinions they know they can't figure out the right system it takes a radical, you have to have a radical new approach to property which is the Austrian anarchist approach to kind of have a good handle on this and once you do it's actually pretty easy I think you can explain the IP case in about three sentences I mean it's really easy but it's mind-blowing to people that are just encrusted with these statist ideas I really think you're on the right track there and you know in many ways what you were describing is the way that a monarchist holds on to those last hopes of the state somehow doing good things sure we need to reduce government down to this size we need to get government down small enough that we can hold it in a box and make it obey this little paper that we've got and they keep falling back on it's almost a blind faith well it is a blind faith that somehow something that maybe they don't know about is so important that we have to continue having a state for it at least a tiny little state that's the shape and size that they imagine in their mind but really they're just taking they're doing that rather than thinking it through rather than facing the realities that you can't shrink this down to the size that you imagine because whatever size you imagine the state is being when you get it down to the perfect size it's still going to be trampling on somebody and IP is that way well not only that what you mentioned earlier about the state's natural the state itself has the interest in perpetuating itself and being large, whether large or not, I don't know about but perpetuating itself so the idea that if we can think of the right constitutional blueprint or model to make the Obamacare administer more efficiently or whatever the state is not interested in that that's not what they're doing the state wants to control us they want to keep control, keep their power and they will say whatever they have to to keep their power but they're not really interested in that so I think there's a really close analogy between the sort of IP breakthrough and the anarchist breakthrough it's like the people that are menarchists although I'm not saying that you have to be an anarchist to be anti-IP, I think even if you're a menarchist you can understand why IP makes no sense but still I think that there comes in a libertarian's life moments when you have breakthroughs and that is you finally give up the ghost on menarchy and then there's, you know, you increase your understanding over time and I think the same thing happens with IP you go, oh, the whole thing is just completely bogus just like the state but it's a breakthrough moment, I agree and how you get people there, I don't know that's an interesting question I think for me with IP I had that early experience that I mentioned before and then I didn't really think about it in any way that much for years and years and years and then, you know, about the time and I think this was the case for a lot of people about the time that the file sharing and Napster and all that kind of stuff started to come up it brought it back to my attention that there is something fundamentally wrong with the current system and it's not just a matter of tweaks it's a matter of this thing is designed backwards from the very beginning and I got to thinking about it I hate to fall back on this all the time but I always go back to what would happen on an island with two guys and now there's a third guy and how would IP develop in a natural market setting without an aggressive government there to inflict it and I can't and now we're stepping backwards what, 10 or 15 years I couldn't imagine then how IP could develop in a natural market setting I just couldn't figure it out and therefore I had to reject that it had any legitimacy but I couldn't put that together in, you know in a practical argument until I read against intellectual property and then I was like well, now I don't even have to think about it anymore it's done for me all I have to do is just point at this book and say, you know, go learn stuff and leave me alone Right, right Well, you know, I'll say that even when I wrote the book in 99, 2000 I was still thinking that maybe there were contractual mechanisms people could come up with that would protect their ideas and all this so I sort of had an intuitive reflex like, you know there should be a private way to do something but my view now has totally changed I've actually changed my whole attitude I think we have to change our attitude about knowledge and competition there is nothing wrong with someone keeping information private nothing wrong, if you want to do that that's fine I wouldn't say information wants to be free you're not doing anything immoral it may be moral to do it, I don't know but if you reveal information to the world there is nothing whatsoever at all wrong with other people reverse engineering you learning from you, copying you competing with you, emulating you the spread of knowledge is not a bad thing it's actually what makes society what society is I mean we would not have human history human society, human culture without the accumulation of knowledge and techniques and scientific knowledge and amazing art works and novels and paintings and you know the use of medium to convey feelings across generations this is what makes us an amazing thing in the universe it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing so when people say for example look, if you sent me your private manuscript by email tomorrow then and we have a private relationship it would be immoral for me to just publish it because we have sort of a private agreement with each other but let's say you published your first novel tomorrow on Amazon and I get an EPUB of that now is it actually wrong for me to send a copy of that EPUB to 10 of my friends now some people say yeah you shouldn't do it, it's bad manners actually my attitude now is I completely disagree with that I think there is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong in fact I think it's a good thing with spreading information unless you have some kind of private moral or contractual obligation with someone not to do it then to spread information is what life is about and we need to recognize this and I think the way to do that is to recognize that the whole purpose of property rights arises because there are some things in the world that are not infinitely reproducible that are exhaustible that are scarce these are the means of action so for these things you and I can't both use the same thing at the same time or if I use it I run out of it earlier so I have to economize I have to economize, I have to decide when I'm going to use it because if I use it now I'm not going to have it later if I use too much of it now I'll have less left this is why we come up with the concept of economic goods or scarce resources things that you have to economize on but luckily we have other things that inform human action that guide human action which is knowledge knowledge we've accumulated from other people we've learned from our teachers, from our family from the cultural inheritance of mankind and so when we have this body of knowledge we can draw upon and believe me it takes skill and knowledge just to know what knowledge to select from I mean you've got so much now to select from it takes a little bit of a knack or a skill or knowledge to know which one to ignore which one to use but the knowledge is not exhausted when you use it you consult upon it someone else can consult upon this knowledge at the same time so property rights are for the scarce resources the economizable goods they're not for knowledge so we should be as libertarians as maybe thick libertarians we should be completely in favor in my opinion of the widespread copying, reproduction storing, dissemination of ideas emulation, competition all of it there's nothing immoral or bad whatsoever about it to the contrary back in the days when I was in the aerospace industry and I would try to explain these ideas to my coworkers one of the examples that I used I said do you remember back in school back in government school you would get in trouble if you looked over at your neighbor's paper and copied off of your neighbor and of course everybody remembers that from school that's against the rules you can't copy, that's cheating you can't cheat yes and I would say okay now here we are in business now and all in the particular business like I say I was in the aerospace industry and in engineering and everything we did was copying off of each other you constantly looked over at your neighbor at the cubicle, at your neighbor's cubicle what are you doing, what are you working on what are your results of that test what is going on because without copying each other's work there would literally be no airplanes period there wouldn't be any and especially not to the level that we have them today everything, all the knowledge that involves in the aerospace industry is gained by people copying each other's work and that was something that I could show in an industrial setting like that and for so many people you could just see the lights come on like you know that's right cheating is not you know a copying off of your neighbor is not cheating that's survival, that's how we figured out what berries are good and which ones kill you you know it's so fundamental to human existence that yes we should copy off of our neighbor we should cheat if that's what you want to call cheating then we should cheat we should all see what everybody else is doing because it'll save you work and it'll move us all ahead advancing civilization no absolutely and I mean the problem is people conflate two things here they conflate plagiarism and cheating and lying and dishonesty with copying I mean these are two different things of course we're all against dishonesty and if you're going to take a test at a school where you have an implicit contract to do your own work to show what your mind can do on its own in a certain contextual setting then you're breaking the rules and you're being dishonest but being dishonest is actually not illegal it's just immoral and it's not the same as copyright infringement and you will have the defenders of copyright say that well you're not against you're not for plagiarism are you and like well I'm actually not for plagiarism but I don't think plagiarism should be illegal as a general matter but in any case copyright infringement has nothing to do with plagiarism because in most cases you guys want to put people in jail who have copied someone else's book or novel or movie or song even though they didn't they never lied they never said they were the author but some guy that uploads the Wolverine movie doesn't say he wrote the movie so there's no plagiarism whatsoever so they're using an example that everyone agrees you shouldn't lie they're trying to get you to buy in on this you shouldn't lie you shouldn't be dishonest and once you agree to that they say well then you shouldn't be for copyright abolition and I'm like well wait a second but infringing someone's copyright does not involve lying there's no dishonesty there's no plagiarism so this is again the reason to have clear definitions and concepts plagiarism dishonesty cheating lying they all have a fairly you know coherent meaning and they are not the same as copyright infringement and if people understood the law they would understand that so yet they're in favor of this law even though based upon the idea that they're against plagiarism even though they wouldn't make plagiarism illegal if they had to complete intellectual confusion and mess Stefan let's talk about your websites a little bit I know stefanconcella.com is your primary website right? yes and then you don't you also have libertarian papers isn't that yours as well? yeah I found that that journal in 2009 and that's at libertarianpapers.org and I'm the executive editor now and another guy is the manager, daily editor on a day-to-day basis everything is linked from stefanconcella.com including my my podcast which is called Concella on Liberty on which this will appear what are you gonna copy this? oh no oh no I'm gonna copy it there'll be two copies out there or two times whatever you know and then I have a site that's focused upon intellectual property and innovation issues because I didn't want to clunk up my site and other sites with IP issues and that's called c4sif.org Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom so that site basically is in favor of policies and rights that promote innovation technology, innovation freedom of innovation and so that basically means anti-IP so that's my main sites I also blog at the Libertarian Standard which is LibertarianStandard.com I believe I'm typing this out so I can put it in the show notes for later okay I can text your email you too if you need it now I hesitate to bring this up I think some of the people in the Liberty movement in general would be I know that you've done classes and stuff over at Mises you've done several courses over there over time but I think people need to invite you out to some of these events like pork fest and Liberty Forum and some of those I don't know if they've approached you and asked you that already or if somehow you've just not been on the list but they do they've been very gracious I know well let me take a stab at it I think I know where you're heading look I was I was originally in the Randian stuff early in law school and then I of course quickly grew beyond that and then I became heavily involved with the Mises Institute and I was heavily involved there for a good 15 years and I think it's a great group but lately what I've been doing is my hub has evolved and different blogs come up and different avenues for transmitting your ideas come out there like podcasts and teaching platforms I've been experimenting with different things plus my career has changed too I'm now an independent attorney with my own law practice so I'm just trying different things so I have been invited to many of these things but given my just current career I can only go to so many of them I would love to go to all of them but I just I'm fairly young and have a family and you know there's just issues like that so I've been to Libertopia I've been to Property and Freedom Society and Turkey several times I've been to Mises and Auburn many times and other things and hopefully some of the things I'll be able to make it to as well I just went to Nagadoches Texas about three weeks ago for what's called Liberty in the Pines which is sponsored by the Koch Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom and that was a fun event so Stefan Maligny was there Jeff Tucker was there other people were there so I do as much as I can I can't be traveling every two, three, four weeks because of just my personal schedule I've been invited to Porcfest and the other New Hampshire things but it's just a travel issue right now at this point so hopefully this year or next year I can make it up there the reason I brought it up is mostly selfishness on my part because you're one of a very small group of people Hans Hermann Hoppe is another that I really I check every one of these different lists and say are they going to be there is this guy going to be there is that guy going to be there Jeff Tucker is another one that's a big factor for me I would love to be able to hear you live and all that so it's purely selfishness on my part that I want you to drop everything in your life and show up in the places where I happen to be so that I can watch you well you sound like an ex-Randy and you're not against selfishness actually I never really bought on to that I kind of this I was I came in through what's it called normal national organization reform and this was in the late 70's and that with my father's experience with IP I had pretty much come to the conclusion that government was at least an evil and I wasn't convinced it was unnecessary so that's how I came into my childhood and then went from there I didn't really get any intellectual background for any of my thoughts until I bumped into Rothbard and it was just like turns out I'm not crazy you know somebody else thinks this stuff too that's amazing marijuana and patents as the on trade libertarianism there are so many paths into this that's incredible though patents that's a unique combination put it that way and I should mention for my listeners too that I don't partake in any illegal drugs or anything like that currently I haven't smoked marijuana in probably 30 some years so that's not my bag or whatever but I still I'll be honest with you I personally I'm not opposed to it I can't stand it so I'm in favor of legalization but I used to think I wish it would legalize it so I could on occasion have it at the house or whatever but now I'm thinking like you know what I just don't enjoy it I'm sorry I don't like soot in my lungs but hey people who do no problem with it that would be the same argument with heroin so if a magic pill were taken tomorrow and we lived in a world where no one was sold in drug stores like you know out of a little machine where you drop in a quarter still wouldn't buy it wouldn't have any desire for it right although I think if I had to choose between a joint and a heroin I think smoke a doobie you know but either one whatever that's not my point my point is I think you could be a principal pro legalization libertarian without doing it for completely I want to say selfish reasons but for completely you know unprincipled reasons yeah well Stefan I would really appreciate you coming on the show with me today give me an hour of your time like this and you know we I didn't bring it up but we did try this a couple months ago I was on the road with the motor home at the time and due to technical difficulties I completely failed to to be able to do this so I really appreciate the second shot at it and I do hope to see you in person sometime at some some event or something or other I think we'll make it happen and I appreciate the time too and I enjoyed it thanks a lot Stefan and folks thanks for listening today and remember to visit badquaker.com where liberty is our mission thanks a lot folks


I firmly believe that every patient who is diagnosed with malignancy can expect the best of care at NYU Winthrop Hospital. The Center for Cancer Care at NYU Winthrop takes pride in providing patients with a better kind of cancer care. We have assembled a team of highly skilled physicians offering sophisticated diagnostic testing and comprehensive therapeutic options for the treatment of cancer in virtually every disease area. These include state-of-the-art minimally invasive techniques such as three-dimensional CT scanning, pinpoint cyberknife stereotactic radiation therapy, and robot assisted surgery. Through the latest in clinical trials, our patients have access to innovative therapies that may become the future standard of care. We have pioneered the use of patient navigators who assist patients through their cancer journey with clinical expertise and sensitivity. But most importantly, the patients' needs are always at the center of our attention. We understand that the key to successful outcome is patient involvement and we strive to engage our patients and their caretakers in all aspects of their care. We have a comprehensive center where we can take care of the patients from diagnosis to survivorship. From the patient's perspective, they really can expect to have all of their needs met. Here at NYU Winthrop, we have the benefit of having a multi-disciplinary approach to cancer treatment. What that means is that you have all the different specialties that are involved in patient care getting together and discussing the case. We bring together groups of specialists from multiple disciplines. So that the left hand always knows what the right hand is doing. It's really seamless care with our surgeons, our medical oncologists, our GYN oncologists. Medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, surgery, and gastroenterology. We discuss each new patient and how to best take care of those patients. Patients are not a number here. Each patient has an individual cancer plan that is developed based on their age, their comorbidities, the type of tumor they have, the location of the tumor. We look at our patients as family and neighbors and we take that responsibility really seriously. Both men and women want the best quality of life with the least amount of side effects. When a patient is diagnosed with malignancy, it is a life-altering experience for them and their families and we do our very best to minimize that impact. We have a navigation system with experienced nurses who help overcome any obstacle that the patient may be facing. The nurse navigator will follow all the patient through the cancer journey all the way up until and through survivorship. They are knowledgeable in transportation issues, financial issues. We have a wide variety of services. We have dieticians. We have social work support. We have emotional health. Just about any barrier that the patient would come across through their cancer journey. We are a tertiary care academic medical center. We have attracted world-class surgeons. We are most excited about the advances in immunotherapy, radiation oncology, and of course the role of genetics in deciding which therapy is best for the patient. We are able to offer a number of modalities that are cutting edge. We've been a leader in the nation on CyberKnife. CyberKnife is a five-day treatment for prostate cancer, which is the majority of what we treat here. We also treat brain, spine, and lung for a patient perspective to have a five-day treatment as opposed to a nine-week treatment. It's really a game changer for the patients. Get them back to their families. Get them back to work with minimal side effects.  We do IMRT. We do VMAT therapy. We do brachytherapy. As an interventional radiologist here at NYU Winthrop, I do a variety of image-guided procedures. These procedures are minimally invasive. Imaging guidance would include ultrasound, CAT scan guidance, and fluoroscopy, which is real-time x-ray. One of the advantages to image-guided minimally invasive procedures is that patients often go home the same day. So we can have appropriately aggressive interventions with excellent outcomes with very low side effect profile, getting back to normal quality life as soon as possible. One advantage for our patients with cancer is that our imaging services are tailored to their specific needs. We pride ourselves in providing advanced imaging services using the latest state-of-the-art technology, which includes a PET CT scanner, CT scanner, and MRI. We have multiple rooms, like the one we are in today, that have biplane state-of-the-art angiography. We have multiple CAT scan machines that will allow us to get excellent image acquisition during ablation procedures and state-of-the-art ultrasound as well. But besides the equipment, it's also the people behind that equipment. We have sub-specialists in different areas that have really focal areas of expertise, such as abdominal imaging, breast imaging. We also do a very high volume and a wide variety of complex interventional oncology procedures, again specifically embolization and ablation procedures. We've done many hundreds of those procedures over the course of the past few years with a volume that is as high if not higher than any other hospital in the region. The NYU Winter Department of Radiation Oncology doesn't rest on its laurel, so even though we are the number one department in the country, we are constantly trying to innovate. New treatments, new protocols, new doctors are bringing new experience to the department, so we're not going to be complacent with our reputation or status being number one. We're going to continue to work hard to maintain that. I think that if you were going to have cancer care, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better radiation oncology department anywhere on the planet, and we're really proud of that. Here at NYU Winthrop, we have a comprehensive robotic program. We're fortunate enough to have multiple XI robots of Da Vinci, and it's the latest iteration of the robot. It has a stapling technique and a stapling technology that allows me to do everything port-based and under my control. We not only have thoracic surgery being performed here, but multiple different specialties are using the robot, a GYN, urology, general surgery, colorectal, and we're also a robotic epi-center, which means that there's surgeons coming from all over the world to come watch us operate how we run the service and to see how our operating room functions. For thoracic surgery here at NYU Winthrop, we're a team. Everybody works together in order to get the patients the proper care and the best care possible. The outcomes are driven by the technology, not by profits. We do what's right for the patients and the patients benefit in that account. We are actually now able to take patients that never had an opportunity to even think about uttering the word cure and offer them the potential for cure with immunotherapy drugs. Through the clinical trials mechanism, we have reached out to our patients and given them the opportunity to gain access to drugs to give them back their longevity. We've started an outstanding program called Genomics where we can tell you, using personalized medicine, whether or not your particular cancer is on the aggressive side and requires cyber knife, robotic surgery, perhaps cryotherapy. Here at the NYU Winthrop Cancer Center for Kids, we offer the very latest state-of-the-art treatment, but it's administered in a very, very special way. We pride ourselves on being a very, very child-friendly place. We have all different kinds of programs here that includes child life activities, music therapy, which helps relieve a lot of tension and pressure that children might have. Children actually look forward to coming here because they find it's not threatening in any way. We offer state-of-the-art treatment that includes things like the newer targeted drugs, which are specifically designed to attack a cancer cell, sparing normal cells. We participate in national trials, which is always trying to advance the state of the arts. Also vitally important to us in surgical oncology is the quality of our outcomes. We participate in the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program, and NYU Winthrop continues to be one of the top performing hospitals in the nation. We not only think we're good, we also believe others think that we're good. The program itself has the longest running record of being certified by Commission on Cancer, which is a significant distinction. We've been certified for more than 50 years. We have certification by other national bodies, including NAPBC, which is the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer. We also have a certification by American Society of Clinical Oncologists for Quality of Care here, and we participate in something called National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, which is a way of monitoring surgical outcomes. And we're in the top 10% in that group, which is a very distinguished group nationally. Our Medical Oncology Practice is QUOPI certified, which stands for Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. We have our magnet designation for our amazing oncology nursing. Our physicians and staff are not only involved in clinical activities, research, and administration, but they're also teachers. We participate in every tumor board. We lecture, we teach, we host courses. In order to maintain our skills and also to develop new ones, we have a brand new simulation center. Here at our State of the Arts Simulation Center, we are able to provide our oncology staff with the latest educational programs to provide them with the knowledge they need to care for this patient population. We make sure that all of our staff attend the latest oncology education days with their trains in the highest safety standards regarding the administration of chemotherapy and biotherapy. We work collaboratively as teams with the RN Nursing staff from the Inpatient Medical Oncology Unit and our Outpatient Infusion Center, we're collaboratively with our oncology physician staff. We all believe that that's an important part of our mission because training the future generation of healthcare workers is critical to providing the best of care to men and women on Long Island. We have grown from a small but always highly qualified group of clinicians to one now that has become a true comprehensive cancer program affording all the advantages of modern medicine in the intimacy of a user-friendly environment. I've been here for 21 years. I would never think of leaving this place. It's really the highest level medicine with the highest level of people. NYU Winthrop's physicians and staff deliver expert care with the utmost personal attention and compassion. These features set us apart in the region and offer proof that we do provide a better kind of cancer care.


From Washington, D.C., it's theCUBE, covering ScienceLogic Symposium 2019. Brought to you by ScienceLogic. I'm Stu Miniman and you're watching theCUBE's exclusive coverage of ScienceLogic Symposium 2019 here at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C. Happy to welcome to the program a first-time guest off the keynote stage this morning, Bailey Zetto, who is the Vice President of Customer and Seller Experience, IT, at Cisco. Thanks so much for joining us. My pleasure. All right, so Bailey, I've actually, I've watched and partnered and worked with Cisco my entire career, but you actually changed my view of something about Cisco's in your keynote this morning.  Well, it's certainly true that most of our revenue comes through our online presence, but it's perhaps in a different manner than what you're thinking, right? So obviously we do some business direct and we might have some stragglers selling, buying something with a credit card, but that's not the bulk of our business. The bulk of our business is through primarily partners, resellers, and when I say online, I meant B2B transactions. No, no, I totally understand, Bailey, and what I love is you're in Cisco IT. That's right. And therefore, we're not going to talk about a lot of the networking pieces, we're going to talk about what runs Cisco's business and you have the pieces and, you know, client success and support and all those run, and even I didn't even realize the employee engagement all runs through, you know, Cisco.com. That's right. And I love you did a nice little video, gave all of those that have been the industry, you kind of go through and look at the history of like, oh, okay, there's the HTML stuff I used to code back in the 90s through all of the updates, and yeah, we definitely, I was just expecting the little triangle with the guy, like shelving dirt under construction, you know, to show up, right? Yeah, 404, that's right, that's right, that's right.  Yeah, so at Cisco, I'm in Cisco IT, but I'm responsible for supporting all of the revenue generation portions of the company. So that's specifically marketing and what they do, sales and what sales does. Cisco Services is a very big part of our company, so support the services organization. And most recently, Cisco has been on a journey to really kind of move from a once and done hardware sales motion to a full reoccurring revenue type of stream. So we've stood up a whole customer success motion and started running the IT portions of that as well.  So I support all the systems that our partners interact with as well. Yeah, it's interesting actually. So we've done the Cube at Cisco Live the last two years and there's a observation I made a year ago when I started going to that show and it was, you know, if I'm a networking person, this applies to most people in IT. I used to manage stuff. I could touch and go, I understand where it is and how I touch and everything. Now, a lot of what I have to deal with is outside of my purview and therefore I need to get into that environment, kind of pair that with companies like yourself that are acquisitive. And so you have lots of change going on and lots of things that are in your environment there. So we know change is the only constant in our industry. Without a doubt. So maybe give us a little bit of those dynamics and how that impact what's happening in your world. Yeah, so I mean we talked a bit about my responsibilities and one of them is Cisco.com. It's probably one of the more important platforms that I'm responsible for from an IT perspective. But I also mentioned that Cisco is a very, we grow through acquisitions a lot. It's one of our basic business strategies. And so every time we buy a company, it's a big rush to kind of take that acquired company and integrate their online presence into Cisco.com, right? So once a company is acquired, we don't want people to think of it as a separate company, both from a kind of marketing perspective, but more importantly, we're actually integrating that product into our Cisco ecosystem as well. So just having to move all that technology into Cisco.com is certainly a big job. But I think you're maybe asking this from a different perspective as well, which is to say, okay, new technologies are being introduced all the time. And while it makes sense from a company portfolio perspective, I think as a former IT person, you're going to agree with me, it makes our jobs a little bit more difficult. It's both a blessing and a curse, right? From the perspective, it's a blessing in that we get this great new technology to incorporate and use in our running of the business. But it also adds a lot of complexity. And so it's pretty important that we have both the systems and processes to be able to manage all of that complexity in our infrastructure really. All right, so infrastructure monitoring is something you spend a lot of time talking about. I guess I'll set it up. When I talk to my friends in the networking space these days, or a lot of it, the joke is if you say single pane of glass, they're going to spell it P-A-I-N because we understand that there is not one tool to rule them all. Yes, I might have a primary piece, but in the virtualization world, I had to plug into vCenter. Cisco has, you laid out a broad portfolio of various tools up and down and across the stack from security down to physical and upper layer and plus all the acquisitions. So can you lay out a little bit as to where ScienceLogic fits and there's a number of Cisco's tooling that that integrates in with? Yeah, so when I talked about our journey with ScienceLogic, Cisco of course has a number of tools and capabilities to take care of the pieces that we are known for. For example, Application Dynamics is a great company that we bought and provides a great insight into application health. But obviously in the network perspective, we have cloud management software, security software, that type of thing. And so I think what we realized in Cisco IT, well my team realized is that it really isn't about a single system to rule them all. It's about trying to find multiple platforms that could work together and really share data as to drive richer insights. And so I think maybe the industry has been on a bit of a wrong path. I think it's not Lord of the Rings, one ring to rule them all or whatever, right? It's about being able to use multiple applications but having the right data insights move around as needed so that depending on your lens or your role in IT, whether you're a network guy or an application guy, that you're going to use the tool that's more most natural to yourself but pulling in the right amount of data from those other parts to be able to get the right insight. Yeah, if I saw your closing slide mirrored the theme we've seen at the show of superheroes. So the superpower everybody needs in IT today is how do I leverage my data? And we understand that it probably takes more like the Avengers to be able to put those together because data is everywhere. Yeah, the funny thing is that that wasn't actually a set theme. I think we must all have Avengers on our mind because everyone independently came up with the superhero concept. Yeah, no spoilers on Endgame. That's right, that's right. Excellent, so can you just bring us inside some of that science logic journey? My understanding, you're probably the largest enterprise deployment of it. So we always love to talk about scale and what that means and how it's been in your viewpoint. Yeah, you know, we actually, before science logic, we actually had our own system that Cisco IT wrote, right? And so, you know, as IT professionals, we always think we can do it better than anyone else. But we've reached a point where just so much technology and so much complexity came to the market that we really wanted to find a solution that would really kind of enables to grow into the future with all the things that are happening, right? Whether you're talking about virtualization with containers or, you know, cloud native applications or multi-cloud, these are all technology trends that have made our jobs in IT incredibly complex. And so we started to look for what could we replace our homegrown monitoring platform with? And ultimately, we decided that science logic was the best fit for us. And since we've deployed it, we, as with most things, we tend to stretch the scale, especially with our vendors. And so I think we are the largest science logic enterprise customer at this point. But we are seeing incredible benefits in terms of being able to connect science logic's infrastructure monitoring with our own application dynamics and really marry the two for those insightful bits that we get from both. All right, so one of the big theme discussion here is that journey towards AI ops. While we speak actually right now, I've got a team in Mountain View that is at the DevNet Create Show, which Cisco helped organize. We're doing two days of interviews there. And DevSecOps is probably one of the key topics they're going to be talking about. In your keynote this morning, I heard ITOps in a discussion there. So bring us inside a little bit organizationally, what you're seeing, your viewpoint on these various trends that are helping to modernize and transform operations. Yeah, I think from an operations organization standpoint, you're going to see the applications team and the infrastructure team work even closer together. Maybe one of the things I didn't really make super clear in my keynote this morning is I actually work on kind of the app side of the house. I'm the direct interface to the business. And as such, I actually don't interface with ScienceLogic directly, but I'm a strong partner with my infrastructure team, who I think they're all sitting over there, that do run ScienceLogic, right? And so in today's world, you really can't just say, oh, this is an infrastructure problem, they're going to deal with it. Because of that really big mix of, well, is it an infrastructure problem? Is it an application health problem? And a lot of times it's both. And so the organizationally, it might be two separate organizations, but the need to work together is even greater today than ever before. Right, you're preaching the choir. I mean, when we launched virtualization and then later when containers came around, there was the nirvana that, oh, I'm going to have some unit of infrastructure where the application people just don't need to worry about it. Serverless from its name seems to imply that. But we understand that eventually, there's networking, there's storage, there's compute all underneath these kind of things. It's just repackaging. So the application's important. You know, I'm a long time infrastructure guy. That's right. The number one rule is the reason we are here is to run that application and make sure your data gets where it needs to be. Otherwise, we're not here just to power it. That's right. And I just realized I probably would get in trouble if I said it's actually the application infrastructure and of course the network all has to work together. Yeah, well, that's a given. Can you, just, we talked a little bit about AppDynamics.  How do some of those fit into this discussion? Are there tie-ins with what science logic is doing? It absolutely does. So as I talked about it, when we talked about that collection of superheroes, it's not a single superhero. It's not a duo either. It's really a big team. It's the Avengers, right? And so when you think about Cisco's portfolio, we have a lot of additional components needed to provide that modern operating, IT operating platform, right? So we talked about a lot about App Collection Dynamics. We talked about science logic, but what Cisco brings to the mix is things like ACI, titration, policy enforcement, multi-cloud management. So all those things, again, have to work together like the vendors do to provide that modern platform. Yeah, you mentioned multi-cloud and I know in your keynote, you talked a little bit about AWS and GCP. That's right. How's cloud changing things in your world? It absolutely is. Again, I'll go back to that. It's both a blessing and a curse, right? The blessing is enormous capability that we get from the cloud, enormous flexibility. As an example, using Cisco.com as an example, we host a lot of, you know, a lot of public information about our products and websites and data sheets and that type of thing on Cisco.com. And then a couple of years ago, we decided we're going to refresh the engagement of Cisco.com. We wanted to make it much more personalized. We wanted to incorporate video. Those are all great things, but the moment you try to throw a video, and guess what? Native video, whether it be in English or French or Chinese or Japanese, depending on where you are, well, that put an enormous strain on an infrastructure. And if you had to travel, if the packets had to travel from Japan to the United States to our data center, that would slow things down. So we took advantage of public cloud to really kind of push out the content to the edges so that we could get localized content as close to the customer as possible. That's the great thing about it. But again, the management of that, increasing complexity, right? So both the blessing and a curse. AWS, GCP, we are using for doing a lot of video streaming work and so again, great capabilities from that platform as well. All right, so we saw this week a lot of announcements of some of the integrations. ServiceNow and AppDynamics were two of the ones that highlighted that I think impacted you. Anything from the announcements that particularly excited you and I guess final on that is there anything road map wise that you'd be looking directionally for this space to evolve towards? Yeah, I think I was excited to see, and in fact that's one of the main reasons why we chose ScienceLogic in the first place was the quality and amount of integrations that they have, right? And so we're also a big ServiceNow customer and we see the benefits of automatically open cases in ServiceNow when ScienceLogic detects an issue as an example, right? And I would say going forward, we'll be looking to either have out of the box or if needed Cisco IT will build something, even more integrations with the Cisco products. We already have AppDynamics, but as I mentioned, we have a lot of other components that are critical to the network. And so we'll be looking for tighter integration and all this to drive really, drive data together so that we can get to what I think what most people at this conference are hoping to achieve which is really driving towards automation and AI ops, right? So that's really the desire for, I think for everyone attending this conference is certainly our desire in Cisco IT and I'm looking forward to working with ScienceLogic to building out that roadmap.  Where are you when it comes to, we look at things like machine learning and automation which if you listen to the analyst that spoke this morning, it's like you want to make sure you separate those. We understand any of us that have done process and operations is you could automate a really bad process and it's not a good thing. So where are you along that journey? What are you seeing? What are the barriers that keep us from kind of their nirvana where, oh geez, I could actually just seal off the data center and let everything run. Right, I think it's funny, you mentioned Cisco Live, so I actually present on a topic of AI and at Cisco Live as well. So what this other speaker talked about really hit home with me understanding what is AI really? Because I think there's a general perception in the press that it's like this magical fairy dust, you're going to sprinkle on everything and it makes everything perfect, right? AI is really good at pattern recognition, but you still need to put some checkpoints and really have human beings kind of check the work of AI, right? And so we actually have seen data center outages, not Cisco, but in the press when AI runs amok, right? And so I think the first step of automation, that's a given, we want to do that, but that involves a lot of human beings kind of looking at the data and deciding, okay, these sequence of events can be cured by this set of automation. AIOps is something that's a whole different thing if you follow the definition of AI to say, okay, let the computer do it all on its own. Well, I don't think we're there yet. I think we have a ways to go. And I certainly want to trust our multi-billion dollar business to AIOps at this point in time. Well, Bailey, there's an event we did a couple of years ago with a couple of professors from MIT that are really forward looking on this and they say it's racing with the machines because people plus machines will always do better than people alone or machines alone. And hopefully that keeps some of us that are a little bit worried about these skynets of the world taking over from getting a little bit too paranoid. I totally agree with that statement. In fact, the quote that jumps in my head is better together. And I'll close with ScienceLogic App Dynamics, better together, people, AI, better together. All right, well, Bailey, since you ended it on a perfect quote there, thank you so much for joining and I hope to see you at Cisco Live San Diego. Fantastic, my pleasure. All right, and thank you so much for watching theCUBE as always. I'm Stu Miniman here at ScienceLogic 2019 Washington, D.C.


A popular Burmese restaurant has been temporarily closed after a morning kitchen fire. Firefighters responded to Buffalo Wildwing shortly after 10 o'clock this morning. The restaurant was closed at the time, and all employees were able to get out safely without any injuries. There was limited damage to the building, but significant damage to the kitchen equipment. The fire department says that a quick response by employees and the department kept the fire from causing additional damage. There were some other appliance issues also that were involved. And there was some ignition of grease. But on top of the friars themselves, some quick action by their staff covered the grease within the friars, and so they did not ignite. So any grease that was involved was a small amount of grease behind, but it was more technical difficulties or problems with the equipment itself. The Burmese fire department says that the restaurant is not currently in operation and that it may take a day or so before it reopens. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


Welcome back for the Wednesday of October 3rd. How's everybody doing? Good to see everybody. Good morning. Great, great, great. Super tight, Tom, huh? Good, good. You know what's great? I wake up in the morning and I see you guys, I mean, every morning at 8 a.m. when we open up this room, Eastern time, obviously, for some of you that don't live in the area, live in East Coast time. But it's just great to see you guys coming in there early, early, every morning. It's like, you know what?  I got to get in early. And you know what? I would say almost half of you are already here in the morning. I know, granted, when you look at not everyone's from around the world, and especially when you're in the Pacific, it's like 5 a.m. But listen, early birds get a worm, man. Actually, I'm sorry I rephrased that. Early birds get the money. Early birds get the money. And you know what? A lot of you guys did really well on some of the stocks that we traded. And we'll talk a little bit about them, especially the PBR and was the NVC, not that one. What was the other one that a few guys picked up pretty early this morning? Yeah, the MBEV was pretty cool. Some of you did really well on that one. And also, yeah. And what was the other one, too? There was one more NVC, the NVC, and we're going to check that one out. But a lot of good moves this morning already. And a lot of you guys, you know what's nice? Early in the morning and already be on a positive note. So anyway, let's get right into it. Before I get started, guys, I want to tell you guys and remind everyone about the Cyber Traders Summit that is coming up in two weeks. This is, we do this once a year. And it's a great, great event. You could see people dancing, people eating. And obviously, you could see the group, a lot of good stuff. You got a full syllabus of what we're going to be learning. We're going to be doing live trading for two days, working side by side together. And you got a couple of great speakers that are going to be joining us. Josh is going to be doing a presentation. You're going to get to hang out with him and talk to him. Some of you guys have schedule. We're going to have Andrew Keen. He's going to teach you a little bit about what I taught you guys as and how to day trade and how to implement it into an option. You know, listen, I always tell everybody, a lot of people trade options for the wrong reasons. They think it's a poor man playing a rich man's game. And then we're going to have Chris Walker, one of the head senior business developers from Trade Station that's also going to be there. So we're going to have a lot of people, a lot of fun going on and look forward to you guys to be there. I put the link in there for you guys to join. All right, so with that said, I kind of Xed out of my platform.  Nobody can see my password, thank God. All right, let's just get that thing load up. But a lot of stocks that are moving this morning, we're going to check them out. And here we go. And also a lot of good matrix moving at all those orders. All right, we're going to start off with the NBEV. You could see the stock. We've done phenomenal with it. Every day it's a new story with this NBEV. But you know, she really didn't do that well that much yesterday. She got some nasty shakes, you know, going from that 660 to 860. You know, obviously, that's not out for Tay, but it was a pretty easy higher high right at the gate. She's trying to make a little bit of a move this morning. But guys, remember, this is, you know what? Let's just put it on the watch list. You know, we did well with it. Let's not chase it. There's always new blood every day to trade in the market. But I'm going to put it in there just for the purpose of, she had some good volatility in pre-market. So I'm going to keep an eye on that. Yes, I did see that one. Also, I see already Benito and James are looking at the MNGA. We're going to check out that one also. But let me just go down a couple of lists really quick. There's a couple more on the watch list. The VTVT, start off with that one. Great mover yesterday. You could see that one had a gorgeous pop. It was right below a dollar. Thing went all the way to 240. It was up over 100%. And even this morning, look at that. She's already up at $3. Stock took a huge hit, $8. By the way, this is why you don't hold overnight positions. This is what we teach you here at Cyber Trade University. You've got to be a good day trader to know how to swing trade. And you know what? If you didn't see the riding on the wall every day as a day trade, you know how horrible it is to be in a position and be in a, you know, you held it to 7. You're down at 4 and you're like, I can't sell. I'm down 50%. You wake up the next morning. The stock opens up at $1. And then the thing goes right back to 3 and you sold it. Listen, I dealt with a lot of that with Citigroup back in 2008. I know people that were crying. They're like, fastly I own it at $37. The stock is at $2. What do I do? So what do you end up doing? So many people end up selling it, not knowing they should have got out when they hit 20 back then. But that's another story later we'll talk about. We have great war stories in class. But listen, stock is moving VTVT. You know what? Nice move. Might even fill in the gap right here. So we're going to keep an eye on that one. NVCN, another one right here I found this morning. Great little mover. I like this stock for one reason. This was a $70 stock in the beginning of the year. Talking about a catastrophe.  Once again, you want to be a good swing trader. You damn well better know how to day trade because you're going to saw the riding on the wall when the stock just kept trickling down. Well anyway, I like this stock for a few reasons. Number one, it's got a good Faustal flag in the pre-market. Stock took a huge major hit. It's making some good movement. It's up 28%, 400,000 shares. I'm putting this stock. Listen, it could be a good swing trade too. It could be a good swing trade. As of right now, pre-market's been a great day trade. So the NVCN has been great. P-Tie, another one. You guys remember this stock? We trade this stock. Once again, another overnight position. You know, listen, we all know about overnights. I do a lesson on that. It's like so funny. Every single one of them. The past three exactly the same. But P-Tie, you can see it got crushed. Some of you remember, we did trade this a couple of weeks back in the summer. Stock went from $1 to $3. We know the stock can move. We're grateful you could fill in this gap right here, but she's gapped up pretty nicely. 27,000 shares, 800,000. Put this on the watch list, guys. O-G-E-N. Listen, whatever goes up must come down. We've done really well with this stock, too. But now she's starting to take a hit. I'm just bringing it up to kind of tell you guys, this is in the archives. Forget about it, all right? And Ben is already talking about it on the short.  IGC, another one, I want to bring this up. It's been one of our great movers. We made a killing on this one as a day trade. $2 to $14. You know, we made a killing on it. Guess what? Why is it down? I don't know. What do you think? Short squeeze? AMD, another stock. We've done really well on the swing trade on this one. But she's been fun on the day trade. Look, she's starting to pop right now. Stock is fun. But guys, remember, this is more of a brand name stock. So you've got to be a little bit more by level three cyber traders to trade it. So be really cautious of trading this one. And then the MNGA, we're going to finish off with that one, unless some of you here are found something else. But another one, got destroyed. Stock is moving pretty nicely. Cheap stock, up 179% already. 12 million shares. The only concern I have with stocks trading on a dollar, you can deal with fractions of a penny. So that's the only big thing. Spreads get pretty nasty on that. But other than that, stock just moved. You can see it just popped 20 cents in the last minute, which a lot of you already called out. Some of you guys already traded, but looks great. All right, guys, so anything I'm missing, I do not call out. I always like to say that before we go. You got one, two, three. We got about six, seven stocks, which is not bad for a Wednesday. Ben says, it's going back to $2.50. Oh my God, that would be great. Wouldn't that be awesome? If that stock could do that. Hey, that's why we're here. I don't think so, Ken. I'm not looking at your eyes, but thanks for sharing that with me. All right. Before I ban you from my room, I told you, please don't remind me of that stock. I was just having a good morning. And now you've got to bring that up. God. The AZUL, it's got good volume. The volume is OK, $23,000. She's up a little bit. I mean, we can put it on the watch list. She's getting some good volatility in it. I mean, I don't know. I don't like how it's been trading the last couple of days. I don't like the shakes, how the stock chart looks. But it doesn't have that many orders out there on the matrix. So I'd probably pass on that. All right. All right, everybody, so there's our watch list. And once again, I know a lot of you here are new and started. And hopefully you guys have been enjoying it and watching and learning. Remember, like Buddy Ben, one of my loyal students in the room, look, listen, and learn, and you will learn. And that's what it's all about. Because remember, this is not for everybody. And I always say, that's OK. But it should be, but it's not. And I know you all want it to be. But you got to look and learn from it and see what's going on, because it is the greatest job in the world.  So if you haven't registered so far, two great days of trading, great days of eating. We always just recommend, everybody, before you come. Probably be on a strict diet for about a week, because we do plump you up a little bit, all right? So have fun, everybody. And I'll see you back here at 2.30, all right? Happy trading, everybody.