Mr. EMERY. It does not make any difference whether it is three years or 13 years.

The CHAIRMAN. After you have had opportunity to have your claims

Mr. EMERY. If the commissioner calls on us to speed action

The CHAIRMAN. My dear sir, we are called on in Congress every day to speed action on legislation; and instead of having unlimited debate, we have got to debate our problem in a certain given time. There is no reason in the world why a man can not realize he has a certain time to finish his work. If we did not realize that, we would never complete our work.

Mr. EMERY. I could not hear Mr. Neagle when he was addressing the committee; but is it still possible, under this bill, for a Government owned or controlled case never to become abandoned? That, I understand, is the language of the bill as printed.

Mr. FENNING. That language is already in the statute with reference to the Government-owned applications.

Mr. EMERY. It does not change that?

Mr. FENNING. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I want you to understand, in relation to the Government, if that law is on the statute books, or not, I do not know; but I do know that this bill was submitted to me by the President and asked to be introduced for the protection of the public in time of war; and I am asking these gentlemen to collaborate with the Government representatives to bring out a bill that will be entirely fair to everybody.

Mr. EMERY. Whether it is in the present statute or not, I say it is wrong.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we will take a 10-minute recess, while I answer roll call in the House.

(Whereupon a recess of 10 minutes was taken in the hearing.) The CHAIRMAN. Commissioner Robertson, this is your time, and you may say anything you please on the subject of the patents, or anything that pertains to your department, anything you want to say regarding the bills which this committee will, I take it, consider in executive session next week. Just a minute, Mr. Commissioner.

STATEMENT OF I. JOSEPH FARLEY

Mr. FARLEY. Mr. Chairman, representing the Ford Motor Co. and the General Motors, we can not let the statement made by Mr. Emery go unchallenged, that he thought he would never live to see the day when this committee, or any congressional committee, would espouse the interests of big corporations against the small investor. or the small corporations, or his statement to the effect that the Ford Motor Co. is hostile to the patent system. Those statements are entirely unwarranted. If the Ford Motor Co. were hostile to the entire patent system, if we were in favor of keeping up these conditions you aim to improve in the patent system, if we were not in favor of those bills, we would not be appearing before this committee. It is unthinkable that these conditions, which are very much better for the larger corporation-the larger corporation is

in very much better position to take advantage of those conditions than is the small inventor.

The Ford Co. is not hostile to the patent situation, nor is Mr. Henry Ford; and when Mr. Emery makes those statements, he just simply does not know what he is talking about. I think I am in position to know what the policies of the Ford Motor Co. are, very much better than Mr. Emery. Mr. Emery does not know anything about the hundreds of licenses that the Ford Motor Co. is taking. He does not know anything about the plans of the Ford Motor Co., or the General Motors Co. or any other company may have, or the dealings that either of those two companies may have with the small inventor.

I was in the practice for quite a number of years in New York, representing the small inventor, and I know the conditions to be the same as Mr. Sweet spoke to the committee about; that is, we took advantage of every possible delay that the law allowed us to take.

Now, here we have two big corporations, the Ford Motor Co. and the General Motors Co., supporting these measures, the passage of which is going to aid the small inventor very much more than it would the large corporations, and the large corporations are supporting these measures. These two corporations for whom I speak are supporting these measures because of the large public interest that is involved.

We realize that the patent system has become the target for a great deal of criticism; we realize that there is opportunity for improvement; we realize that every one of these bills that has been proposed is a step in the way of progress-is a step in the way of promoting the progress of industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you realize, Mr. Farley, that for two months the Committee on Patents has been holding hearings, not with any particular bill before us, but to ascertain information and opinion from all of the great corporations-all of the great corporate interests of America-whether they are satisfied with the modern patent laws, whether they need any amendment or revision, and we have had every corporation that is worth while before us, and we have had all of those who represent inventors before us, and we have had those who represent the public before us; so we have had an opportunity to hear all three sides and, based upon that, these bills have been prepared, that we think will be instrumentalities in perfecting and developing the patent department, so that it will serve the public and the corporations and the inventors in far more efficient and capable ways than it has in the past.

I am very glad to see the interests that you represent come here and approve the work that this committee has been doing.

Mr. FARLEY. Yes,.sir, Mr. Chairman; and I think that it is utterly unwarranted for any one to come before this committee, and just simply because a corporation is approving a measure which is to the general public interest, to make the charge that this committee is giving more attention to the big corporations than to the small inventors. It is the old thing that we meet with, your honor, in practically every case, every bit of legislation that we are con

fronted with, when the attorney for the plaintiff who, in so many cases, happens to be a small corporation or inventor, goes before the court and would have the case decided merely on the basis that this is a poor man, or a small corporation, and here is a big corporation-sock the big corporation. The big corporation, in that man's opinion, is not entitled to any credence or any consideration.

Now, these measures that you are proposing-we feel, and we feel very strongly, that there is perhaps no one better able to state how the patent situation and its workings affect industry than the leaders of the industry. We know how they affect industry, and we know what a burden has been placed on industry, as well as the poor inventor by this very thing.

If Mr. Emery was sincere in his proposal to extend the length of time, because of this one interference case that he mentioned, why does not he come here to the committee and favor the total abolition of interferences? There is nothing that is a greater burden on a poor man than an interference proceeding. These poor inventors, I have met with them in my own practice, years ago, back in New York a few years ago, time after time, when a poor inventor would be thrown into an interference. What could he do about it? Interference costs thousands of dollars, and he has to quit.

Now, we are taking a move in the right direction by the passage of these bills, and the passage of these bills does not mean granting favor to big corporations and the oppression of the poor inventor; it means quite the contrary. These bills would favor the poor inventor very much more than it will the larger corporation; and we support them because we feel very strongly that industry needs measures of this type, and perhaps even further measures to promote progress of industry; because to promote the progress of industry is the entire purpose and intent of the patent law.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sweet, Mr. Einery cast aspersions against some of your rank; do you wish to say anything?

Mr. SWEET. Certainly, your Honor.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say you represent inventors. Mr. SWEET. Mr. Emery did challenge my authorization of the rank and file of soliciting patent attorneys. I would like to enlarge myself as a sample by stating on the record that I have talked about H. R. 10153 to six others of the rank and file of soliciting patent attorneys in Cleveland, and 16 others of the rank and file of the soliciting patent attorneys in Chicago, and of the 22, 20 of them made the comment: "Well, as soon as you date the patent from its application date, we will postpone filing applications as long as possible."

I can not think of any more pertinent evidence of the motive back of our proceedings than that, but I would like to add one more specific comment directly to Mr. Emery's position and his statement that it is not the practice, to the effect that, for two and one-half years, I was on Mr. Emery's pay roll in Chicago, and my practice then was just what it is now.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McKenna.

Mr. MCKENNA. Mr. Chairman, I can not let go unchallenged the remark of Mr. Emery concerning the attitude of this committee

toward big business. He seems to think that we are here of our own accord, but we are not; we are here because of your invitation; we are here because we believe you are doing a great public good, and we believe that the bills that you have prepared are a pronounced step forward, and it is our intention to do everything in our power to spread the good news that you are doing good work; and I think it comes with unbecoming grace from any lawyer to criticise us under those conditions.

We are not in exactly the same situation that Mr. Ford is. He is an individual

The CHAIRMAN. What group do you represent?

Mr. MCKENNA. I represent the General Motors Corporation, and that corporation is composed of 345,000 stockholders. Now that is a goodly number to represent, and I want the record specifically to show that we are here at your invitation, that we believe you are doing a great public good; and that we hope that the legislation you propose will be passed.

The CHAIRMAN. And you realize, Mr. McKenna, that Mr. Emery is the only man that has appeared who objects to certain features of the bill, without really citing the facts that I know the committee ought to pass on?

Mr. MCKENNA. Even after you requested that he do present them.

STATEMENT OF R. S. OULD

Mr. OULD. I have presented a memorandum which is printed in the hearings, and I do not mean to go into any detail regarding it, but just to mention, briefly, two of the points involved. Various witnesses have pointed out the importance of substantial improvement in classification division, and I would like to point out the very great need of substantial improvement in the library of the Patent Office. For instance, we will get, so far as possible, the very best type of supervision and library personnel and try to maintain the highest recognized standards of library service. It may not be generally recognized that the Patent Office library constitutes a very important part of the examination system of the Patent Office, and is not an inconsequential appendage, as some persons would think.

It undoubtedly is very important that the Patent Office shall acquire and contain all of the really useful materials, books, and periodicals in connection with the activities of the office; that it shall have the very best possible kind of index and biographies, and so on, which are a part of the best technical libraries of the country. For instance, the engineering societies' library in New York. It seems to me that the Patent Office library should be as good a library as that; and it is important that the Patent Office should have adequate funds to purchase books and periodicals, and bind the periodicals and other materials very appropriately, which should not cease at the present time; and that there should be formulated standards of library service to be maintained in the library, and to establish a means to maintain those standards; and it probably should be pointed out that some of the large corporations have very com

prehensive classified files with reference books, and articles and periodicals, in which a research can be very quickly made. Nothing of that kind is available in the Patent Office at the present time.

I have understood that, years ago, perhaps 30 years ago, as a part of that classification division, something of that kind was attempted, but there is certainly nothing of the kind now, at the present time, when it is very hard to get any money out of Congress, and I know of no place in the Patent Office where $1 will go further in substantially improving the standards of examination than to build a classification division, which provides for something like $125,000; whereas, an additional appropriation for the library of something like $15,000 would undoubtedly very materially improve conditions.

Just one other point which I would like to make, and that is in regard to the qualifications of examiners. Up to something like five or six years ago, one expected that an examiner in the Patent Office would be able to read French or German and learn, generally, both of those languages; something like five or six years ago, the Civil Service announcement, setting forth the requirements of that position, made the ability to read French or German an optional requirement; and if one qualified under those options, he was placed on the preferred list, the preferred register. However, my understanding has been that the number of persons who have passed the examination, say five years ago, was so small that it was not more than the actual need, and getting on the preferred list meant nothing. It is very important that an examiner should be able to read those languages.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Ould, for your suggestions.

Now, Mr. Robertson.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. ROBERTSON, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the various speakers before the committee. I realize fully, after having had about 30 years of practice before the Patent Office and having been commissioner for almost 11 years, that no bill can pass this committee of a constructive nature that has for its object to remedy certain faults in the Patent Office system that is not making a hardship for a few. The bills before you are bound, in some way or other, to hurt the poor inventor now and then. They are also bound to interfere with the operation of some corporations now and then.

But, as I understand the purpose of your committee, it is to try to pass some measures here which will give the greatest good to the greatest number. With that in view, I have looked at these bills, studied the bills, listened to the arguments, and studied the arguments; and I have, I want to say with a great deal of reluctance, cast aside the belief I have had for 30 or 40 years, in order to come around to support some of these measures, and I know that some of the members of the bar, who have spoken before your committee, have had to do the same thing. They have had to ruthlessly shove aside their beliefs founded upon 30 and 40 years' practice, in order