stopping of manufacture by the Government in the interest of war effort during World War II interrupted the income of patentholders during that period. Congress, in the last session, recognized the basic equity involved in this measure, as evidenced by the overwhelming vote in favor. The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request and urge your efforts to get early action on the bill. You will surely have the satisfaction of knowing that you have restored equity to thousands whose income was taken away from them during the war years. Very truly yours, Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. M. J. MUCKEY. POTTER & HALSEY, INC., MY DEAR MR. WILLIS: Your committee is now considering bill H. R. 2128, for patent extension, and I understand it will come up for discussion at your next meeting. I have been reliably informed that a number of Congressmen have approached several of the members of the Judiciary Committee, requesting that they take steps to see that this bill dies in committee. In my estimation such “underground" tactics are reprehensible. There are very few Congressmen who have a real understanding of our patent system and what it means to this country. As an experienced inventor with at least a modest degree of success, I feel it my privilege and my duty to call certain fundamental conditions to your attention so that you will not be fooled by the sophistries of the lobbyists for big business. Such firms as General Electric, General Motors, Standard Oil, Du Pont, etc., no longer need the protection of our patent system. If our entire patent system were eliminated from the economic life of the United States, such concerns would not be adversely affected to the slightest degree, but it would be the death knell of the independent inventor. The highly paid publicity departments of big business are continuously promulgating the thought that the days of the "attic inventor" are over and that now the research organizations of big business can be trusted with the future industrial progress of America. To the uninitiated, this only too frequently sounds plausible but such is not the case. There is a proper place in our industrial scheme of things for the big research organizations, but to anyone who has made a study of the effects of our patent system on American industry, one thing stands out clearly-most of our basic advances have come from without an industry not from within. The untrammeled originality of the independent inventor supplies something that cannot be found in a research organization. Certainly, it took the highest type of research brains to develop the atom bomb. This is beyond the field of the independent inventor. But the specialized problems of the atom bomb should not confuse our thinking. Allow me to call your attention to the fact that television (as an example) would not exist as it does today without those fundamental contributions made by such independent inventors as Farnsworth and DuMont. And it was the independent inventor, Major Armstrong, who contributed the FM radio which certainly had its share in the development of television. Men of this caliber are not "attic inventors" but they are true examples of America's independent inventors. To make my point clear, the independent inventor in this country, in at least 90 percent of the cases, has contributed the fundamental ideas for progress. The modern reasearch organizations, after the idea has been pointed out, then work on the refinements and improvements. Neither Boeing nor Curtiss-Wright invented the airplane. Two brothers running a bicycle shop in Dayton did that. With the original concept to build one, the research abilities of our aviation companies have then contributed the vast improvements and refinements which have made the modern airplane what it is today. But let us face the fact, without that original contribution of the Wright brothers, all the research organizations in the country would not have given us the airplane. It may be that you believe that General Electric and General Motors contributed the jet engine, but it was an independent inventor in England who created this modern engine with his own and his friends' capital. I could enlarge on the above until I covered practically the entire range of American industry. Big business has reached a point today where they render hypocritical lip service to our patent system, but actually so far as corporate policies are concerned, they maintain large and expensive patent departments whose primary purpose is to guard their companies against the possibilities that they might have to pay royalties to independent inventors. Their recognized corporate policy is it is cheaper to "knock out" a patent than to pay royalties on it, provided such a patent is not owned by one of the other giant corporations. Unless you, as a Congressman, are awakened to this fundamental condition which now exists, you will not be in a position to properly safeguard the interests of our independent inventors, and therefore the interests of America as a whole. The originality of the American people is not dead. But the conditions facing the independent inventor have become so discouraging that the record shows that on a per capita basis, the inventive activities of the American people are now reduced to one-half of what they were a few years ago. Patent Office records prove this beyond a question of a doubt. Because of a lack of understanding, Congress has neglected the American inventor. Our Congressmen have failed to realize that the independent American inventor is dying out because of the piratical conditions he must face today. If bill H. R. 2128 is passed by Congress, some of our gigantic corporations will be faced with the fact that they must pay royalties on certain patents which would be extended under this bill; and their patent departments would feel remiss in their duties to their corporation if they allowed this to happen. This places the reason for the underground activities against this bill right out in the open. I am calling to your atention, as a Member of Congress, that this is the real reason for objections to this bill, not the specious reasons which have been advanced. I most earnestly ask that you refuse to become a "cat's paw" for big business. The passage of this bill will go far beyond the narrow confines of the act itself. It will be the first moral step taken by Congress in many years toward giving encouragement to America's independent inventors, without whom there could not have been the America that you and I are living in today. Last January 17, I sent you, through the kind cooperation of Fortune magazine, an exhaustive article on the condition of the Patent Office and our patent system. I hope you still have the article in your files, and because of your responsible position in the Nation, I urge that if you did not read it then, that you do so now. You will find in it full confirmation of my statement that the inventive activities of American citizens have dropped one-half on a per capita basis. You will also see what a deplorable condition our Patent Office is in today due to false economies. A $10 million appropriation would completely modernize and bring up to date the activities of the Patent Office. Commissioner Watson informed me not long ago that he did not feel privileged to press for such an appropriation, "because of President Eisenhower's economy program". Yet, I saw in the newspaper 2 days ago that President Eisenhower was requesting $12 million to build the hull of an atom-powered ship to be sent around the world on a goodwill tour. This was for the hull alone. I challenge you, as a Member of Congress, to contemplate the relative value to America of sending such a ship around the world as against encouraging our inventors and preserving our patent system! In conclusion, I make this most earnest appeal that as one step toward putting soundness in our patent system and encouraging our inventors, you make every effort to see that bill H. R. 2128 is passed by Congress, and that the underground operators who are lobbying against this bill be prevented from further undermining our patent system. Sincerely yours, T. IRVING POTTER. CINCINNATI PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, Re patent extensions bills H. R. 2128, H. R. 3134, and H. R. 4700. C. F. BRICKFIELD, Esq., Assistant Counsel, Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SIR: It is the desire of the Cincinnati Patent Law Association to record its opposition to the enactment into law of the above-noted bills, and your at tention is respectfully called to the enclosed copy of a resolution which was unanimously adopted by the Association at a meeting on April 13, 1955. Very truly yours, W. F. SCHANZLE, Secretary Cincinnati Patent Law Assn. RESOLUTION Whereas there are now pending before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives three patent extension bills, H. R. 2128, H. R. 3134, and H. R. 4700, each of which would provide for the extension by the Commissioner of Patents, for extended terms to be determined by him, of United States patents, the exploitation of which has been impaired, curtailed or prevented by Government restrictions on the use of materials or other circumstances beyond the control of the patent owner, and Whereas we believe that the enactment of such legislation is contrary to the public interest and opposed to the policy and purpose of the Constitution and the patent laws: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Cincinnati Patent Law Association, That it desires to record its opposition to the enactment into law of any of said bills, and that the secretary of the association be directed to send copies of this resolution to the chairman of Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and to each of our local Representatives and to the Senators from Ohio. LETOURNEAU-WESTINGHOUSE CO., Re patent extension bills H. R. 2128, 3134, and 4700. C. F. BRICKFIELD, Esq., Assistant Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR MR. BRICKFIELD: The American Patent Law Association Bulletin for March 1955 has just reached my desk. I wish to take this opportunity to voice my opposition to patent extension bills of the general type indicated above. The reasons for opposing such bills are very ably set forth in the statement of the American Patent Law Association, this statement having been presented by the chairman of our laws and rules committee, Mr. Richard Whiting. About the most I can do is agree with Mr. Whiting's statement that patent owners should not be put in a class by themselves to receive special consideration which is denied to property owners in general. Many people suffered in time of war, and I agree with the statement of Mr. Whiting that patent owners should not be put in a more favorable position than the owners of other property. I am therefore opposed to all bills which would extend the life of patents for various reasons, and hope you will make by objections a matter of record. Respectfully submitted. LETOURNEAU-WESTINGHOUSE CO., THE PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO, Re H. R. 2128, H. R. 3134, and S. 116, patent extension bills. SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. GENTLEMEN: The Patent Law Association of Chicago strongly opposes the above bills. We understand that hearings on patent-extension bills H. R. 2128 and H. R. 3134 have recently been scheduled and are now in progress before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bills have been carefully considered, and the reasons for our opposition are set forth in the enclosed reports of the subcommittee of our legislative committee. The board of managers fully approved these reports, disapproving H. R. 2128 and H. R. 3134, and I have been instructed to so advise you as quickly as possible. Yours very truly, B. A. SCHROEDER, President. WALLACE & CANNON, Chicago, Ill., March 10, 1955 Re report of Subcommittee on Patent Extension Bill, H. R. 3134. GENTLEMEN: The subcommittee which you recently appointed for the study of this bill, H. R. 3134, has reviewed the same and submits herewith its report relative thereto : ANALYSIS OF THE BILL 1. This proposed bill, H. R. 3134, was introduced into the House by Representative Reed of Illinois, on January 26, 1955, and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. It proposes to empower the Commissioner of Patents, upon application, and after published notice and hearing, to extend the term of a patent where a license has been granted to the United States on a royalty fee or nominal royalty basis, or where restrictions have been placed upon the use, exploitation, etc., of the patented invention by reason of war, national emergency, or other circumstances beyond the control of the patent owner. The proposed extension of the patent, as set forth in section 5 of the bill, would be for a period of time equal to that during which the use, exploitation, or promotion of the patent was prevented, impaired, or delayed by reason of any of the circumstances referred to above. Section 6 of the bill gives the right of apepal to the CCPA or by way of an action in the District Court for the District of Columbia if the application for an extension is refused by the Commissioner; Section 7 provides for the issuance of a certificate of extension and for publication of notice thereof in the Official Gazette; Section 8 (1) grants immunity to the United States by reason of any manufacture, use or sale of the patented invention by or for the United States during the period of the extension; Section 8 (2) provides that the extension of a patent under the act shall not impair the rights of anyone who before the passage of the act was bona fide in possession of any rights in patents or applications for patents conflicting with the rights in any patent extended under the act. This section also provides that the extension shall not impair the rights of anyone who was lawfully making, using or selling the patented invention before the passage of the act and that any such person may make, use or sell the invention covered by such conflicting patent, or application for patent, subject to the payment of a reasonable royalty for any period subsequent to the date of the extension; Section 9 provides that a licensee under an extended patent shall have an option to continue the license for the period of the extension, or any part thereof, under the terms of the existing license, or of discontinuing the license at the end of the original term. This section also provides that if an extension is not issued until after the expiration of the original term of the patent, any embodiment of the patented invention made after the expiration of the original patent and before the grant of the extension may be sold or used after the grant of the extension, without infringement; Section 10 provides that in any action for infringement after the expiration of the original term of the patent but during the extension the defendant may plead and prove that any material statement in the application for extension was not true in fact, and if this is established judgment shall be rendered for the defendant with costs; RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE BILL It is the unanimous opinion of the subcommittee that this proposed patent extension bill (H. R. 3134) is highly objectionable and should be disapproved for a number of reasons, among which are: 1. It would establish a dangerous precedent and, if passed, might well lead the way to a flood of other patent extension bills by interested groups; 2. This bill is ostensibly a bill to permit the Commissioner to extend the term of a patent the normal use, exploitation, promotion or development of which was impaired by the grant of a royalty-free or nominal royalty license to the United States or by restrictions imposed by the United States by reason of the war or other national emergency but it is not, in fact, so limited because section 1 (2) would empower the Commissioner to grant an extension where the normal use, exploitation, etc., of the patented invention has arisen "*** by other circumstances beyond the control of the owner * * *" Obviously, there could be innumerable circumstances "beyond the control" of a patent owner which could not in any possible way justify an extension of a patent, and we regard this language of section 1 (2) to be particularly dangerous and objectionable. Moreover, under section 5 of the bill the Commissioner would be empowered to grant an extension for a period of time equal to that during which the normal use, explaitation, etc., of the patented invention was prevented, etc., by reason of any of the circumstances set forth in section 1 (2) including *** circumstances beyond the control of the owner ***" and this could lead to the extension of a patent for many years for private reasons having nothing to do with any war emergency or national defense. We are strongly opposed to any such proposal. 3. Section 8 (2) of the bill, which proposed to protect the rights of anyone who, before the passage of the act, was * bona fide in possession of any right in patents or patent applications for patents conflicting with the right in any patent extended under the act" is extremely vague and ambiguous and, if enacted, would give the Commissioner judicial powers over questions of patent infringement which always heretofore have been vested in the Federal district courts, where they should, in our judgment, remain. We strongly disapprove of this provision. 4. We also disapprove of that part of section 8 (2) which provides that any extension granted under the act would not impair the rights of any person who before the passage of the act "*** was lawfully making, using or selling the invention, covered by the extended patent, but any such persons may make, use or sell the invention covered by such conflicting patent, or application for a patent; *** subject to the payment of a reasonable royalty for any period subsequent to the date on which the extension of the patent was granted." We are strongly opposed to this provision of section 8 (2) of this bill for the same reasons pointed out in numbered paragraph 3 of this report, relative to the first provision of section 8 (2) and for the further reason that the proposed bill nowhere defines what is meant by the nebulous term "* * * conflicting patent, or application" nor does the bill set up any procedure for determining such conflicts. 5. We do not favor this bill for the further reason that if this bill were enacted into law the Commissioner would probably need to expand his present staff far beyond his present limited budget and capacity for the purpose of handling the flood of applications for extensions which would undoubtedly be filed under this proposed act. 6. We feel that this bill is objectionable for the further reasons (a) that it represents undesirable class legislation; and (b) because they would, if enacted, seriously jeopardize the rights of the public and particularly manufacturers and other investors who might, and frequently do, invest large sums of money in building and equipping plants for the anticipated manufacture of devices, etc., covered by patents, when such patents expire at the end of the 17-year statutory period. This has come to be and is an important concept in the American tradition and an important phase of American business life which would be seriously jeopardized if this bill was enacted and, if this were done, the public would never know what its status is in regard to any patent and anticipated use of a patented invention at the end of the now accepted 17-year patent term. It is therefore the unanimous opinion of the subcommittee that our asociation should strongly recommend against the passage of this bill. Yours very truly, CHARLES B. CANNON, Chairman. JOHN T. LOVE. LARSON & WHITING, Washington 6, D. C., March 18, 1955. Re patent extension bills H. R. 2128 and H. R. 3134. C. F. BRICKFIELD, Esq., Assistant Counsel, House Judiciary Committee, DEAR MR. BRICKFIELD: In considering the testimony given at the hearing March 9, 1955, at which I appeared, one further thought occurred to me which |