![[Dividing Line Image]](images/div.gif){kind=small}
CUTS FROM H.R.400 DEBATE ON HOUSE FLOOR
April 17, 1997
The following excerpts from the Debate over the Rohrabacher
Substitute Bill reflect the comments of the speakers against the
HR400 Bill. These are the exact quotes, (except for my comments
which are surrounded by parentheses.) They come directly from The
Congressional Record of April 17, 1997 (House) and are from Pages
H1629-H1643.
(The following comments by Mr. Goss were a surprise to the
Proponents of HR400 since they thought he was one of theirs. His
comments about "First, do no harm," reflect my views
exactly, because HR400 would do immeasurable harm to our patent
system and country.)
****************************************
Mr. Goss -- Mr.
Speaker, I am not certain that the promised benefits in H.R. 400
are not outweighed by the potential setbacks. I am waiting to be
convinced by the debate. Whenever we consider sweeping reform we
would be wise, in my view, to follow the model of the medical
profession. First, do no harm.
*********************************************************
Mrs. Kaptur - Mr. Chairman, I rise in obvious strong opposition
to H.R. 400. If this bill were so wonderful, then why are
America's preeminent inventors opposed to it? Dr. Raymond
Damadian, inventor of magnetic resonance scanning, Dr. Wilson
Greatbatch, inventor of the cardiac pacemaker, Dr. Stephanie
Kwolick, inventor of Kevlar, Dr. Jay Forrester, inventor of core
memory, the first practical RAM. If this is such a great idea,
then why are the people who have created America's future
opposing it?
I have to say this bill is about a whole lot more than just
arcane patent law. It is about what our Constitution guaranteed,
and that is the property rights of our inventors. I hear all this
concern about foreign countries and putting us on an equal
footing with foreign countries. The facts are, we are the leader
in the world.
Why should we want to dumb down our system or make it easier for
others to tap into the inventions that our people produce? Why
should we ask our inventors to have a greater burden of
[[Page H1638]]
proof? Why should we make them be forced to get into this
reexamination system? Why should we do this to the people who
have built the greatest industrial and agricultural power on the
face of the Earth?
I say to the membership, how many complaints have my colleagues
received from their small inventors except on this bill? The
system works for them. The only complaint one might get is about
the maintenance fees, how much they have to pay to maintain a
patent, and truly that needs to be improved. But we have a
wonderful system that says if you have an idea, you file it at
our patent office, that that idea is yours, it is secret until
that patent is issued. Why would we want to change that system?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. HUNTER.
Mr.
Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
The theme has been that we should be like Europe and Japan, but
the fact is that high technology startups are something that is
uniquely American. There are very few high technology startup
companies in Europe and Japan. That is because they lose the one
thing which is central to their success, and that is secrecy,
because once they publish in 18 months, the big companies come in
and sweep them off the map by patenting around them, which is
called patent flooding. The gentlewoman is absolutely right.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for that comment. This whole question of submarine
patents and so forth, there is less than \13/1000\ percent of
those that even affect this entire system, and even then we have
to be about the task of protecting American inventors' rights. To
the extent we can get other nations to conform their systems to
ours, terrific, but why should we try to conform our system to
theirs? Why should we make it more difficult for our inventors to
pay the fees?
This office I am told has been changed as we are sitting here
today. With this corporatization of the patent office, that now
apparently is not going to be allowed to accept gifts and real
estate, because of pressure from Members of Congress like myself,
as it is in the base bill, when I read the amendment, and I
really do not have a copy of it here, but it basically says you
are going to require gift rules be drafted to ensure that gifts
to this new office are not only legal but avoid any appearance of
impropriety. Why should they be given those gifts in the first
place? Why should that be happening under this bill? And why
should we take away the objectivity of our patent examiners who
are completely insulated from any kind of economic coercion by
the current system?
I have to say that patents are the trade routes for the 21st
century. America under H.R. 400 is throwing away our
technological lead by publishing patent applications much earlier
and taking away the secrecy that is inherent in our system to our
inventors and making other radical changes which, by the way, to
the membership, if anybody has a final copy of this bill I hope
they will give it to me because somebody who has been as involved
in this issue as any other Member, I cannot give my colleagues a
bill that we will be asked to vote on here today that is accurate
in terms of legislative language.
We have the choice here today to create prosperity for our
Nation, to provide opportunities to our children, but if we
change the patent system as H.R. 400 proposes, we will be
throwing away the American dream of opportunity embedded in the
Constitution of the United States. I guarantee my colleagues if
this bill passes, there is going to be decades of litigation as
the American people fight for the rights they were granted under
our Constitution.
Our patent system is the heart of our economic strength because
it creates new money, jobs, and new industries. I ask the
membership to vote no on H.R. 400.
Mr. Bartlett -- Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Rosco Bartlett], one Member
of Congress who has 20 patents to his name and who can speak with
expertise on the issue of patents.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, as the holder of 20
patents
myself, I feel compelled to rise today in support of the
Rohrabacher substitute. For over 200 years, the American patent
system has empowered inventors to make this country the most
innovative in the world.
If H.R. 400 becomes law, small businesses and inventors will be
forced to publish their patents before receiving a patent. This
opens the door for every copycat in the world to steal this
information and begin manufacturing and marketing before the
inventor has patent protection.
Ladies and gentlemen, our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to
recognize the need for a patent system unlike anywhere else in
the world that promoted the concept of entrepreneurship and
protected ingenuity.
{time} 1345
Their foresight has resulted in the greatest industrial power
this world has ever seen. Let us not weaken this protection in
the name of international harmonization.
Next week I will hold hearings in the Subcommittee on Government
Programs of the Committee on Small Business on this issue. I look
forward to continuing this dialog.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Kucinich], our esteemed colleague.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 400.
The essence of this bill is a hostile takeover of the American
patent system by private interests. The American patent system is
a public trust. It is operated by a responsible government
organization for the benefit of the American people and
individual inventors. It exists to enhance the capacity of our
economy to cultivate and commercialize new technologies.
If H.R. 400 becomes law, the integrity and independence of the
patent system will be undermined. H.R. 400 would convert the
Patent and Trademark Office, now part of the Department of
Commerce, into a ``corporate body not subject to direction or
supervision by any department of the United States.''
Another disturbing aspect of H.R. 400 is the establishment of a
management advisory committee composed of corporate and
management executives who will oversee the policies, goals and
performance, budget, and user fees of this new government
corporation. Even though the director of the Patent and Trademark
Office would be appointed by the President of the United States,
the director would be compelled to consult with a private sector
board on all major decisions. The transformation of the PTO into
a corporate body combined with the influence of the management
advisory committee places our Nation on a slippery slope to
corporate domination of the patent system and the destructive
undermining of the democratic tradition which has produced some
of the greatest inventions in the world from the American people.
Mr. Kucinich -- Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes
to the gentleman from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Kucinich], our esteemed
colleague.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 400.
The essence of this bill is a hostile takeover of the American
patent system by private interests. The American patent system is
a public trust. It is operated by a responsible government
organization for the benefit of the American people and
individual inventors. It exists to enhance the capacity of our
economy to cultivate and commercialize new technologies.
If H.R. 400 becomes law, the integrity and independence of the
patent system will be undermined. H.R. 400 would convert the
Patent and Trademark Office, now part of the Department of
Commerce, into a ``corporate body not subject to direction or
supervision by any department of the United States.''
Another disturbing aspect of H.R. 400 is the establishment of a
management advisory committee composed of corporate and
management executives who will oversee the policies, goals and
performance, budget, and user fees of this new government
corporation. Even though the director of the Patent and Trademark
Office would be appointed by the President of the United States,
the director would be compelled to consult with a private sector
board on all major decisions. The transformation of the PTO into
a corporate body combined with the influence of the management
advisory committee places our Nation on a slippery slope to
corporate domination of the patent system and the destructive
undermining of the democratic tradition which has produced some
of the greatest inventions in the world from the American people.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Campbell] who represents the Silicon Valley
area.
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the question of
who is on which side. I think that is a useful way to analyze the
factors in these bills. The inventors want to keep the rights
that they have when they invent and do not want to be forced to
disclose. The commercializers want to have as much disclosure as
possible so that they can make use of those inventions. I am not
condemning either side, but by identifying them, I think we see
that if we can achieve the commercializers' legitimate interests
without undercutting the inventors, then we have achieved
something. That is what is in the Rohrabacher bill.
Some of my colleagues on the other side have spoken about the
hightech companies who support H.R. 400, and I agree they do. But
it is very interesting to me that the university community has
been silent and has not rushed to support H.R. 400. In fact, I
have had extensive dealings with the university community and
they are staying off, because they are worried about what this
might do to the inventive process.
Mr. Chairman, I would conclude with one last observation, and
that is that people speak of a level playing field with Europe. I
say to my colleagues, I do not want a level playing field. We are
better.
Margolin Development and Rent An Inventor