Page images


New Jersey should be complimented. The State of New Jersey has some good, stringent trafic laws, including a 3month provision. I do not believe the bull will be harmed by containing & 3month provision. Buch & provision might encourage some states to follow sult.

This is another part of the tradic safety problem that the Committee on Commerce dealt with about 2 years ago. The committee began & driver registration clearinghouse in Washington, D.C. sort of traffic FBI for drivers who move from one State to another. The States were asked to take advantage of this, and 50 States did 60. At the present time, 40.000 Inquiries & day are being received.

The desire is to make the bill more workable, and the 3-month provision will not hurt it at all. It might make the bill better.

I am glad to accept the amendment. Mr. CASE. I thank the Senator from Washington. He is the parent and I am the coparent of this Driver Registration Service, in a sense; and I believe the joint paternity in this case is working well.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. COTTON. I Join the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Washington, in saying to the Senator from New Jersey, that this amendment makes a distinct improvement to the bill.

Mr. President, other Senators may wish to speak later about the pending patent amendment. However, having offered the amendment on behalf of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) and other Senators, I should like to make a brief statement.

At the eleventh hour, the committee tacked onto the bill, as section 106(C), & restrictive patent provision which may curtall the safety research that is so vital to the campaign against trafic accidents and injuries.

We opposed this amendment when it was offered in the committee. I am referring to the Senators who signed the minority views-namely, the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. MORTON), the Senator Irom Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT). the Senator from Vermont (Mr. PROUTY), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. DOMINICK). We shall oppose it on the floor, and feel so strongly about it that we have been impelled to fle our individual views, despite our overall support of the bill.

The subsection requires that any patent developed with the aid of a Federal contribution must be made freely and fully available to the general publicunless the Federal contribution is minimal—whatever that might mean.

Plausible as this might seem at first glance, Its real effect is lable to defeat the main purpose of the bill. Consider, for instance, the position of a firm or an Individual with highly promising Ideas for & safety development who needs additional research funds to complete his

research and development work. Federa assistance might hasten the work and bring the invention to public usefulness sooner. But the developer, who would lose all his rights to the invention under the committee amendment, could hardly afford to accept Federal aid. The public safety will be the clear loserand no one the gainer-under the amendment.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COTTON. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Under the approach advocated by the Senator from New Hampshire and his group, would it be possible to ask that public money be spent, then to develop the article with public funds, and then enable the inventor to secure a patent and charge $100 for a better seat belt that would cost only $10 to manufacture, or in some cases deny it to the public entirely?

Mr. COTTON. I certainly do not believe so. The bill not only empowers but also enjoins the Secretary of Commerce to undertake safety research on his own. It is adequately safeguarded against the situation mentioned.

I should Uke to finish my reference to the minority views; then I shall respond to the question of the Senator from Louisiana more fully

The fundamental aim of the bill is safety, yet the amendment throws a new, unforeseen roadblock in the path of safety research.

Furthermore, the provision is another attempt at & patchwork, piecemeal approach to the problem of patent policies and federally supported research.

Twice last year the Senate rejected similar provisions because it felt the problem should be dealt with through comprehensive, general legislation. Such & bill, S. 1809, has now been approved by the Senate Patents Subcommittee and is actively being marked up by the full Judiciary Committee. There is no justification for further complicating the matter by yet another separate amendment.

We believe section 106(c) should be deleted. The Senate should be given the opportunity to consider the comprehensive bil now before the Judiciary Committee. In the meantime, the public interest will be adequately and soundly protected because research authorized by this bill will be subject to the general Government patent policies prescribed by President Kennedy in 1963.

Mr. President, I find a remarkable statement in the report of the committee, which I assume was prepared by the majority staff, with perhaps some suggestions from the minority staff.

I refer to the bottom of page 14, the portion which discusses section 106(c), the section that our amendment seeks to delete:

Section 106 (c), by denying contractors exclusive rights in the performance of research activities where the Federal contribution is "more than minimal," will help curtall un. necessary industry pleas for Government financial support where the companies can do the research themselves. By doing their own research and securing patents on inven

tions which they discover, the companies in Big Four cry out "Uncle"-"Uncle Sam." the auto industry can make substantial

This should not be & punitive attempt on

This should not be a punitive a progress toward increasing auto safetywithout having to make substantial use of

our part. This should be a crusade to public funds.

improve the quality character of the au

tomobiles on the highways so that public Now, knowing all the bright young safety will be promoted. men who serve on the start of the Com But I say this to my distinguished mittee on Commerce, I cannot, for the friend. It is contemplated here that the life of me, imagine which member of the Secretary of Commerce shall enter into staff could possibly be the author of such certain contracts in order to conduct rean utterly assinine statement as that.

search and in order to promote safety. Let me explain why I characterize it so Public funds are t

Public funds are to be expended for that strongly.

purpose, and certainly those funds are The Committee on Commerce did not going to be given to these automotive legislate in a vacuum. The Committee giants. on Commerce heard evidence from the

Does not the Senator think that once automobile industry. They heard evi- industry makes a discovery with public dence from all interested parties. They money that it should be shared with all heard evidence from Mr. Nader. They of the giants? It will not do me any heard evidence from the representatives good. or the Senator from Washington of various associations and organizations, (Mr. MAGNUSON) any good, or the SenaState, and National, interested in auto- tor from New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON) mobile safety. The committee knows ex any good, once they make the discovery. actly what the position of the industry is But all the discoveries will be available on various matters.

to all automobile manufacturers rather There is one thing that is absolutely than becoming exclusive to the one concertain. The automobile industry in this cern making a discovery and this is country is one industry that does not and

proper because the discovery was with will not seek financial aid, and does not advanced public money. I understand want financial aid or participation from that industry is not opposed to this the Government in designing, engineer- provision. ing. researching, and building automo Mr. COTTON. If the Senator had biles.

waited until I had completed a few more They are perfectly capable of Ananc- sentences I would have emphasized, as ing their own engineering and design. I am emphasizing that he is 100 pering, and their own safety devices. They cent right. They are not opposed to it. displayed a good deal of feeling that The automobile industry. I am inthey wanted to be permitted to do it. formed-and I believe every member of

Now, instead of this provision protect the committee, I am informed-do not ing the Treasury from being raided by give a hoot about whether this provision these poor, impoverished automobile remains in the bill or not because it is manufacturers, the biggest manufacture their policy and they are well equipped ing industry in this country, and to get to do their own designing, engineering, the Government to help them make re- and building of cars. search and to help them engineer their what I was about to emphasize was the cars, what does this provision do, as & fact that when the Secretary, who is admatter of fact?

ministering this safety program, comes It does not strike at the Industry. It around to seek the cooperation, he has strikes at the Secretary of Commerce or a suggestion, perhaps, on how the struca Secretary of Transportation, which- ture of an automobile may be strengthever may be charged with administering ened to protect the occupants, or å sugthe program of automobile safety under gestion as to some device for safety, and the bill. It strikes at them for this re&- he wants to have the expertise of the son: The Government needs the expe- automotive builders and manufacturers

více, needs the know- of parts or any others in exploring this how. and needs the facts from the auto- possibility. they will not dare to help motive industry on safety devices if the him. Why? I do not know what the Secretary is to be able and prepared to word "minimal" means. but the moment na tu out the admonition in the bill that they enter into any program whatsoever he shall engage in research and safety with the Secretary of Commerce they in automobile construction.

must forego any patent rights and whatMr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will ever they might develop themselves they the Senator yield at that point?

would have to turn over to the world at Mr. COTTON. I yield.

large. That is not the way businessmen Mr. PASTORE. Does not the Senator work when they are putting investments feel that way because these are the into developing devices. giants in our industry? Certainly I That is why I say with respect to this have no antipathy against the Big Three particular paragraph in the bill, I am or Big Four. I am one of those who feels surprised that the Secretary of Comthe bill should be passed exactly as re- merce has not been lobbying against it ported from committee. I shall go so because it handicaps him. It is not going far as to vote against the restoration of to affect the major carmakers at all but the criminal penalty because I do not it is going to make it infinitely more dilthink it necessary.

ficult and more expensive_not less exWe are trying to promote safety in pensive as this statement in the report the public interest. I believe this bil indicates-more expensive to the Federal does that and does it eiectively. I do Government. not believe we ought to hit anybody over The Federal Government will probably, the head with a club. I do not think as a result, not through intentional boywe ought to keep hitting them until the cotting by the Industry, but as a result 1429

of industries' desire to develop their own are not entirely sincere in their desires, engineering, spend more funds and not this gives them an excuse, If we please, less on research.

to not put their cards on the table work(At this point, Mr. PROXMIRE assumed ing with the Secretary. That is my anthe chair.)

swer. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Will the dent, will the Senator yield?

Senator concede-as I gather from his Mr. COTTON. I yield to the Senator reply-to strike this provision from the from Louisiana.

bill if he does not have the support of the Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Is the Sena. automobile manufacturer? tor aware of the fact that we have had Mr. COTTON. No, I do not believe testimony from all of these agencies, the they are interested in this. I want it Atomic Energy Commission and others, stricken from the bill, because I believe which are not permitted to grant private it would impair the safety of the bill patents on their research, to the effect Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Congress has that they never had the problem of find. passed many laws. It is the rule rather ing enough contractors to do the research than the exception that in dealing with for them? The problem has been that public health and safety, as long as I they did not have enough contracts to have been & Senator, and even before go around.

that, Congress has repeatedly insisted on Can the Senator explain to me why putting provisions in its bills relating to the Secretary ought to permit under his health and safety to assure that the fruits contract on highway automobile safety of research will be freely available to all. & result wherein & contractor would be For example, on Department of Agriguaranteed & profit on the research, but culture legislation, TVA, the National could be in a position to charge perhaps

Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy $100 for a $15 seat belt, or even deny the Commission, NASA, Hellum Research public completely the benefit for that Act, the Water Pollution Act, Water Rewhich the public paid?

sources Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, it Mr. COTTON. Yes, I can explain that was the rule rather than the exception to the distinguished Senator in a very few that in these areas of health and safety. words. This whole bill, page after page the committees originating these bills After page, and the President's message have had a way of saying that the reand it is an able message reflects again search programs would be made freely and again the aim that there shall be co

aim that there shall be co available to all. operation between the Government and

Even the bill that is being suggested by the automobile Industry in working out the majority of the Subcommittee on and building safer automobiles. In the Patents of the Judiciary Committee, bill can be found the carrot method of in- headed by the Senator from Arkansas centive and the admonition can also be [Mr. McCLELLAN), suggests that in this found. This is the situation. After area they should not be private patents, building up this bu for weeks and weeks except in exceptional cases. The whole and weeks with the devoted attention of record of legislation in regard to the the committee on both sides of the aisle fruits of Government-financed research and the able staff, all on the theory that has been that committees originating we want to put everything possible into that kind of legislation have suggested the bill which will advance the pooling what should be done with the fruits of of knowledge between the industry and that legislation. the Government, and result in every pos- In this instance, the manufacturers sible, reasonable, safe improvement in feel that this gives them no problem. As automobiles, at the last minute the com- & practical matter with their own primittee reversed itself and adopted the vate research, paid for out of their own provision.

funds, the manufacturers make their reI would be the first to commend my search freely and fully available to one friend from Louisiana who has, with another, anyway. They take advantage great sincerity and dedication, fought of a situation, in a new model sometimes, the fight on this patent business between on which there will be new devices, or Government and industry through the something new to offer. The industry years. I understand that the problem releases all kinds of permits to all comwill be brought to a head in another bull petitors who are using the things develshortly. But this bill is not the place for it. In this bill, under section 106(c) been developed, even with their private we raise the specter of an industry los- funds, is being made available to alling its exclusive rights of patent when it and I know that the Senator knows that pools its knowledge with the Govern- to be the case. ment. We make it more difficult for the Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President. workshop of the Secretary and the work will the Senator from New Hampshire shop of industry to cooperate fully to ad- yield? vance the cause of auto safety. Further Mr. COTTON. I should like to make more, it is pretty hard to see what is one point first. One thing I should like minimal and what is not.

to emphasize and impress upon my good I do not care what other companies the friend from Louisiana is that when he Senator refers to the automotive indus- asks, do I have the support of the autotry has openly and without arrogance mobile industry, I should like to inform asserted again and again that it is per- him that I am not representing the autofectly capable of financing its own re- mobile industry in any way, shape, or search. We are asking them to pool manner. So far as I knew, the automotheir efforts with the Government, then bile industry did not care about this, we write this thing in the bill which in- whether it stays in the bill or not. Thus, jects a serious element of doubt. If they I want to make that crystal clear to the 14240

Senator, that if he has any doubt about take over the patent and give its my being sustained by the automobile in benefits to the public in other words, dustry, I want to dissipate that doubt. destroy or strike at the very heart of

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I am happy patent protection in this country. Such that we can understand that. I went to an attempt has been made repeatedly the trouble of inquiring of the automo in the past. I wonder if this proposal bile manufacturers concerning the is not merely an attempt to come in by amendment which I believe to be appro another door for that main, basic purpriate, and which I believe the majority pose. on the committee believes to be appro Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator priate. "Does this give you any prob from Iowa for his observation regarding lem?" The answer I got back was “No, cross-Licensing in industry. I think it It does not."

is highly pertinent as to what the amendMr. COTTON. I think probably that ment in the bill is aimed at. was the correct answer, but it may give I have too high & regard for the disthe Government problems.

tinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will LONG), for whom I have the deepest rethe Senator from New Hampshire yield? spect, and for other Senators who may

Mr. COTTON. I am happy to yield to well be interested to try to analyze what the Senator from Washington.

they may be aiming at. Mr. MAGNUSON. I was a Uttle bit I merely wish to say that if this prodisturbed that the Senator jumped on posal is intended as an entering wedgo some staff people about this language. in advance for the consideration of the It is true that the statt Inserts the lan bull which I assume and understand will guage but they do not always compose it. be ultimately presented by the distinThis language was placed in the bill at guished Senator from Arkansas (Mr. the request of two or three Senators on MCCLELLAN) in behalf of the Subcommitthe committee. If the Senator wants me tee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyto produce anything further on this, I rights of the Committee on the Judishall be glad to do so.

clary, this is not the place for it. Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator. I do not want to stir up any more

Mr. MAGNUSON. Second, this is an debate on this point. I want to give up amendment which was discussed the the floor. The only observation I want Senator from New Hampshire is right to make to my friend from Louisiana is by the committee toward the end of the with reference to his remark that in matsession. Finally, we agreed on adopting ters of health and safety this system of the amendment as written, and then we throwing up patent rights has been the agreed that we would put statements on policy. It has been my observation that patents in the report, and we agreed to the opposite is the fact. let those vitally interested in the com When we are dealing with a product, mittee at that time submit the language,

when we are dealing with a commercial and the staff did that.

situation, it may be one thing, but I have Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, Inci & vivid recollection, and it is contained dentally, let me take this opportunity to in our individual views in the report: ask for the yeas and nays on the amend On June 29, 1965, by a voto of 69-to-36, ment.

the Senate adopted & Pastoro motion to The yeas and nays were ordered. tablo LONG's (Louisiana) amendment on Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi

patents developed in connection with the dent, will the Senator yield?

regional heart disease, cancer and stroke Mr. COTTON. I yield.

programs. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. As I under I have a quite clear recollection of stand. this is an automotive bun. As I that debate, and it is my understanding understand also, and have understood that it was not tabled necessarily on the for many years, the policy of the auto- merits of the proposal of the distinmotive industry or manufacturers has guished Senator from Louisiana, but was been that if they make a discovery of tabled because it was prejudging, launchsome kind, they try to use it on the first ing into a program in advance of a mate model, more as an advertising gadget. ter that was being thrashed out and but that after that, all the rest of the which was to be reported by the companies may use it. That has been committee on Patents, Trademarks, and the general practice. So, as I see it, there Copyrights of the Committee on the is not the slightest need for the patent

Judiciary, charged with that duty. legislation that is proposed in this auto It is my understanding that is premotive bill. The practice has become so cisely the situation today. Because of well established that I doubt whether that fact, in the first place, and, in the any automobile company would break it. second place, because, as the Senator Therefore, I see no need for including from low& (Mr. HICKENLOOPER) has so such & proposal in the bill.

well said, the policy of the industry Going a step further, I wonder wheth. makes it unnecessary, and, in the third er the Senator from New Hampshire place, because, 11 It has any effect at all, would agree with me that such a pro it will handicap the Secretary in runposal is probably not aimed at the auto ning his own shop and getting informamobile manufacturers, but is aimed at tion from suppliers and makers of parts the whole philosophy of the protection in the various segments of the automoof patent rights to the individual who bile industry, the provision has no place makes something and who happens to in the bill and endangers and detracts have received the right to purchase from from the effectiveness of the whole purthe Government some discarded mate pose of the bill. ral for some purpose. The Government Mr LONG of Louisiana Mr. Presimay not contribute very much, but it dent, will the Senator yield?

Mr. COTTON. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. May I point nearly so as possible, in bringing out a out to the Senator from New Hamp- very strong motor vehicle safety bill. shire and ask him if it is not correct that My amendment would delete section the record of this Congress and the rec- 106(C), under this provision, the Federal ord of the two previous Congresses with Government would acquire ownership of respect to the patent policy has been inventions emerging from the motor this: Whenever a committee had brought vehicle safety research authorized by this forth & bill creating research and su- bill in all cases where its financial share thorizing a research program. Congress of the funding of such research is more has sustained that committee in what it than minimal. has recommended in respect to patent Mr. President, I am bound to say that rights?

none of us know what "minimal" means. When the Senator from Louisiana has It has the usual built-in caveat, for me sought to change the law or amend the at least, that an uncertain word which law to require some agency to be more is not necessarily or fully a word of art careful about giving away patent rights. may be construed by one agency adminthe amendment has been tabled. That istrator one way and by another an. was done with respect to the Pastore other; so that no genuine guideline is motion and also the Dodd motion with really presented. respect to the National Aeronautics and I think that section 106(c) should be Space Administration.

deleted for three reasons: It has been true that for the last 18 First, it is W-timed, since legislation years the Senate has consistently sus to establish & Government patent policy tained what the committee said should in the disposition of rights under its rebe done with the fruits of the research search and development contracts is in authorized by that committee's research & stage of advanced consideration by the program.

Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator. I attended a session of the full Com

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield mittee on the Judiciary this morning. the floor.

The general overall patents policy bull, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

S. 1809, was under discussion. All memquestion is on agreeing to the amend

bers of the committee desire to dispose of ment of the Senator from Pennsylvania

S. 1809 at the earliest practicable (Mr. Scott).

moment. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I

To continue the futile attempt to pre

scribe Government patent policy in e suggest the absence of a quorum.

piecemeal fashion would not only run The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

counter to the intent of those of us on clerk will call the roll.

the Judiciary Committee who have been The legislative clerk proceeded to call

considering this measure over quite u the roll.

long period of time, but would also essenMr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I

tally run counter in many ways to the ask unanimous consent that the order Kennedy policy, to which I shall refer for the quorum call be rescinded.

later, which is presently the Federal The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

policy absent specific congressional decobjection, it is so ordered.

laration Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I appre Second, this section is unnecessary as ciate the fact that the distinguished Sen- an Interim measure until such time that ator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN), patent policy legislation is adopted into the distinguished Senator from New law. There is, at present, an equitable, Hampshire (Mr. COTTON), the distin- logical, and workable policy currently in guished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. eiect under the "President's Statement MORTON). and the distinguished Senator on Government Patent Policy," promulfrom Massachusetts (Mr. SALTONSTALL) gated in October 1963. have joined me in sponsoring this Mr. President, I ask unanimous conamendment.

sent that a memorandum of the late My amendment is to delete a provision President Kennedy, under date of Ocfrom the bil similar to other provisions tober 10, 1983, be printed in the RECORD which have been rejected by the Senate at the conclusion of my remarks. in earlier legislation-the so-called Long The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without amendments on patents. On June 2, objection, it is so ordered. 1965, by a vote of 59 to 26, the Senate (See exhibit 1.) tabled the Long amendment on patents

Mr. SCOTT. The memorandum to developed in connection with NASA con- which I just referred establishes Govtracts; and on June 29, 1965, by & vote of

ernment policy pending the enactment of 55 to 36, the Senate agreed to & motion

general patent policy legislation. to table the Long amendment on patents

I read a part of one paragraph: developed in connection with regional heart aisease, cancer, and stroke pro

This statement of policy seeks to protect

the public interest by encouraging the Qor. grams.

ernment to acquire the principal rights to I invite the attention of the Senate to

inventions in situations where the nature al the statement in the committee report on tho work to be undertaken or the GovernS. 3005 by the six Republican members ment's past investment in the Deld of work of the committee in opposition to section favors full public access to resulting inven. 106(c) of the bill. This provision was

tions. On the other hand, the policy recogtacked onto the bill at the last minute

nizes that the public interest might also be

served by according exclusive commercial Tuesday, without previous opportunity

Hghts to the contractor in dtuadons when for mature consideration, and after much

the contractor has an established non-gopo time had been expended in preparing the

ernmental commercial position and when bull for report under circumstances which there is greater likelihood that the invention would enable us to be unanimous, or as would be worked and put into civilian w

« PreviousContinue »