FIGURE 11 RELATIONSHIP AMONG SIZE OF FIRM, PERCENT GOVERNMENT BUSINESS. AND THE RATE OF COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION! TABLE 16 TIME LAG FROM PATENT APPLICATION TO FIRST COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION *Years between filing and first expected commercial utilization. This column is not included in the row totals. Senator SCHMITT. Can you suggest reasons why the commercial utilization rate of NASA-generated inventions is so much higher for contractor-owned patents than NASA-owned patents? Mr. MOSSINGHOFF. I think Mr. Johnson indicated some of the reasons in his testimony. Hopefully we have selected the best contractor to do the job for NASA. He is in the business, he has the ability to evaluate inventions to discern which ones have greater commercial potential. He has the production, marketing, and engineering capability to develop the invention from an idea of the inventor to an item actually produced and sold in the marketplace. I think Tenney Johnson gave a good summary of that reason. Another element that should not be overlooked is that it has been my experience that the person most impressed with an invention is the inventor himself or herself. It is their baby and they want to see it used. They want to leave their footprint. It seems to me that it is important, unless there is an overriding public policy to the contrary, to leave the commercial rights where that inventor is, so you have the single greatest champion of the invention working the problem. I think those are the two principal reasons. Senator SCHMITT. That is an interesting point. I think all of us in one way or another in science and technology would be impressed with that if we just thought about it-how protective we are of an idea that we may have had and how rapidly we try to advance that idea, whether it is an intangible idea or some piece of hardware. That is an excellent point. Are you satisfied that the march-in rights, those which NASA retains under its present policy and those which would be required under S. 1215, are adequate to protect the public interest, and if so, why? Mr. MOSSINGHOFF. It is difficult to imagine a situation where those march-in rights wouldn't be adequate to protect the public interest. I think when President Kennedy's statement was issued that was the heart of the policy concept, adopting a flexible policy vis-a-vis the Government and the contractor to retain rights. But if the contractor retained rights, it wasn't against the world. He had to act responsibly with those rights. As Tenney referred to, he couldn't just suppress the invention and it must be made available for public health, safety, and welfare reasons. So the answer to your question is yes. I think that those rights are adequate. Senator SCHMITT. So you are saying that the fact that march-in rights have not been exercised extensively is the best sign that they are working? Mr. MOSSINGHOFF. Yes; I believe that. That experience brings into a realm of reality what until now has been a hypothetical issue of whether the cure for cancer is going to be suppressed or whether the carburetor that will get 100 miles to the gallon will be suppressed by some commercial operation. While NASA has never exercised march-in rights as such, we do require periodic reporting from our waiverees of the steps they are taking to commercialize the invention. And where they are not taking such steps, or have no plans to commercialize the invention, we void the waiver. We have done that in more than 25 percent of |
Get this book in print