exceptions in limited fields, such as AEC, for products that are completely limited to space.

Do you agree with that? That means a very broad general rule for the whole Government on patents, with certain minor exceptions, or do you feel that we for each department should have a separate rule, a separate rule for AEC, DOD, NASA, and even the Disarmament Agency has a separate rule right now?

Mr. SPENCER. I think a general rule could be formulated, that general rule being one in which the Government does not attempt to handle the commercial exploitation of the inventions.

Mr. FULTON. I'm just finishing on that point, and a think that is a good one.

You have pointed out that the California Institute of Technology, the experience with the Foundation on page 5, of the institute, would indicate it would be impossible for an organization as large as the U.S. Government to conduct a licensing program which would result in a net revenue. Is that your firm opinion?

Mr. SPENCER. Yes.

Mr. FULTON. At the bottom of page 5 you state:

The invention, if it occurs even in connection with a product applicable solely to Government use, is a byproduct. If that invention by chance has commercial use, it is a byproduct of a byproduct.

Still further, the commercial version usually differs so greatly from the version utilized by the Government that substantial capital and substantial work must be undertaken over and above the research which developed the product for the Government in order to make it suitable for civilian use.

Under that statement I infer that you would then not have the Government making the capital expenditure and performing the substantial work over and above the research so that any products, the results of inventions, discoveries, or improvements, will be developed by the Government to make them suitable for civilian use.

You wouldn't have us go into that field at all, would you? Mr. SPENCER. No. I don't see how that this could be feasible. Mr. FULTON. Another point you make very well, on the bottom of page 6, and with the chairman's permission, I will read the last paragraph into the record, rather than having you read it.

The opposition to the present NASA contract provisions is strong and by people who have a commercial patent structure built in their company organization and procedures, that they are already handling patentable items-licensed items.

Mr. SPENCER. Yes.

Mr. FULTON. That is where the real opposition is, not in the people who do not have any particular business in the patent field at present? Mr. SPENCER. This is so.

Mr. FULTON. I compliment you on a good statement, and you tell the people at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that on my trip to California, I was pleasantly surprised and pleased, not only with the 'friendliness and courtesy with which I was received, but with the excellent setup they have and their good personnel.

Might I make the suggestion to you, though, under the bill that Congress passed yesterday, great institutions of higher learning, that the California Institute of Technology, particularly in reference to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, look at the chance to make some provision to move down off the hillsides and out of the bushes, because it

is simply amazing to me to find all the level land and orchards right below you, and quite an extensive area that was used simply for a riding academy.

That, to me, is certainly a striking example of the failure to use land for its best purposes. In order to break the ice, so that you can say Congress is insisting, and so you won't have trouble with your surrounding neighbors, I hope you will look into the possibility of acquiring the land below, rather than trying to put any more buildings up the hillsides at great expense and at great cost of energy and effort to everybody working there.

It is incredible to me you are so crowded in on a little hillside, when all this exists below you. One person said, well, we have enough trouble with our neighbors now; we don't want to stir that up. So you just report back if you will that Congress now brings pressure on the riding academy.

Mr. SPENCER. We will do that. We didn't belong there in the first place. We kind of sneaked in there and started a very small project and it sort of "grew like Topsy," and that is why it is the way it is. We would never have started out to plan a facility the size of that in the location it is in, of course.

Mr. FULTON. Well, we hope that will help you on your expansion. We certainly hope you can expand on more level pastures, than up on the hillsides.

Mr. DADDARIO. Kindy restrict your advice on that to Mr. Fulton, rather than the rest of Congress. I wouldn't want it to be known I was against riding academies, or perhaps the people who run that riding academy would think that is Congress' views.

Mr. FULTON. May I comment on that. Both the chairman and I have been at the University of Manchester, at Jodrell Bank, and one of the worst difficulties they have had in the operation of Jodrell' Bank, has been the neighbors and their objections, and not with the operation of the equipment or the machinery.

And so when I find a wonderful place I have heard so much about, like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, forced up on a hillside, and they came to Congress here last year and asked for more and steeper hillsides, had I known it, I would have been against your request, because all this level land right below you, and used by a lot of "fancy pants" and "redcoats," for jumping horses over these movie-type western rails that were never there to begin with-it insults my intelligence. Really, between science and jumping horses over rails, I think maybe we better help science.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Spencer, that is the real problem for you to wrestle with on your way back.

Mr. SPENCER. I will certainly do so.

Mr. DADDARIO. We have run out of time, but you have touched on what is a very important point and I will hit that and then if there are any other questions, I will get them to you, and if you will be kind enough to give me the answers, we will include them in the record later on.

Mr. SPENCER. I would be glad to.

Mr. DADDARIO. But you have been concerned as to how this patent provision in NASA may develop sometime in the future, and your

criticism goes to the fact that it depends on the man who is the administrator?

Mr. SPENCER. Too much so.

Mr. DADDARIO. And that this can, therefore, fluctuate with both the capacity of the man and his philosophy?

Mr. SPENCER. Right.

Mr. DADDARIO. You also touched on the fact because there is a waiver provision, that this waiver provision can be also given a strict or a loose type of construction.

Mr. SPENCER. In regard to the waiver. As it was first proposed to us, it has been unsatisfactory. We are working with NASA to see if a more satisfactory waiver cannot be provided.

Mr. DADDARIO. So this continues the questions that you have, the interpretation of it, and how you can adapt yourself to it?

Mr. SPENCER. This is correct.

Mr. DADDARIO. Certainly one of the results of it has been that you who have depended on finding licensees have had some difficulty insofar as NASA contracts-insofar as those products resulting from NASA contracts are concerned, because the manufacturer wants to stay away from them, being concerned with this particular feature?

Mr. SPENCER. There are some reservations in the waiver that have been found-the potential licensee has found unsatisfactory.

Mr. DADDARIO. The fact is, is it not, the waiver, itself, is an indication that in any patent policy, there has got to be some flexibility? Mr. SPENCER. That is correct.

Mr. DADDARIO. And then just one further point. You have, in the threads of your statement, and in answer to a question posed by Mr. Ryan, indicated that it is not a good thing to restrict the inventive opportunity, whether in Government or whether in industry?

Mr. SPENCER. This is certainly so.

Mr. DADDARIO. And you said that it has been your experience that inventions develop even within corporations in greater number, if there is a good corporate patent policy.

Mr. SPENCER. And administered properly.

Mr. DADDARIO. And properly administered.

This goes right down to the California Institute of Technology, in that you do try to create an atmosphere within which people can develop their inventive capacity to the fullest extent?

Mr. SPENCER. We have a double problem there, as you can appreciate, because of the fact that the faculty, itself, at the campus wants to deal in fundamental research.

When it comes to NASA, and the JPL, where there is more applied research, then the problem is more toward needing to expand invention.

Mr. DADDARIO. You have tried, however, to shape your patent policy to meet both of these?

Mr. SPENCER. This is true.

Mr. DADDARIO. Peculiar situations?

Mr. SPENCER. Right.

Mr. DADDARIO. As you have gone along, and as you have gotten into the situation where commercial products result more and more from your work, you have felt it was necessary to enlarge the opportunity of inventors to participate in the gains?

Mr. SPENCER. That is true.

80295-62-pt. 2— 6

Mr. DADDARIO. I would like to continue at greater length, and I will get some questions to you.

Your statement is an excellent one, and we appreciate very much having you here before the committee. You made a fine contribution. Mr. SPENCER. I will be in Washington this afternoon, and I will be here all day tomorrow.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Yeager and I will be getting together this afternoon on something else. If we do have an opportunity to get down to you, you will hear from us.

Mr. SPENCER. I will tell him where I can be reached.

Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you very much.

Mr. SPENCER. Thank you.

Mr. FULTON. May I add to that, you presented a very good state

ment.

Mr. DADDARIO. The committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, February 1, 1962.)

PATENT POLICIES RELATING TO AERONAUTICAL AND

SPACE RESEARCH

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS AND SCIENTIFIC INVENTIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario, presiding.

Mr. DADDARIO. The meeting will come to order.

We are pleased this morning to have as our witnesses the Deputy Attorney General, Byron R. White, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Judge Loevinger.

Before proceeding, I would like to turn the floor over for a moment to Judge Chenoweth.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It gives me unusual pleasure to welcome these witnesses this morning, Mr. Loevinger, and particularly Byron White, Deputy Attorney General of the United States. We are proud of Mr. White in Colorado. He achieved outstanding fame and distinction accorded very few of our citizens. First, his fame on the gridiron where he was an all-American football player; after that he played professional football a while, then Rhodes scholarship, and one of our leading attorneys in Denver.

Now he is recognized for his outstanding position by being called to Washington as Deputy Attorney General of the United States. As a member of this committee from Denver, I want to welcome you personally before our committee this morning.

Mr. WHITE. Judge, I appreciate your remarks. It is a pleasure to see you, and I hope we will see you more often.

Mr. DADDARIO. Judge, we in Connecticut have something to do with him, too, since he is a graduate of Yale Law School. Many friends who have gone to Yale Law School with him have remarked to the fine job he did there, especially playing professional football, being away from classes for a long period of time, and still graduating at the head or very near head of his class.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I was asking if Mr. White could figure out any way California could claim him.

Mr. DADDARIO. On occasions, I understand he has passed through California.

Mr. WHITE. That was home during the war.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I wanted to remind you it was the University of Colorado where he achieved his great distinction, which gave him the foundation to go to Yale. You aren't overlooking the University of Colorado?