« PreviousContinue »
H.R. 1934 and H.R. 6030
JANUARY 29, 31, FEBRUARY 1, 2, AND 8, 1962
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Astronautics
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1962
DAVID S. KING, Utah
JAMES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania
J. EDGAR CHENOWETH, Colorado
PERKINS BASS, New Hampshire
ALPHONZO BELL, California
PHILIP B. YEAGER, Staff Consultant
Giles, Robert E., General Counsel, Department of Commerce; accom-
panied by John C. Green, Director of the Office of Technical Services,
Reichard, Emerson S., Jr., vice president, administration; accompanied
White, Byron, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice.
PATENT POLICIES RELATING TO AERONAUTICAL AND
MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1962
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario presiding
Mr. DADDARIO. The meeting will come to order.
This morning we are opening the final week of hearings on H.R. 1934 and H.R. 6030, bills designed to amend the patent section of the National Aeronautics and Space Act.
These hearings are a continuation of those held last summer in an effort to gather current information from industry and from Gov. ernment which would be useful for us in our considerations here.
I would like to review the situation for just a moment.
The patent section of the Space Act has been the subject of considerable controversy ever since its enactment in July of 1958. This subcommittee, under Chairman Mitchell in the 86th Congress, held extensive hearings to determine whether a change was necessary and came up with a change which the administration approved and which the House passed in 1960.
The effect of the change was to liberalize the patent section so that the Space Administrator was given the option of acquiring title to inventions arising under NASA research contracts rather than being required to do so—subject only to possible waiver—as the law now prescribes. The members will recall that the Senate did not act on this bill; hence there has been no change in the law. The current bills before the subcommittee are in the same vein as the changes made by the House in the last Congress.
This subcommittee was reconstituted in the present Congress to consider the matter further. We have sought not to go over the same ground which the subcommittee went over under the chairmanship of Mr. Mitchell. We have endeavored during the course of these hearings to secure data which would substantiate the arguments and philosophies which were developed out of the hearings held by the subcommittee in 1959 and 1960. I think that the testimony and materials provided the subcommittee last summer will prove to be useful. I do not care to predict at this time what action the subcommittee may eventually take, but I think it is very clear that the hearings have shown us the extent of the complexity of this matter and how great an issue it is becoming. While we are concerned primarily