Page images
PDF
EPUB

citizen can understand. But apparently the patent lawyers can'tyou're not a lawyer, I hope, sir.

Senator LONG. I am a lawyer by profession.

Senator SCHMITT. But I'm not, Admiral. The author of the bill before you is not. He's a geologist.

Admiral RICKOVER. I'm sorry to learn you're a lawyer, Senator. You are a rare breed—a lawyer who can also see the truth. I don't mind if you use that in your campaign if you wish, sir.

Many of the problems we have today are fomented by lawyers. If we didn't have so many lawyers, we wouldn't have these problems. Many of them create the problems and then make money by proposing solutions.

Of course, what you said makes sense, Senator Long. When the Westinghouse engineer develops something, he doesn't get anything for it. He's paid by Westinghouse and, as you say, Westinghouse is paid by the Government. Why isn't the Government treated exactly the same way? That's all there is to it. I could testify for months on this subject, but you have said it all very succinctly. Senator LONG. Well, basically, isn't this about the same thing, as though the Government pays a highway contractor to build a highway; then after he builds a highway you say, "Now all right; you can keep the highway and you can either charge the public to use the highway if you want to or deny them the right to use it entirely," even though the public paid the whole cost of it.

Admiral RICKOVER. Yes, sir. It is the equivalent of the man who built the highway saying, "Now that I have built the highway it belongs to me and I'm going to charge the Government to put vehicles on this road.”

Senator LONG. Wouldn't it be about the same principle as if we said for our new Senate building, "We'll pay for it. Go ahead and build the Senate office building," and after he gets through building it he owns the building and we have to pay rent if we want to use it?

Admiral RICKOVER. The unfortunate thing is that you and I think alike, Senator Long. Perhaps I could run for the Senate on that basis. The patent system is that simple. I don't understand why Congress have these hearings every year to cover the same ground. The same points are brought up and yet the same legislation is introduced every year which will give these rights away. Senator LONG. We hear the argument that if you're going to get somebody to use one of these patents that he's going to have to have a monopoly. Now basically, what you're talking about with a patent is somebody has an idea. It's a way of doing something. It works and he's the fellow who puts the idea to work. Now if it's in the public domain, can you explain to me why people wouldn't use it? It's just like saying if you can develop a better mousetrap and if people want to trap mice, why wouldn't they go ahead and make a better mousetrap?

Admiral RICKOVER. The reason is because most patents aren't worth much. Those that are worth something are used. One of the things I mentioned in my statement was that the Government could put out for competitive bidding the patent rights to those Government-owned patents which are not being used.

Senator LONG. It's also suggested that somebody might not be interested in doing research for the Government if he can't get a private patent.

Admiral RICKOVER. I have not found that to be the case in my experience with contractors. I hear that argument all the time. In my career, I have not found one single instance of a company refusing Government work because it could not receive patent rights.

Senator LONG. It seems to me one simple answer-I would have no objection to saying, all right, if we want some type research done let's open it up and let those who would like to participate make their proposition and some fellow says, "I'm the best man to do it but I'm only going to do it if I have a patent monopoly," and then let that fellow make the offer on that basis and see if we are so hard up for contractors in that case to consider his proposition. Admiral RICKOVER. I thoroughly agree, sir.

Senator LONG. It occurs to me there might be some situation like that, but I think he ought to bear the burden of proof. If he's the only fellow who's qualified and he had all sorts of proprietary information he could start with so he is the best, and if he could make a case, I wouldn't object. But to take the kind of thing where you have plenty of competent contractors who would like to have the business and let the public fully have the benefit-

Admiral RICKOVER. And as I said, Senator, I have not found one single case where the issue of patents was the determining factor of whether a company accepted a Government contract, and I'm talking about thousands of different contractors over a period of many, many years. I haven't found this to be true.

Senator LONG. Is this bill providing a limitation on just how much the successful contractor can charge the public for what the public has already paid for?

Admiral RICKOVER. No, sir, it does not.

Senator LONG. In other words, if some fellow found a much better light bulb that provided at one-quarter of the energy twice as much light, conceivably a patent and a monopoly to such an invention might be worth $500 million. Goodness knows what it might be worth. Is there any limitation in this proposal as to how much he could charge the public to have the benefit of what the public had already paid for when they paid for the research? Admiral RICKOVER. I don't believe there is. I might say, in this connection that I have been in the atomic energy field now for many years and I have been able to get the large companies to work together on these things and to exchange information with no patents involved at all. The patents all belong to the people. I have never once given anybody the right to patents. In fact, I have developed some things myself. I turned the rights-which I could have patented and made money on, over to the Government.

Senator LONG. Suppose, Admiral Rickover, somebody working in atomic research could show up with a brilliant idea. Say, he actually found a way whereby instead of using this atomic power to heat water and then use the water to turn a turbine and the turbine to generate electricity, suppose he found a way where you could put that atomic power directly into that copper wire and just transmit it right on to the public and reduce the cost of delivering that

power to the public down to 1 percent of what it costs today. And that is conceivable, is it not?

Admiral RICKOVER. The idea that you mentioned has been considered, Senator. But here's the answer to your question. If you were employed by the Government or by a contractor working for the Government, the right to that invention inheres in the Government.

Senator LONG. But here's the point I'm getting at, because a person who once served on the Atomic Energy Commission-incidentally, he was a general manager or had an important position. He mentioned to me that some day we would learn how to put the power directly into the conductor rather than have to use it to produce heat and then use the heat to heat water and the water to turn the turbine and so forth. Then he said, "Such a breakthrough would mean atomic power would just displace much of the power we use today when you heat water as you do in an ordinary generating plant."

Now let's say a brilliant scientist over there should actually develop such an idea and show you how it could be made to work. Well, if such a proposal was implemented as suggested in this bill, that fellow wouldn't get it, would he? He would be an employee. Admiral RICKOVER. No, sir, he would not get it. You see, this is another common misconception. The misconception is that the man who gets an idea should get the credit for it. It just isn't so. It's the man who develops it. The idea is easy. For instance, a man has an idea that he should run for Senator. But the idea is not what gets him elected. It's the campaign that does it. Who should receive credit: the man who only has an idea he ought to be a Senator or the man who actually runs for the Senate? That's the analogy I make.

Senator LONG. Here's the point I had in mind. The people who actually did the work would not be the ones who would get the monopoly advantage. They just get their salary.

Admiral RICKOVER. That's right, sir.

Senator LONG. It's the employer who gets the Government contract who gets all this and it's the public who has to pay the price for it-one time for the research and development, and a second time for the next 17 years to have the benefit of what they have already paid for.

Admiral RICKOVER. You're absolutely right, the public would pay the price and the contractor would benefit. Generally, the most an inventor, who is an employee, would receive is an award—not the patent rights.

The basis for Government patent policy should be very simple. A patent to an invention developed under a Government contract should belong to the Government. To refer back to what I mentioned at the very beginning of my testimony, the basis of the present patent laws was to encourage the individual, who, on his own time, with his own money, developed an idea, and even then to limit that monopoly to 17 years. It was not intended to protect large corporations.

If an employee of a Government contractor invents something on his own time that is not connected with his job, that person should receive the patent rights. But any invention developed in connec

tion with his job should belong to the Government and be freely available to the public.

Senator LONG. Senator Schmitt.

Senator SCHMITT. Well, Mr. Chairman and Admiral Rickover, my rebuttal is contained in the testimony of all those who have come before you in now 3 days of hearings-small business, large business, medium-sized business, academia, Government patent lawyers, geologists-almost all the witnesses have felt differently than you do, but I do respect your opinion.

Admiral RICKOVER. Don't you think there's a good reason for that, Senator? They want something for themselves. That's the reason. I don't want anything for myself.

Senator SCHMITT. That's the best motivation there—

Admiral RICKOVER. Senator, I want it for the people of this country. That's the difference between me and those people.

Senator SCHMITT. That's the best motivation there is, that is, to see that these inventions produced by the taxpayer in a direct sense in fact benefit the taxpayer, not only because they are consumers and can have access to these inventions which they do not have access to now in any real sense, but also as the chairman well knows, any profits that are made are taxed and the Federal coffers receive the benefits of those taxes.

Admiral RICKOVER. Well, how about any workman who gets paid? He's taxed too. So what's the difference?

Senator SCHMITT. That's absolutely correct, but at the present time these patents that the Government holds are not being utilized. The testimony is extremely precise that they are just not being utilized and we have to ask ourselves why aren't they being utilized.

Admiral RICKOVER. Senator, I addressed the issue of why they aren't being utilized. The reason is probably because they're not worth much. I suggested that if no interest is expressed in a patent after publicly advertising it, the patent could be put up for public bid. I'm all for that.

Senator SCHMITT. The testimony and the facts that we have been presented with in this committee are I think very persuasive that without the exclusive license, or without title more appropriately, the private sector is just not going to do that.

Admiral RICKOVER. There is a possibility of getting the exclusive rights. If after advertising the availability of nonexclusive licenses to a patent, no interest is expressed, the rights to the patent could be thrown open to competitive bidding. I'm not against that, not at all, sir.

Senator SCHMITT. Well, Admiral, I certainly respect your long involvement in this business and I just think that those of us who are coming along behind you feel that the present system has not worked. The evidence is becoming clearer and clearer there ought to be a system in which both the rights of the public and the Government are protected but at the same time we reap the benefits of the technology.

Admiral RICKOVER. What is the evidence that it's not working, Senator? I would like to see the evidence.

Senator SCHMITT. Well, the evidence, sir, is in 3 days of hearings before this committee.

it.

Admiral RICKOVER. I would very much like to see it.

Senator SCHMITT. And I would strongly recommend that you read

Admiral RICKOVER. I would like to see the facts supporting the position that a patent is not being used because the Government owns it, sir.

Senator SCHMITT. The facts are clear and they are in the testimony before this committee even today.

Admiral RICKOVER. I have not had the opportunity, but I would like very much to comment on that testimony, sir.

Senator SCHMITT. I hope you will. As a matter of fact, Senator Long had to leave, but he has a set of questions that he would like very much to have you answer for the record, and I would add to those a few more.

Admiral RICKOVER. Yes, sir.

Senator SCHMITT. Plus clearly draw your attention to our record because there is, in my opinion, very persuasive evidence.

Admiral RICKOVER. You made a very provocative remark, sir. I think I owe it to you and to your committee to reply to that. Senator SCHMITT. I certainly would draw your attention to all of the testimony and particularly that of Mr. Rabinow today and his previous testimony, but also those of the business community, the Government, the Department of Defense who testified earlier today. Almost all of the witnesses have indicated the present system is not working and inventions and ideas that should be in the private sector are not there. As a result, the consumer is not benefiting, as well as the taxpayers aren't benefiting.

Admiral RICKOVER. I agree that I'd like to look at that and comment, because I cannot answer these issues unless I know what they are.

I would like to make the point about the relative reduction in the number of patents. After World War II there were more patents filed made in this country than other countries because they were war weary. But you've got to understand that as the industrialized countries reestablished themselves more foreign patents would be filed. One of the reasons is that taking Europe collectively there are more scientists and engineers. Futhermore, Europeans are better educated. Their top schools are better than most of ours. For instance, the French École Polytechnique turns out some very good people. There are good schools now in all the continental European countries, and since they have a larger number of engineers collectively, you should expect a greater number of patents. The United States turned out more engineers and scientists for a certain period of time because Europe was war weary and beaten. We should have expected an increase in foreign patents.

Senator SCHMITT. Well, thank you, Admiral. I'm sorry that we cannot agree on this because I'm sure we agree on most of the issues that you're directly concerned with in your great efforts with respect to naval nuclear power.

Admiral RICKOVER. Mr. Chairman, you earlier asked if I could look at the volumes of testimony. I would appreciate it if your staff would point out the specific parts that they want my comments on because you know we have our regular work to do. This is not part of my proper work. I do it as a public service.

« PreviousContinue »