[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           PATENT PROTECTIONS

                                 ______


                           HON. DAVID DREIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 22, 1994

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, once again our throughful friend from 
Huntington Beach, Mr. Rohrabacher, has offered some incisive thoughts 
on U.S. patent protections. I commend it to our colleagues.

      [From the Journal of Commerce and Commercial, June 21, 1994]

                    Keeping U.S. Patent Protections

                         (By Dana Rohrabacher)

       America's greatest asset is not found in its vast natural 
     resources, or even its great universities. The mainspring of 
     our progress is due to our people's creative genius and 
     entrepreneurial spirit, and their willingness to invent, 
     innovate and change.
       America has led the world in revolutionary inventions such 
     as the airplane, transistor and microprocessor. These, in 
     turn, have created jobs, brought tremendous increases in our 
     national output and lifted our standard of living. In large 
     part, these results are due to America's recognition and 
     protection of intellectual property.
       Now there is a proposal that puts that protection in 
     jeopardy. In the name of harmonization, foreign governments 
     are pressuring our government to fundamentally change the 
     patent rules that have served us so well.
       The legislation, S. 1854, contains some of the worst 
     aspects of Japanese and European patent law. It would, in 
     essence, get the legal protection of our most innovative 
     citizens, disenfranchising them from the benefits of their 
     own creativity. It is a rip-off of American rights that 
     should be opposed.
       The American patent system is different from the European 
     and Japanese patent systems, and we should not try to be more 
     like them.
       American patents are valid for 17 years after issue. They 
     are kept confidential during the application process and 
     cannot be contested until after issuance.
       By contrast, European and Japanese patents have a life of 
     20 years after filing, are not condifential throughout the 
     application procedure and can be challenged throughout that 
     process.
       One of the most frightening elements of this debate is that 
     the White House is on the wrong side. According to Rufus 
     Yerxa, deputy U.S. trade representative, the Clinton 
     administration advocates changing the term of patent 
     protection from 17 years after grant to 20 years after filing 
     an application.
       In Europe and Japan--and in the United States, if S. 1854 
     passes--the clock starts immediately at filing, and the 
     patent application is published shortly afterwards. So what? 
     So competitors are encouraged to copy and to oppose patents.
       Patent applications on major innovations in Japan are often 
     vigorously challenged by large companies, which can afford a 
     battery of attorneys to pour over documents looking for 
     weakness. The onus is on the creator to defend his invention.
       Under the American system, the invention is kept 
     confidential until the patent is issued. After that, the 
     burden of proof is on the challengers to prove their case.
       Similarly, when a Japanese inventor files a patent 
     application on a major invention, it is not uncommon to 
     witness a flood of patent applications on small-improvement 
     ``inventions'' that essentially make minor changes in the 
     breakthrough technology.
       Through this whittling-away process, the financial rewards 
     enjoyed by the original patent holder are substantially 
     reduced. The deflated incentives for the Japanese to invent 
     and patent revolutionary new products have ensured that 
     Japan's industrial system is oriented to mere incremental 
     developments.
       By contrast, the American system is conscientious about 
     protecting innovators by prohibiting the patenting of obvious 
     variations in newly developed technology.
       An American patent has an assured life of 17 years. It can 
     be challenged, but only after it has issued and become 
     enforceable and, as stated, the burden of proof is then on 
     the challenger. As a result, Americans have had the incentive 
     to forge ahead and develop the many revolutionary inventions 
     that have made America a technology leader.
       The hope that a revolutionary patent will recoup a large 
     return to the inventor provides our nation with a ready 
     source of capital for research and development of totally new 
     products and technologies. A strong patent policy thus 
     accomplishes more good than all the government sponsored 
     jobs, technology transfer programs and other industrial 
     policy schemes could ever hope to do. The American system 
     works, and we are better for it.
       Our people's well-being has been tied to new inventions 
     since the days of the cotton gin, the reaper and the electric 
     light. At the end of World War II, for example, there was 
     tremendous concern about our economy's ability to create 
     enough jobs for returning veterans. However, the invention 
     of the transistor in 1948 made possible the aerospace, 
     consumer electronics and computer industries, which in 
     turn employed tens of millions of workers.
       Today, as in yesteryear, America cannot take prosperity and 
     progress for granted. We should absolutely not degrade our 
     people's patent rights in the name of harmonization with 
     other lands.
       The protection of our inventors afforded by our 
     intellectual property laws had enabled the genius of the U.S. 
     inventor to develop bold new ideas and technology, which have 
     provided our workers with jobs, kept our country competitive, 
     and maintained our high standard of living.
       Benjamin Franklin, an inventor and champion of American 
     liberty, once lamented, ``I have sometimes almost wished it 
     had been my destiny to be born two or three centuries hence. 
     For invention and improvement are prolific, and beget more of 
     their kind. Many of great importance, now unthought of, will 
     before that period be produced; and then I might not only 
     enjoy their advantage, but have my curiosity gratified in 
     knowing what they are to be.'' This reflects the faith 
     Americans have had in a better future. It is part of our 
     character.
       America is and should continue to be the land of individual 
     freedom. This emphasis, starting with Benjamin Franklin and 
     Thomas Jefferson (also an inventory), has served us well, 
     both in the political and economic arenas.
       Changing that emphasis now to harmonize with societies like 
     Japan, which stress conformity and distrust individualism, 
     would be a fundamental mistake. We should be strengthening, 
     not weakening, our protection of the rights of creators and 
     innovators as we enter the new technological age. That's what 
     will ensure a better tomorrow.

                          ____________________