[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1512-H1513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SUBMARINE PATENTING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Coble] and I, 
who have disagreement, have great great respect for one another; and I 
am very happy to have the gentleman from North Carolina as an admired 
adversary on this particular bill. Although we agree on 90 percent of 
everything else, we strongly disagree on this particular bill. And I am 
very pleased that we can do this in the spirit of friendship. I thank 
the gentleman.
  Just a couple thoughts about the battle that will take place here on 
the floor of the House of Representatives on Thursday. It is a battle 
between two different distinct points of view as to what direction our 
country should go in terms of patents.
  There are several issues at stake. One of the issues is not submarine 
patenting. The submarine patenting which is being used as an excuse to 
pass all kinds of other things within a bill is not a factor in this 
debate.
  The Congressional Research Service has found that my substitute, the 
Rohrabacher substitute, as well as the bill of the gentleman from North 
Carolina, [Mr. Coble] bill, H.R. 400, will end the practice of 
submarine patenting.
  This was found by an independent body that examined both of our 
pieces of legislation and came to the conclusion that the practice of 
submarine patenting, which was of limited importance to begin with, 
will be put to an end forever in both of our bills.

[[Page H1513]]

                              {time}  1945

  So both of our bills handled the problem, as described by an 
independent analysis. Obviously there are other issues at stake. Many 
of the things that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] has 
described tonight I agree with. And I, in fact, agreed to put almost 
every one of those things into my substitute bill or agreed to support 
his legislation, if those things were continued to be in the bill 
except for the three major differences between us. There are three 
differences between the Rohrabacher substitute and H.R. 400, what I 
call the Steal American Technologies Act.
  Those differences being, H.R. 400, which will be coming to a vote 
here, which was originally called the Patent Publication Act, its No. 1 
goal is mandating that American patents, whether or not they have been 
issued, a patent application, will be published after 18 months so that 
every thief in the world, every person who wants to bring down our 
standard of living, every one of our economic adversaries will know all 
of our new technological ideas and secrets even before the patent is 
issued.
  This problem is handled by H.R. 400 by saying, OK, if the Chinese or 
the Japanese or other thieves around the world steal the patent from 
the American inventor after 18 months, once that patent is issued, let 
us say 5 years later, that inventor now will have the right to sue the 
Japanese corporation or the Chinese corporation. The People's 
Liberation Army is stealing a lot of intellectual property rights. 
Imagine an American inventor trying to sue the People's Liberation 
Army.
  This is a joke. This is not protection for the American people. This 
is a giveaway of American technology, and even the most unsophisticated 
person can see we do not give away our secrets until that patent is 
issued. That has been our right, and this bill H.R. 400 will take it 
away.
  The second thing that will be in the bill that we have disagreed on, 
the other things we do agree on, we can correct those, is 
reexamination. This bill opens the door to actually making all kinds of 
new challenges against existing patents so Americans who own patents 
who now had very little, there is very little opportunity to challenge 
their ownership of current patents, will find that they are vulnerable 
to challenges from large corporations, foreign and domestic.
  Our little guys, those small companies, are going to be tied up for 
years with litigation by people who are challenging their patent rights 
of a patent they already supposedly own.
  Finally, the patent office has been part of the U.S. Government since 
the founding of our country. It is written into our Constitution. There 
has never been a scandal dealing with the patent examiners because they 
have been insulated from all outside influences.
  This bill would corporatize the American patent office. It would take 
it out of the government as a government agency and make it a 
semiprivate, semigovernment corporation. Does that make any difference? 
We do not know what difference it will make.
  This corporate entity will have the right to take gifts from foreign 
corporations and domestic corporations. It will have the right to 
accept money and gifts and in-kind services. And unlike other 
government agencies, there will be no rules. The rules are waived 
against this new corporate entity, the Patent Office, in controlling 
where those gifts are spent.
  This is dangerous. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 
400, the Steal American Technologies Act, and supporting the 
Rohrabacher substitute.

                          ____________________