Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee may not have enough time this morning to ask you all the questions suggested by your presentation. If not, I suggest that after the adjournment of the meeting today, we try to determine whether a subsequent time can be arranged for us to get together.

Dr. HOLLOMON. We are always ready to come back.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. In any event, I am sure that as subsequent testimony is presented, additional questions will arise which will need to be posed to you.

Dr. Holloman, as one who is not particularly knowledgeable about patent law, I wonder whether, in the views expressed by the unanimous court in Graham v. John Deere Corporation is generally held by those who practice patent laws; namely, that the system was intended primarily to serve the interests of the public and not primarily as a protection for the inventor as a monopoly?

Dr. HOLLOMON. I don't know whether, Mr. Chairman, that that is a generally held view. It has been consistently held for many, many years by many people who are knowledgeable in the patent system, and it was reaffirmed by the unanimous decision of the court.

I think it is important to the deliberations of this committee to keep that very matter in mind as one proceeds, because I think it goes partly to the root of the problem. You have a system which on the one hand, clearly stimulates the bringing of innovation to the publicnew products and processes-by virtue of giving a limited monopoly. On the other hand, it also is requested under the Constitution, that this information be made available to the public.

I think many of the different views with respect to appropriate law are derived perhaps from some misinterpretation of the real balanced thrust of what the patent system attempts to accomplish. It is essential, it seems to me, for you and this committee to consider seriously the degree to which the present patent system does in fact, make information properly available.

Now, I cannot say what all people think about the patent system, but I do feel very strongly myself, that there are two aspects of the problem.

One is to give the inventor a limited monopoly but secondly, to make that information available to other inventors and other people so they can build on the technology.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Hollomon, it was testified that at present the patent system has a backlog of 200,000 applications that are 211⁄2 years, on an average, behind.

To what extent, without basic changes in the system, would it be possible through technology or through added personnel, to bring the system relatively up to date?

Dr. HOLLOMON. I don't think that the Commission's or the Administration's or the inventors' desire here is only to get rid of the backlog. I really believe that the ways in which research and development and technology are done the degree to which we participate in world matters and international trade-are different than the situation 50 years ago, and we always undergo long lags in our society before we adjust to changing circumstances.

I don't view the present bill as aimed primarily at eliminating the backlog. We have made some reduction in backlog in the last few

90-355-68-pt. 1- -9

years. It is my view that if we could hire people fast enough, which is not limited wholly by money but also by the availability of people, particularly in these times where technical people are being competed for by many parts of the society, with adequate funds and appropriate administration, I think we could gradually take care of the backlog. But I don't really think that is the problem, I never have felt that that was the problem.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. That would be an incidental benefit of the change? Dr. HOLLOMON. That would be an incidental benefit of the change, but I don't believe that is the appropriate basis of the change. The problem of the backlog at the moment simply adds to the problem of not making the information available. Whether we had a backlog or not, under this newly proposed legislation, with the publication afteris it 18 to 24 months-information would be available to the public, backlog or no. I think that is a more important proposal than whether we get rid of the backlog.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I have a different question.

I am wondering to what extent you considered the political difficulties that might arise from asking thousands of practitioners, thousands of companies, industrial units and others who use patents, to conform to radical changes in practice?

What was your evaluation of that factor, as you devised this new system you offered today?

Dr. HOLLOMON. Well, first, I would like to make clear for the record that I did not devise it. Neither did Ed Brenner, here.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The President's Commission.

Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. You speak as an advocate of it.

Dr. HOLLOMON. I speak clearly as an advocate of it, yes.

I think the Commission did in fact, take this into account. I think always, the Congress particularly, has to take into account, the best balanced interest of the public. I know of no piece of legislation of any significance that does not hurt somebody temporarily. I just don't think it is possible to make a change in the way in which we operate the system, without having somebody discombobulated in some way. There are people who practice in the patent system at the present time who will have to learn new rules and new techniques which will have to be employed, and there will be a short term cost to those people; but when I look at the possibility, for example, which I have great optimism in, of having the essence of an international patent. system look at our problems and flow of technology around the world and say, "Are these steps," for example, and not that this is the most important thing, "worth while in those terms."

I look at the estimated $150 to $200 million that foreign patent protection is costing U.S. businessmen currently-that is what it is costing them in duplicated foreign filing-that we are not getting this information out to the public, promptly; that we have extraordinary costs on interference procedures; and that there is uncertainty of the validity of the patent because we don't know which court to depend on, and therefore, the man who owns the patent really does not know what he has got.

I say therefore, those values, in my own view, far and away exceed what I am sure is going to be some costs on the part of the people

who are engaged, particularly the specialists who engage in the patent

art.

I think that is true in any kind of legislation we ever pass. That is why I think it is so important that these changes and procedures not be sort of negotiated within the administration. You know, we have been asked to say, well, why have we not had long time negotiation between Mr. Brenner and the patent bar and others, to come up with a more consensus kind of supporting bill before we go to Congress. I think that would be a huge mistake, because I think the Congress has got to weigh these benefits, and costs to the public, and it is my own personal view that the discombobulation of local costs will be far outweighed by the benefits.

For instance, let me put it this way.

I am just as sure, if the United States had adopted in 1836-whatever it is the first-to-file procedure, let's suppose, rather than first-toinvent, we had the first-to-file regulation in the patent legislation of 1836, I am just as sure that there would be just as many people opposed to going to the first-to-invent today, as who conversely are in that situation. I am just as sure of it as I can be, because it changes the ground rules, and that is a very difficult thing to do.

We had the same problem on traffic safety legislation; we have the same problem on anything in which you have to look at the public interest as over and against that of particular private interests, and I don't know-the only thing I can say to you is that we weighed this as carefully as we could and really, on a nonpartisan basis. Congressman Poff called it nonpartisan. I don't see anything partisan about this bill, this proposal, in any sense whatsoever.

The administration weighed these factors as carefully as it could and said, the costs are far outweighed by the benefits. Therefore, we should proceed.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Dr. Hollomon, in a different field, the international field, I assume that the judgment was made that it would be an obvious benefit to American industry to update the law with respect to American patent protection abroad and I know that you have been engaged in international conferences.

Last night, however, on a national network show, there was 1 hour on how Europe regards the United States. Part of the thesis of that 1 hour was that there is fear abroad of economic overpenetration by the United States in Europe.

Dr. HOLLOMON. Correct.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. How would Europeans regard a law which enables American business with greater facility to get the patent protec tion in Europe?

Dr. HOLLOMON. There are two aspects to that question.

One is, our present law, obviously acts in practice in a way which is detrimental and unfair to Europeans with respect to getting patents in the United States.

Their priority runs from the first-to-foreign-filing, rather than the first-to-invent, and we act in a way which some have felt is prejudicial to the European.

I believe that Europeans feel-and Ed Brenner can speak to thiswith unanimous consent, the countries he is working with in trying to get a universal law, that the advantages to them of reducing this