the use of that patent right away. A great many of those things involve enormous expenditures. For instance, I happen to know they have got one proposition up now, some new invention for the simple and inexpensive manufacture of electric light bulbs and radio bulbs, which we are all very much interested in. I was told by the men who are engaged in getting this up-this is in the public interest, you understand-that the capital investment to start a thing of that kind to manufacture these things would be very expensive. (Thereupon discussion was had which the reporter was directed not to record.) General SQUIER. I would like to make a short statement. Mr. VESTAL. Please give your full name to the stenographer. STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. GEORGE O. SQUIER, UNITED STATES ARMY, RETIRED General SQUIER. My name is George O. Squier, major general, United States Army, retired. Mr. VESTAL. Go right ahead, General, and make your statement. General SQUIER. My attention has been called to the pending bill relative to the law of 1883, which, as you know, is the subject of the rights or lack of rights of officers of the Government or employees thereof. The bill, in my judgment, aims at the proper interpretation of the rights of the Government employees and, as such, I approved it. I wish to call your attention, however, to what would happen in case this bill should pass relative to all those thousands of young men who have acted in recent years, particularly since the war, upon the interpretation of the law of 1833, as given by the Judge Advocate General of the Army and the Attorney General of the United States in March, 1920. The matter of this law of 1883 had very little significance. It was very little known and used from the time of its passage up to the war. It seems to have been principally used in the Department of Agriculture, and certainly I, as an officer of the Government for 40 years, have never heard of it, and very few others had known of the existence of this law. It was practically not used much. At that time, however, patents became very important, and, as you all know, thousands of the young men came down to ordnance and aircraft in connection with national defense, and the patents of the Government employees became of pressing importance at once. These young men, in making these patents for national defense or otherwise, came to question the meaning of this law. "Why should I take out a patent? What does it mean? Do I have any rights at all, or what are my rights or lack of rights?" That situation became so pressing that I, being in charge of the Air Services of the United States and also Chief Signal Officer during the war, brought about an interpretation of this law by the then Judge Advocate General of the Army, Judge Ansell. Strange enough, this law had not been important enough to have been interpreted in those years past, as far as I could find. So the Judge Advocate General rendered an opinion holding that the three or four words "or to any other person "-that is not in this bill-did not mean anyone in the United States, but any other like person; in other words, he interpreted it to mean that the patent did belong to the Government or any of its employees or any contractor for the Governmentof course, it was perfectly free-but that if any private manufacturer started to operate the invention that was useful and started to manufacture it, he had to deal with the inventor himself, if the Government had no use for it. That was not satisfactory, in that it was only an opinion given by one department-the War Department; that it would not do because all the other departments were interested in the same, and the then patent board finally received a construction of this law by the Attorney General of the United States, Gregory. That confirmed this opinion and ruled that the law meant practically as this bill proposes, that the inventor did have such residue of rights, if there were any, after the Government got through with them, and that any one did not own them. The That being the authoritative opinion by the highest authority, every one proceeded on that basis. New orders were issued. Patent Office itself changed somewhat its rules in regard to those patents, and removed the words "dedicated to the public benefit," Every one proceeded along that line and that has been the Government practice since. Quite recently, however, a test case has come up in the Circuit Court of New York, in which Judge Knox has held contrary to the Attorney General of the United States, ruling that it did mean everybody. That decision, which is quite recent, has caused great confusion, you can imagine, in every department and if it holds as the law-which, of course, it does, as a court decision takes precedent over the Attorney General's opinion-we will have to go back again, reversed apparently, and start over again as we were before. I merely mention this to show the very great confusion that now exists in all departments of the Government, because inventors are very active at present, and no department is perfectly sure as to what the rights or lack of rights of any Government officer is. In the application of this invention matter in the different departments, investigation will disclose that there is lack of uniformity. misunderstanding and great confusion throughout the different departments, due to the fact that we do not know what that law means. Now, to correct that, which seems very desirable from any standpoint, and find out what the Government policy is, there would naturally be two ways: Either to amend this law, as this proposes, or to confirm the previous opinion of the other law, by carrying it to the Supreme Court. Those two methods are open to us. If we take this method, pass a new law, what will happen to hundreds and hundreds of young men who have taken out patents under the opinion of the Attorney General on the law of 1883, between 1920 and the present? These are a very large number, in fact, in one office of the War Department connected with aircraft, there is now pending no less than 500 cases which have been taken out under the understanding that the Attorney General's opinion on this law was correct; and all those young men would be left in the lerch because the law can not be retroactive, and we will have difficulty, I imagine, in passing a bill that does not take care in some way by some proviso of those young men who have acted in perfect good faith under the opinion of the highest authority and his interpretation of that act. My one thought I wish to bring is, therefore, that this law is good. I believe in it. But it must in some way provide for the young men in the present condition, which through no fault of their own whatever, conformed with every law, inquired of every authority and acted absolutely in good faith. The second way of deciding this, by taking the test case which is now up and carrying it to the Supreme Court, would settle it without any law at all. Then you would not need this law. Mr. LANHAM. Is this suit in contemplation, General? General SQUIER. Yes, sir; that test case is now up, and will be heard in the appellate court in March, and if the Government takes an interest in it-which I think they should, because it is their duty to define the laws of the United States-and carry it immediately to the Supreme Court, by next October we will have the whole thing settled. Mr. LANHAM. That depends on whether the Supreme Court makes the same decision as now? General SQUIER. Those two methods are for your judgment to determine, but I merely wish to plead for hundreds of young men in exactly this same position. Mr. LANHAM. I infer that your suggestion is that action be deferred on this pending the determination of that suit? General SQUIER. That is my judgment. I just lay it before you, and point out the fact that if this bill should come out of the House a lot of young men will say, "Why should this happen to us? We have been at no fault." You would correct the future, but you would leave this mass of young men in the lurch, and that nobody wants to do. So I doubt if the bill could pass in this form, simply because it does not take care of these people. That is all I have to say, gentlemen. Mr. VESTAL. General, you have read this bill, 11403, and know its contents? General SQUIER. Yes, sir. Mr. LANHAM. This is a subsequent bill. General SQUIER. The only one I have seen is the one that was introduced about two years ago. Commissioner ROBERTSON. This is a new one. General SQUIER. I had not seen this particular draft. Your secretary gave me the other one. But I was assuming that it practically left to the patentee his rights in the invention for any private use. Mr. Cook. I would like to ask the General whether he has any suggestions as to the language that would protect the rights of these other persons? General SQUIER. I could prepare some suggestions. I think that that should be done undoubtedly, or it will never pass, in my judgment, because I am one of the people and there are hundreds of others, that would naturally, as you see, be interested. Mr. Cook. Will you furnish us some language that would be necessary to protect these young men? General SQUIER. I will be very glad to do that. I am not a drawer of bills, but I would be very glad to do that. I am an inventor myself and have been advised different ways and have acted under different advice. I have some patents I am sure of and some I am not, due to the fog bank there is behind, this law. In fact, I have eight patents, and as to four, I know I am all right, and as to the other four I do not know. They were all taken out under exactly the same conditions and practically under the circumstances, and there I am. Mr. VESTAL. General, were you present at the time Colonel McMullen offered certain amendments to this bill? General SQUIER. I was not. I know Colonel McMullen very well, and I know his views in general. Mr. VESTAL. General, will you read that amendment as it is written in lead pencil there [handing copy of bill to General Squier]? General SQUIER. I would like a little time to look at this. Mr. VESTAL. The reason I wanted to call your attention to that is if you are going to furnish the committee, and I hope you will, your ideas about any proviso to take care of these hundreds of young men that you speak about that have obtained patents under the old law, also your idea as to the language so far in this bill and as to the amendment proposed by Colonel McMullen, this might be of assistance to you? General SQUIER. Yes, sir. I know Colonel McMullen, as I say, and I have conferred with him very frequently about this matter, and I know you will agree we are certainly in a fog bank now. Unless there are other questions, I have nothing more to say. This is a matter of considerable interest to me, as I happen to be in the test case under this law. Mr. VESTAL. The committee will be glad to give your suggestions on this other matter very careful consideration. I think that is all, General. Thank you very much. (Therefore, at 10.45 o'clock a. m., the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.) х |