properly revoked. And if somebody attempted to revoke it, it would not be effective as a revocation unless it was properly done.

Mr. HAMMER. The only reason we keep some of these governmental agencies here in the District of Columbia at all is the fear we might abolish the charter.

Mr. NEAGLE. I don't know.

Mr. ROBERTSON. These patents are only for 17 years at most, you know; so that they revoke themselves automatically at the end of 17 years.

Mr. NEAGLE. That is, of course, true.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand, Mr. Neagle, your understanding of the opinion of the Attorney General is that you may grant a nonrevocable license?

Mr. NEAGLE. No; that is not my view.

Mr. GOODWIN. A revocable license?

The CHAIRMAN. I got it he referred to a nonrevocable license.

Mr. NEAGLE. What I said is this-at least what I meant to saythat he says we may grant a revocable license, but does not say we may not grant a nonrevocable license, and that question was a little bit ambiguous from his decision; that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. But do you believe you can grant a nonrevocable license without further authority than now exists?

Mr. NEAGLE. That is at the least very questionable that we can and, if I were called on to advise the Secretary of the Navy on that matter, I should say he could not do it. I would feel I was playing safe, anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe the Government ought to have the right to grant an exclusive license, or to grant a nonrevocable license, if in the interest of the public it was wise to do so?

Mr. NEAGLE. In the public interest; yes, sir; I should say it ought to be done by all means.

The CHAIRMAN. That it ought to be given to them?

Mr. NEAGLE. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the purpose, of course, of this legislation. Now whether it is drawn in correct form, or not, that is the purpose of the legislation. You are not opposed to that purpose?

Mr. NEAGLE. Oh, no; that is a matter of public policy that personally I think would be very wise; but I have no view to express for the Navy Department on the matter at all.

Mr. HAMMER. Under what circumstances would it be in the public interest?

Mr. WEFALD. That is what I would like to know, too. I can not visualize it.

Mr. NEAGLE. It has happened in some cases that an invention has been made by somebody in the Government service and he has no money to develop it, has no right to develop it, because it belongs to the Government; and the Government will not develop it, is not authorized by any law to develop it, so that it will be useful in commerce. The only way to get it into commerce for general use is to give to some individual who is able to exploit it the power to exploit if for a compensation.

Mr. HAMMER. In other words, make that certain for them which is uncertain for almost everybody else on God's earth. Take the rains: The rains and seasons make the crops, but the farmers are not guar

anteed and the manufacturer is not guaranteed. His dam may break; lightning may strike his plant. But here we propose to guarantee to these people, that the Government issues these licenses to under Government patents, an absolute guarantee they will not be interfered with and they can go on and do as they please without being under the Interstate Commerce Commission or anything else and charge, under their own sweet will, anything they choose under the circumstances.

Mr. NEAGLE. I did not say they should be turned loose on the public at any price.

Mr. HAMMER. I know you did not. You do not want them to be? Mr. NEAGLE. No. They should have exclusive licenses; but there should be, as has been suggested, some control of their price.

Mr. HAMMER. That is the important matter, to have some control of the price.

Mr. NEAGLE. To have an invention developed by the Government, practically

Mr. HAMMER. What do you think of this-under such terms and conditions as he may by regulation establish to be in the public interest? Does not that give power?

Mr. NEAGLE. That would give power to regulate the compensation received by the Government for the license.

Mr. HAMMER. Also nonrevocable licenses?

Mr. NEAGLE. The compensation to be charged by the manufacturer, seller or vendor, and the revocation of it, and the exclusive character of it.

Mr. MCLEOD. This bill is based on certain cases, is it not, or one individual case? Wasn't there probably a certain individual case brought to the attention of you or somebody else?

Mr. NEAGLE. No. I did not have anything to do in handling the drafting of it at all. So far as I have been informed, it came from the War Department.

Mr. MCLEOD. What suggested it, then? Wasn't it suggested by some case coming to light where this legislation is necessary?

Mr. NEAGLE. Several cases.

Mr. MCLEOD. What are they?

Mr. NEAGLE. The latest one, I think, was something in the Bureau of Mines. Somebody there invented something that was very useful in saving lives in cases of explosions in mines.

Mr. MCLEOD. Couldn't they have that patented?

Mr. NEAGLE. Yes; it could be patented, of course; but the trouble there was to get somebody to manufacture the thing and put it on the market without an exclusive license. Nobody was interested in doing that, because he said, "If I were to put $500,000 in a plant to exploit and produce this thing, and then somebody else comes along and has the right to sell the same thing, and I advertise it and exploit it so that it will be worth something to me, then another man can come along and take it away from me-profit by my expenditures without cost to himself I don't want it." It is simply a matter of compensation, anyway; profit on investment. I want to go to the extent of an exclusive nonrevokable license.

Mr. MCLEOD. Who could take it away from him, if it was already patented?

Mr. NEAGLE. I do not mean that; I mean if the Government did not give him an exclusive license.

Mr. GOODWIN. It seems to me it is simply this: There are some patents publicly owned that are a valuable utility; they will never be given to the public unless there is legislation providing for the issuance of nonrevocable licenses.

Mr. NEAGLE. Yes; because the manufacturers will not take it up and put their money into it, unless they can feel reasonably sure of getting a profit.

Mr. WEFALD. But this bill is wide open.

Mr. GOODWIN. Wide open except in the sense that the regulations may be so drafted as to protect the public and protect the licensees and protect the Government.

Mr. NEAGLE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It is all given there, I think, in this bill; that is, authority is granted to this commission to put in all these safeguards. Mr. NEAGLE. Yes.

Mr. WEFALD. But under this bill, as it is drafted now, a patent having to do with expolsives-a thing that the Government, of course, would not or should not surrender-could even be surrendered

Mr. NEAGLE. It should not be; yes.

Mr. WEFALD. To a private company to exploit. I do not believe in anything of that kind.

Mr. MCLEOD. This individual in the Bureau of Mines could patent that proposition himself and could let the Government use it on any basis he saw fit, could he not?

Mr. NEAGLE. No; if he patents it, there the question is whether it belongs to the Government. Usually it does. He could get a patent on it, but the Government would have such control over it that he could not exploit it for his own personal use.

Mr. MCLEOD. There must be some regulation regarding that whereby he can turn it over to a manufacturer under Government supervision?

Mr. NEAGLE. That is very much tied up.

Mr. MCLEOD. In order words, any individual working for the Government who discovers something or wants to patent something and does patent it, it is then controlled by the Government exclusively; is that correct?

Mr. NEAGLE. With the reservation that in the Bureau of Mines, for instance, where they have men employed who are engaged in developing apparatus to meet the requirements for a particular purpose, where a man is assigned to a duty of that sort and paid by the Government and he makes an invention, the rule established by the courts is it belongs to the Government.

Mr. MCLEOD. That is because that is part of this man's work, to help develop those certain things?

Mr. NEAGLE. That is what he is hired for and he is assigned to those duties. For instance, if I would make an invention in my duty, which does not relate to the Government except on legal matters if I make an invention relating to a piece of artillery, airships, or any other invention, it belongs to me and I can patent it and control it.

Mr. MCLEOD. For the reason you are not being paid by the Government to work on those lines and develop certain things?

22787-26- -2

Mr. NEAGLE. That is right.

Mr. MCLEOD. But the Government feels they are paying men to develop things and to work out something, perhaps, which they are being paid for?

Mr. NEAGLE. Yes; and there is the use of other employees.

Mr. MCLEOD. Therefore you are making an exception for the man in the Government service. Now where a man might be working for the Ford Motor Co., along the same line you are talking, his invention would be owned or controlled by the Ford Motor Co.? Mr. NEAGLE. Yes.

Mr. MCLEOD. That is the case to-day, is it not, Commissioner? Mr. ROBERTSON. This relates only to patents owned by the Government itself; it does not relate to patents owned by the individual.

Mr. MCLEOD. These patents I speak of would be owned by the Ford Motor Co., because this man is being paid by the Ford Motor Co.

Mr. NEAGLE. Yes; and Ford could make an agreement with him to allow him to dispose of it in any way they wanted to. Mr. MCLEOD. It would be up to Ford, though?

Mr. NEAGLE. Oh, yes.

Mr. MCLEOD. The Government would have nothing to do with it? Mr. NEAGLE. Oh, no. And in this case the Government should have the control of what to do with the patent, and this gives that. Mr. MCLEOD. You mean in this case the Government might see fit to allow the individual certain rights?

Mr. WEFALD. That is not the question here at all.

Mr. NEAGLE. Might give it to the inventor, or assignee, or somebody who wanted to exploit it for him.

The CHAIRMAN. No member of this committee, I take it, would want to accept a license from the Government to manufacture any of these things that the Government owns the patent of, unless we were given some protection in the way of the license not being revoked, or that we had an exclusive license, if we would have to put $100,000 or $200,000, or $500,000 into the manufacture of that product.

Mr. NEAGLE. That is just exactly it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the whole thing in a nutshell?

Mr. WEFALD. Nor do I suppose any member of this committee would want the Government to surrender patents that might be vitally important to the Government to keep secret. That would be my position.

Mr. NEAGLE. The Government is not surrendering the patent. The CHAIRMAN. It does not surrender at all, but only gives a license to somebody to manufacture it. I do not think any member of this committee or anybody in Congress would even say the Government should surrender anything to an individual that was of benefit to the Government itself. But you could not pick out certain patents here and say that "In these patents we will grant licenses." You have to make it broad enough to cover all patents owned by the Government; that they may use their discretion. And they certainly would not license anything that they themselves wanted to use. I do not think there would be any trouble about that proposition.

Mr. NEAGLE. Personally I am not looking for trouble at all; but, if the committee wants some more suggestions about this bill for another session, I would be glad to make any suggestion I could if the committee desires it. And I am not looking for the job, because it would be quite a task; but the bill as it is now I think should be changed considerably and some things that are in it ought to be changed.

Mr. HAMMER. At whose instance was this bill prepared-some department?

Mr. NEAGLE. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary of War.

Mr. NEAGLE. It came to us with a letter from the Secretary of War, the time I first saw it. Colonel McMullen said he did not

originally propose it.

Mr. WEFALD. They did not expect this bill could be passed on the spur of the moment, did they?

Mr. NEAGLE. Hardly.

Mr. HAMMER. It is a very important matter and I think should be given a great deal of consideration.

Mr. WEFALD. I say whoever was interested in having this bill drawn and introduced at the present time did not expect we would have this bill passed on the spur of the moment, did they, Mr. Chair

man?

The CHAIRMAN. I will say to my colleague the first I knew about this bill was when I received a letter from Mr. Morin, who introduced the bill, inclosing a letter from the Secretary of War, which I read before you came in.

Mr. WEFALD. I was here.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have this letter made a part of the record, in which he gives his reasons why he thinks we ought to have legislation of this character; but, of course, he does not say it should be enacted at once.

Mr. MCLEOD. Does he base that on one individual case, as an example?

The CHAIRMAN. He mentioned a couple of cases.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Before Congressman McLeod came in, I think Colonel McMullen, who appeared for the War Department, said the War Department owned at least 1,000 patents, and I understand Mr. Neagle, of the Navy Department, to say they own about 200 patents on radio alone.

Mr. NEAGLE. Relating to radio.

Mr. ROBERTSON. There are a lot of those patents, and Colonel McMullen gave a number of instances where it would be to the public interest to have the right in some branch of the Government to issue licenses, so that the public at large could get the benefit of all these patents owned and controlled by the Government.

Mr. MCLEOD. That is why I thought an individual case would possibly bring out all the facts of the hearings.

Mr. ROBERTSON. If you would have the stenographer read the first two or three paragraphs of Colonel McMullen's statement, you would find the specific statements to which you might want to have reference.

Mr. MCLEOD. I would not want to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?