CONTENTS Page 3 Smith, Ora, agricultural consultant, National Potato Chip Institute. Watson, Robert C., Commissioner of Patents, Department of Com- Statement of U.S. Senator Wayne Morse, of Oregon, July 9, 1959 Letter dated June 15, 1959, to Mr. George S. Green from Mr. Robert C. Letter dated July 13, 1959, to Mr. George S. Green from Mr. Robert C. Letter dated July 11, 1959, to Mr. George S. Green from Mr. M. K. Hobbs_ Letter dated March 19, 1959, to Hon. George A. Smathers from Mr. Bruce Letter dated April 16, 1959, to Senator William Langer from Mr. Ben Picha Letter dated May 27, 1959, to Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney, chairman, 47 PLANT PATENT THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Philip A. Hart presiding. Present: Senator Hart. Also present: George S. Green, professional staff member, and Robert L. Wright, chief counsel, Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights Subcommittee. Senator HART. The committee will be in order. Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, this is the time set for hearing on S. 1447, to amend section 161, title 35, United States Code, with respect to patents for plants. Notice of this hearing was published in the Congressional Record on the 18th day of June 1959, and pursuant to that notice the hearing is to be held at this time. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to insert into the record a copy of the bill, S. 1447. Senator HART. The bill will be inserted. (The bill is as follows:) [S. 1447, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend section 161, title 35, United States Code, with respect to patents for plants Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first paragraph of section 161, title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." Mr. GREEN. There have been a number of witnesses who signified a desire to testify. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I desire to read that list, and ask those called to please indicate that they are here. For the Department of Agriculture, Dr. M. D. Maclay, Dr. F. P. Cullinan, and Mr. T. A. Seegrist. From the Department of Commerce, the Honorable Robert C. Watson, Mr. A. J. Goldberg, and Mr. Thomas F. Murphy. Persons listed as proponents of this legislation will please answer to their name. Mr. M. K. Hobbs. Mr. HOBBS. Present. Mr. GREEN. Frederick J. Meyer. 1 Mr. MEYER. Yes. Mr. GREEN. Mr. Al Mercker. Mr. MERCKER. Present. Mr. GREEN. Dr. Ora Smith. Dr. SMITH. Present. Mr. GREEN. Mr. Pen Picha. Mr. PICHA. Here. Mr. GREEN. Mr. A. R. Miesen, agricultural development agent, Northern Pacific Railway Co. (No response.) Mr. GREEN. Mr. Don Palmer. (No response.) Mr. GREEN. Opponents to the legislation who have indicated a desire to appear are Mr. Mat W. Felton, Mr. Lowell H. Swenson, and Mr. Harold Kutzner. (No response.) Mr. GREEN. I believe, Mr. Chairman, with your permission it would be best to start with proponents of the legislation. Mr. HART. Very well. Mr. Hobbs. May I explain that the subcommittee chairman, Senator O'Mahoney, because of illness has asked that I act in his stead. Additionally, the reason we have scheduled this hearing, notwithstanding the fact that we are at this point in the Senate Calendar where predictability, if it ever did attach to what will happen in the Senate, has passed, and all we can be sure of is that we are subject to interruptions. It was the strong desire of Senator Wiley, a member of this subcommittee, that we do give attention to this piece of legislation. I think in fairness it should be said that we meet largely because Senator Wiley urged it strongly. This afternoon the order of the Senate, or rather today the Senate. will convene at 11, and a Tennessee Valley Authority bill is the order of business. The junior Senator from Michigan for many reasons has to protect his flanks on the floor during that debate, so that I would appreciate very much if any witness is in position to do it, that he file a statement, which will be printed in full in the record, and make summary of the points which he feels are most important in his presentation. This does not preclude reading in full the statement if that is the witness' desire, or if he believes that is the only way he can effectively. present his position, but it may mean that we will have to adjourn without concluding the list of witnesses, and resume later, or ask those witnesses to submit statements for the record. I am satisfied that as informal an atmosphere as we can generate in this rather formidable setting will help all of us to come to a better understanding of the bill, so, Mr. Hobbs, if you will state your name and your official position, your address, and then fire away, we will get started. STATEMENT OF M. K. HOBBS, PATENT ATTORNEY, WINTER PARK, FLA. Mr. HоввS. Thank you, sir. My name is M. K. Hobbs. Presently I reside in Winter Park, Fla. I am in semiretirement after the practice of patent law for some 35 years in Wisconsin and in Chicago. Subsequent to the enactment of the Plant Patent Act in May of 1930, I have represented individual plant breeders, and one of the largest wholesale nurseries in the country. I mention this not to claim any special qualifications, but rather to indicate a wholesome interest in the subject matter. I have prepared the specifications for several plant patents. In a brief which was submitted to this committee, there was summarized faithfully a legislative history of the Plant Patent Act. I have extra copies of that brief if there is anyone who wishes a copy. Mr. HART. Mr. Hobbs, I take it it is a little difficult for some of the witnesses at the rear of the room to hear, and since the box has been moved close, if you will switch that switch, if we are lucky it may work. Mr. HOBBS. The Secretary of Agriculture reported in 1930, in answer to an official inquiry about the proposed Plant Patent Act, that itwould appear to be desirable and to lend far-reaching encouragement to agriculture and benefit the general public. The Senate committee report on the Plant Patent Act of 1930 stated, and again I quote: The purpose of the bill is to afford agriculture, so far as practicable, the same opportunity to participate in the benefits of the patent system as has been given to industry, and thus assist in the placing of agriculture on a basis of economic equality with industry. In view of the shortness of time, I am omitting some of the things I expected to say that are the least important. Mr. HART. They will be made a part of the record in full. I would like to call attention, however, to the fact that in the House, where there was a companion bill to the Townsend bill in the Senate, Mr. Cannon supported the Plant Patent Act of 1930 and said there was no greater benefactor to the human race than the man who produces a new fruit or a new vegetable. This brings us to the specific purpose of the amendment proposed by S. 1447. The statutes permit the granting of plant patents for new and distinct varieties of asexually reproduced plants, except tuberpropogated plants. By this exception, the act failed to accomplish its complete objective; namely, in the words of the Senate committee report to remove discrimination between plant developers and industrial inventors. Now, very shortly after the passage of this Plant Patent Act of 1930, members of the bar and plant breeders raised the question, why the exception? No one had a satisfactory answer. Robert Starr Allyn, of the New York bar, in 1934 wrote: Just why tuber-propagated plants have been barred we have not been able to understand. |