the patent laws, and I have formed some conclusions as to changes I think should be made, and amongst them, if you want me to state them Mr. Cox (interposing). I should like to have you do so. Mr. TIBBETTS. In particular is the so-called 20-year proviso, which is a proviso fixing the term of the patent 20 years from the filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is shorter. And with that, however and I think this is probably one of the difficulties that has been encountered before in getting that provision through Congress-I think should go some other changes in connection with interferences. If you put that provision through only, you then make it bad for the applicant who is in the Patent Office and is tied up with interferences against his will, perhaps, and may be in there for 10 or 15 years and thereby have the term of his patent cut down considerably. If he had control of it that would be something else, but if the practice in the Patent Office itself, interferences and prosecutions, can be at the same time cut so that 3 years will be ample time for one to get his application out, then the 20-year proviso becomes a practical thing, so that in shortening interferences I might suggest that some of the appeals be cut out; that is, that the patent be issued, perhaps after a decision by the Examiner of Interferences, and that the Commissioner, for instance, be given authority to shorten the 6 months' period within which an applicant may comply with an official action. It is fixed at 6 months; it used to be 12 months some time ago. Let the Commissioner have the option of shortening that in cases where reply can be made very easily. That is true in a great many of the Office actions. And perhaps a change in the public-use statute from 2 years to 1 year would bring applications into the office earlier, so that if a program of that sort is outlined, I think it would probably have a better chance at passage, and it certainly would be better than to try to pass any one of them. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tibbetts, all of these suggestions which you have just made seem to be based upon a belief in your mind that the period of execlusive use to an inventor should be shortened. Mr. TIBBETTS. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't think so. I think you should still have the 17 years, and that isn't any too long. The CHAIRMAN. You misunderstand me. Of course, I realize that, but under the present practice, by reason of the provision which prevents the 17-year period from running until the patent is issued, the period of exclusive use is greatly lengthened, is it not? Mr. TIBBETTS. Exclusive use starts only when the patent issues, sir. The CHAIRMAN. When the patent is applied for, there can't be very much infringement without danger of litigation, can there, or am I mistaken about that? Mr. TIBBETTS. If the infringement is continued after the patent issues, there will be infringements, but there can be none before that. The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps I should state my understanding of your testimony this way: All of these suggestions which you have made impress me as implying the belief on your part that there should be a definite limit to the period of protection. Mr. TIBBETTS. Yes, sir; and I don't think that the application should be kept in the Office as long; that is the main thing. Both of these provisions will push them out earlier, the 20-year provision will throw them out earlier because one will not try to keep his application in the office for 5 or 6 years, as some have done. The CHAIRMAN. The reason for limiting the period of exclusive use is, of course, the belief that any patent after a period should become public property. Is that right? Mr. TIBBETTS. After the statutory period; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you believe that is a very important phase of the method in which patents and inventions are handled, do you not? Mr. TIBBETTS. I think it should have a definite period and it should not be prolonged by the prolongation of the work in the Patent Office. The CHAIRMAN. All right, now in view of the fact that the Automobile Manufacturers Association has, with respect to some patents, followed the policy of free use, do you believe that the period of exclusive use generally should be shortened below 17 years? Mr. TIBBETTS. I do not. The CHAIRMAN. Why? Mr. TIBBETTS. Because in so many cases I have seen that isn't long enough. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it is your belief that the inventor should have at least 17 years of exclusive use. Mr. TIBBETTS. I do. Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, let me ask Mr. Tibbetts this, so that I can get it clear in my own mind. Do you mean that the period of termination of a monopoly should be fixed for the fixed number of years for the public benefit? Would you like to see it a fixed number of years? Mr. TIBBETTS. It is a fixed number of years now, Mr. Patterson. Mr. TIBBETTS. The change I suggest is merely for the purpose of shortening the time in the Patent Office. Mr. PATTERSON. Any other period of years than the 17-you wouldn't want to see a hundred years. Mr. TIBBETTS. I certainly would not. I have forgotten just how the 17 years was arrived at, but it seems to be a very good compromise between the two cases, that is, one, the simple case where the monopoly is probably too long at 17 years, and the other where inventions are made and the art doesn't catch up with it until it is 10 or 12 years old, and then the 17 years is not long enough. Senator KING. Your criticism of the patent system is the procedure rather than the constitutional provision, supplemented by the statute which gives to the patentee a monopoly for 17 years upon his patent. Mr. TIBBETTS. The procedure as must be conducted by the Patent Office now. The Patent Office is doing a good job in getting the cases out. Senator KING. Do you think that the Patent Office will have the right to shorten the period for interferences and limit the time within which the interference must be heard and determined? Mr. TIBBETTS. Well, of course they have the limitations there now in time of taking testimony, and so forth. My thought is if you cut out several of the appeals, stop them at the examiner of interferences, that will save considerable time in the Patent Office. Senator KING. Your idea would be to change the procedure in the Patent Office and make it simpler and more expeditious. Mr. TIBBETTS. Yes, sir. Senator KING. So that the time when the monopolistic provision of the patent should begin to run would be as soon as possible after the application for a patent has been filed. Mr. TIBBETTS. Yes, sir. Senator BORAH. I wish you would state a little more fully why you think it is proper just to have a 17-year period for some of these patent monopolies. That is a long time. Mr. TIBBETTS. Merely from my general experience, that is all. It hasn't seemed long with a great many of the cases that we have had; others, it is too long, as I say, but you have to arrive at a compromise, of course. It might be 16, it might be 14, it might be 20. Senator BORAH. I was rather anxious to get your views as a practical man as to why it seems just necessary to have it for so long a period in order to compensate the man who made the patent. Mr. TIBBETTS. I could only answer that, Senator, by saying that with our cases we have never been overcompensated, I might put it that way, and we have had 17-year terms. I have seen a great many patents run out. I remember in the early days I thought 17 years was a long time, looking ahead; looking back, it is short. Senator BORAH. Yes; I can imagine it would seem short in some instances. Well, I was simply trying to satisfy myself because I am in favor of a much shorter period, but I would like to have the viewpoint of those who know more about it and have had experience with it. Mr. TIBBETTS. I think it would be a mistake, Senator, unless you go to the form of petty patents that they speak of, and that has been suggested, of course, for small patents, of a term of 3 or 5 years for the little things. I don't like that because that would just add to our numbers of patents; instead of two million we would have three or four million in a very short time. Senator BORAH. You are speaking of the automobile industry entirely. Mr. TIBBETTS. That is all I can speak for, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You see, Mr. Tibbetts, the point that has impressed itself on me during the testimony is that in the automobile industry we had a system of handling patents, there is free exchange of certain patents which seems to be altogether at variance with the principle of the patent law, which is one of exclusive use. Now, the automobile manufacturers apparently felt that it was more important for them to have a free use of all of these patents among one another for the purpose of manufacturing than it was for each patent only, except in the case of Packard, of course, to charge royalties for the use of the patent. So you see there are two different policies with respect to the handling of patents. Now, which is the better from the point of view of the public. That is the question which members of this committee are unquestionably asking themselves. Is it better in the public interest that the monopoly upon the use of a patent should be shortened; that it should be maintained as it is or lengthened from the point of view of the inventor? Of course, it is desirable that he should have the exclusive use of that device for as long a period as he can so that he may charge the public for the use of it, but obviously those who drafted the patent law now in existence believed that there should be a specific limit to that period, and that the public at the expiration of that period should have free use of the patent. Now whether it be 17 years or 20 years or 5 years, that period is a grant from the public, from the people of the United States through their Government, to the inventor, and we are trying to find out what in your opinion would be a reasonable limit to that grant. Mr. TIBBETTS. And my opinion is that we are just about right where we stand. The CHAIRMAN. I see. Of course, you have been practicing under the 17-years law and it may be that tradition has something to do with that opinion. Mr. TIBBETTS. It certainly has. We know nothing else in this country. Senator KING. Isn't it possible if the procedure were modified so that the patent might be issued promptly after the application has been made, there would be no objection to a further limitation of the period of monopoly? If a person filed an application for patent and all of the rubbish and delays in the Patent Office might be cleared away and he would get his patent within 2 or 3 years definitely, then it would be far better if that might be done, to limit the time, say, to 10 years or 15 years. Mr. TIBBETTS. I can't agree with you on that, because I think right now a very large proportion of patients-I should say 90 or 95 percent-come out within 3 years. The Commissioner could answer that better than I. Senator KING. A great number of them are held by interference for a long period of time. Mr. TIBBETTS. I don't think the proportion is very great. Senator KING. I think so, if you apply the rule to primary patents, patents of importance. Mr. TIBBETTS. That may be. They are difficult to pick out. Senator KING. With these small patents, perhaps the interference isn't very great, but I have made some investigation, and my investigation led me to believe that the evil was largely in the interference and in the delays of the Patent Office-not the fault of the employees, but the procedure which has been established and which seems to have been sanctioned by approval and by acts of Congress. Mr. TIBBETTS. And those things could only be changed by statute. The Patent Office itself is doing everything it can. Representative SUMNERS. I would like to ask Mr. Tibbetts a question, if it won't interfere with your course of examination. Mr. Tibbetts, of course, you were here yesterday and you know the general drift of the testimony that we have had thus far. It seems to me that the outstanding feature of the testimony yesterday was the exhibition of the automobile people as a group which was exchanging patents among themselves, exchanging the right to use their inventions among themselves. Now, the question suggests itself to me as a member of the committee that if that is a good thing in practice, why shouldn't it be extended? Mr. TIBBETTS. To other industries? Representative SUMNERS. Yes; generally. And the queer thing about the business to me is that they have had this arrangement with reference to some patents and do not have it with reference to others, and the ones that ought to have it seem to be established business people who don't want to have their business imperiled by somebody discovering something and putting them out of business. Those are the things that seem to be excluded. You can see how a bunch of businessmen who want to operate their business and sell to their customers and want to have some sort of business security, each one of whom was under the same peril of a revolutionary patent coming out that would put him out of business, might agree each with the other that they would avoid that by exchanging patents; but how it is when they use these minor patents by exchange and still expose themselves to that hazard, I don't understand; do you? Mr. TIBBETTS. I don't believe I can explain that, Congressman. Of course, I am not in that group, as you know, as you have accepted me here. I am with the Packard Co. We believe they ought to pay for the patents if they use them, and we do ourselves if we do use them. Representative SUMNERS. I thought this was an exhibition of how beautiful it was for brethren to dwell together in unity yesterday. I got it all mixed up. Mr. TIBBETTS. Perhaps some of those witnesses following who are in the cross-licensing agreement can explain that better than I can. Representative SUMNERS. What bothered me about it was that if it is a good thing, as seemed to be believed by some gentlemen yesterday who testified-and I don't say that in criticism, they probably gave us very valuable information-why wouldn't it be a very good policy generally when the Federal Government, as the chairman has indicated, as a matter of grace and not a matter of right, grants a patent, shouldn't there be attached to the patent the privilege of the general public, anybody, upon the payment of proper compensation, having the right to use it? But I am trying to find out, how it is inconsistent with the disposition of the Government to stimulate inventions and discoveries, to attach to that arrangement some provision which would prevent this grant on the part of the Federal Government from acting hurtfully to somebody engaged in a real productive business and serving the public interest? I don't like to talk so much but I want to get this across. Why should the Government make an arrangement under which it will permit somebody to have the opportunity to destroy his competitors in business by reason of a basic discovery? I mean, as a matter of public policy, and as a matter of justice, why should the Government do it? Mr. TIBBETTS. I don't know that it does do that, and I don't think I can answer your question, either. Representative SUMNERS. You mean you think the hypothesis is not correct, that it isn't possible to develop a basic invention that might put competitors out of business? I have heard of its being done in some instances, but I don't know. Mr. TIBBETTS. I may be wrong in my view of that, but my thought is that if this invention which you speak of is developed by one company, it isn't destroying anything when it keeps another company from using it. He has brought something else into existence. Representative SUMNERS. Let's examine that a little bit. Suppose there is an invention that would revolutionize, greatly cheapen, increase the efficiency of, automobiles, for instance, and only one auto |