two public hearings, one at the ACS National Meeting in Chicago, August 1973, and one held in conjunction with an international meeting of patent attorneys, in San Francisco, May 1975. Transcripts of these two hearings have been published in booklet form and are available from ACS headquarters.

Based on the information developed at these hearings and from further study of the literature it seemed evident that real issues exist which need resolution, either by legal or other means. In addition, enough interest in this issue was expressed by ACS membership to warrant continuation of the study of these issues and the development of an action program which could and would be endorsed by the ACS Board of Directors.

At its meeting in April 1976 CPM&RL decided on a two pronged approach. A short-range effort was developed to try to determine whether the ACS Board of Directors and Council felt the issues needed resolving and whether Society support for a long-range study could be obtained. A longer range effort was directed toward organizing and carrying through a detailed study of the actual effects of the several existing foreign laws and of the observable effects of the compensation plans currently being used in the United States. This latter study would be done by a task force consisting of representatives from various interested ACS committees and divisions.

The short-range effort resulted in the formulation of seven resolutions expressing support by the Society of various action plans related to compensation legislation. These resolutions, all of which

were passed by majority vote of CPM&RL, but each carrying strong dissention or abstention, were presented to the ACS Board of Directors in December 1976 and acted on in April 1977. Three of these resolutions were passed by the Board pending concurrence by the ACS Council, and the other four were returned to the Committee for further study. The three passed resolutions were on the Council agenda for its August, 1977, meeting, but were withdrawn by CPM&RL before voting by that body. The reason for withdrawal was that strong opposition to the resolutions had developed, and, since the study task force had been organized by this time, it was felt proper to include further study and evaluation of these three resolutions in its program.

Meanwhile, the task force, consisting of representatives from nine ACS committees or divisions, has been organized and has had two meetings. An outline of the detailed study is presently under consideration and

a working meeting is contemplated for about January, 1978.

Interest of Other Organizations

Other organizations, notably the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), have become interested in the employed inventor compensation issue and have been pressing for legislation. The IEEE committee studying the Moss bill takes exception to a number

of its provisions and has drafted an alternative bill which IEEE proposes to have introduced into Congress at the appropriate time. The ACS CPM&RL is keeping in touch with IEEE on this.

Some state legislatures have passed, or are contemplating passing, legislation providing that compensation be paid to employed inventors. This movement is quite recent and it is not possible at this time to predict how many' states might consider and enact similar actions.

The Industrial Research Institute (IRI) has sent a letter to Chairman Rodino of the House Judiciary Committee taking a position . against the Moss bill. IRI has also organized a study group to look further into the issue, primarily to try to devise means for obviating the need for legislation, if possible.

How Can the Issues be Resolved

Let me turn now to steps which might help to increase the satisfaction of employed inventors with reward procedures while at the same time resolve some of the "fairness" and administrative difficulties perceived by employers.

Obviously one procedure would be legislative with the methods for determining fair compensation spelled out in minute detail as with the

German law.

A second procedure would be to develop an impartial counsellingmediation-conciliation service, either under government or private auspices, with strong enough support so that the decisions made by the service's board of inquiry would be respected much as if they were legal decisions.

A third procedure would be to establish guidelines for fair compensation practices for employed inventors. Monitoring of such guidelines would present a problem, of course, and their enforcement would be difficult.

Manly, in his paper, suggests that the best way to handle the situation is for all companies to treat their employees fairly, to make known the use of such fair treatment to legislators, and, if legislation seems inevitable, to work with state and federal bill drafters to provide laws which industry can live with. In addition, as mentioned previously, a thorough study of all aspects of the problem would be made under the auspices of IRI.

In

This program is laudable as far as it goes, but it does not contemplate or consider possibly viable alternatives to legislation. addition, it fails to recognize adequately the need to reward the employed inventor, since, I fear, "fair" in the context used by Manly implies fairness from the employer's viewpoint, with the concept of adequate compensation to the employed inventor who makes extraordinary inventive contributions being unduly undervalued.

In a paper delivered at a symposium entitled "Legal Rights of Chemists" at the ACS meeting in April 1976, I suggested that a combination of methods might provide the necessary means for providing fair and equitable compensation to employed inventors while not requiring undue administrative cost, legislation or the setting up of excessive bureaucratic procedures. This program included the

development of detailed substantive compensation guidelines for employers and employees, the development of typical standard plans for compensating employed inventors, the establishment of an office to advise employers in setting up equitable compensation plans, and the formation of a counselling-mediation-conciliation service to aid both employers and employed inventors in the resolution of issues related to the compensation issue. I also suggested that development of such a system might need to have legal backing, such as the ability to refer to a court those rare situations where irreconcilable differences might arise. These services might well be provided by a professional society such as the ACS, or a consortium of professional societies.

While these suggestions may sound elaborate and cumbersome, there seems to be no simple way to bring into balance the various interests of both the employer and the employed inventor. There is no reason not to try to do so, however, even if cost and effort seems rather large. Many companies spare no cost or effort in obtaining patent coverage of worthwhile inventions. It seems only proper and right to treat the inventors of these inventions in the same manner.