The Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier November 16, 1983 embody, or to use --was intentional, and was intended to deepen the scope of protections. IF that is the intention, and IF it is appropriate to extend protection, then that must be made clear, which the bill fails, in my estimate, to accomplish. Perhaps the uncertainty could be reduced by the insertion of a clarification of the line between permitted and forbidden acts, of the form, "It shall not constitute a violation of the exclusive rights of the owner of a mask work to . . ." As it stands, I have very little idea just what the bill leaves as a permissible use. I believe that it would be bad policy to amend the copyright act so that the rights in mask works were functionally as deep as the rights available under the patent statute; it appears to me that the drafters of this bill have, perhaps, attempted to do just that, while avoiding the novelty and nonobviousness requirements. The limitation of the term to ten years suggests that this is not an unfounded suspicion. 3. licensing I think I understand the motivation for the insertion of the compulsory licensing section, but I am skeptical. The workability of compulsory seems doubtful, and in my opionion should be used only in cases in which a compelling need for it is demonstrated. It appears to me that the license here is intended to be a substitute for a more generous exemption from liability for innocent infringement. My preference would be for the more straight forward exemption, though my opinion here is relatively uninformed since, as I noted earlier, I don't have a very clear image in my mind of what kind of behavior has led to the need for regulation here. 4. I have no comment on the retroactivity question. Generally, I think that relatively simple statutory language is preferable to statutory language that purports to anticipate every question, even though the former may require judicial elaboration. I honestly don't believe that much certainty is gained in statutes which contain elaborate definitions and intricate regulatory sections; the total amount of uncertainty is a constant and is simply fragmented and distributed throughout the regulation. The price paid for detailed regulation is that the law becomes less accessible, even to lawyers, let alone to non-lawyers. I hope I wish I had the time to provide a more scholarly, detailed, analysis of the bill, since it does raise a number of interesting questions. you find my brief and informal comments of some value. JAK: bgm 30-425 0-84--20 Yours truly, John A. Kidwell Professor of Law University of Wisconsin Law School July 30, 1983 Robert Kastenmeier Chairman, Judiciary Sub-Committee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and administration of Justice House of Representative's 2137 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Kastenmeier, I am writing in order to respond to the article in the San Jose Mercury regarding the delay in the chip trial or should I say the hearing on the subject due to happen in Washington, D.C. on August 3, 1983. I understand that this hearing is supposed to introduce to Congress a bill aimed at protection of the semiconductor chip and its particular design by allowing the individual manufacturers to copywrite it. This very idea was the reason for a very foul mood I found myself in just the other day. I am currently trying to study the micro-processor and the semiconductor in order to gain a fundamental concept of the subject. When one evening I found myself wonderiing why the "Hi-Tech" firms here in Silicon valley have not guarded their techniques more closely in order to insure that other elements of whom we are all aware, from stealing the technology and thus providing themselves with a competative edge in the marketplace. Since the industry is so competative and the company that can provide the cheapest and highest quality circuitry will in the eventual outcome be the leading competitor. It only made me angry and dissapointed in the individual and or the company that was not considering protection of their own individual design of their chips. As I am sure you are well aware in the last few years there has been a great deal of technological espionage. Particullary on the part of the Japanese who are dynamically duplicating the products that American research went into developing. In point of fact the Japanese were convicted of trying and suceeding in the buying of top level IBM computer secrets last year here in Silicon Valley. In my opinion any bill which protects the companies in the United States from such immoral acts should be adopted without hesitation. I will quote a national publication on the policies new developments (ideas) of IBM and other companies. This quote is taken from INFORMATION SYSTEMS NEWS, published in Manhasset, New York. Quote from John Opel, IBM president, "Nothing is more important than being the low-cost producer especially in view of today's competition including some very efficient Japanese companies and their European partners. Information systems news went on to say: "Regarding Japanese competition, the front-page headlines about the arrests of Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Hitachi Ltd. employess for alledgedly buying confidential information about IBM's H Series computers are still reverberating through the industry. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the case, the 10-month undercover FBI investigation, aided by IBM, demonstrated the company's intense commitment to safeguard its secrets. It also served as a warning to competitors, especially, plug-compatible manufacturers. and These which are my feelings on the subject of the bill, I hope your committee will forward to Congress and hopefully they will adopt. Sincerely yours, Paul Tedes Paul Todes The Connecticut Patent Law Association has adopted two resolu- In considering our views, we hope that you will take into If you have any questions in the field or would like further We much appreciate the attention which you and your sub- Respectfully yours, Den A Letto Denis A. Firth DAF: maw CONNECTICUT PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION Resolutions Unanimously Adopted, December 7, 1983, Resolution No. 1: 1. The Connecticut Patent Law Association generally favors the enactment of the proposed Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1983 (S. 1201 and Report and Comment on Resolution No. 1: There is no question about the fact that semiconductor chips represent a prime example of a product which requires a great initial investment of intellectual effort relative to the cost of manufacturing the final device. Millions of dollars are spent designing masks for chips, but the chips themselves can be manufactured for a few dollars a piece. Investments of this size must be protected. We are convinced that the present laws are inadequate to do so, and the proposed Act is generally satisfactory for the purpose. Resolution No. 2: 2. The proposed Act should provide expressly for "reverse engineering;" we favor adoption of the language proposed in S. 1201, as amended by the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks. Report and Comment on Resolution No. 2: Provided there is a prohibition against pirating identical copies, and given the exclusivity which the patent laws grant for designs rising to the level of patentable inventions, the design and manufacture of competing chips is a great benefit to the electronics industry and the public. Reverse engineering the practice of dissecting a semiconductor chip and reproducing its "mask work" in order to study the design or manufacturing process encourage and accelerate such progress. - will Without explicit statutory language, such as found in the Senate Subcommittee's amendments to S. 1201, the proposed Act and case law could prohibit desirable reverse engineering. Report on a Third Area of Study The Connecticut PLA's Special Committee has also considered whether the test of copyright infringement in the proposed Act --"substantial similarity"-- is too broad. |