DE Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO 815 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone 202/638-0320 May 10, 1984 Hon. Robert Kastenmeier, Chairman Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: MAY 241904 We have noted with great interest the hearings that are currently being held on a group of bills dealing with various aspects of the patent system. In particular, we are quite pleased that the issue of compensation for employed inventors is before your committee. In particular, we would like to reiterate our support for HR 3285. As you know, Dennis Chamot from this Department testified in support of this legislation in a hearing before your committee on July 29, 1982, and we believe that all that was said then still applies. We think that HR 3285 represents a thorough, broad approach which would go a long way toward solving the many problems currently existing in this area. We do not believe that HR 3286 meets the needs of employed scientists and engineers. While that bill seeks to deal with pre-assignment agreements, it offers little to scientists and engineers beyond what already exists in common law and some proposed state statutes. This bill does not treat the compensation issue which, as was explained in Dr. Chamot's testimony, we believe is at the heart of the attempt to stimulate greater efforts at creativity and invention. Indeed, we believe that passage of HR 3286 by itself would result in a situation which could be worse than exists today because it gives the appearance of solving a problem without actually doing so. While this Department takes no position at this time on the other TWX 710-822-9276 (AFL-CIO WSH A) FAX 202-637-5058 Page Two Mr. Kastenmeier bills in this group, we strongly support HR 3285 and urge you to use your good offices in facilitating its approval by the Congress. Sincerely, 1. Jack Golodner D'E Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO 815 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone 202/638-0320 June 1, 1983 Mr. David W. Beier, III Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the U.S. House of Representatives Dear Mr. Beier: When we spoke recently, you expressed interest in a couple Enclosed are a copy of the American Chemical Society survey; the numerical results and the written comments to the ACS survey; the article from Research Management; and an article on other nations' laws. I hope this material is useful to you. Sincerely, Disclist Dennis Chamot Assistant Director DC/jmk TWX 710 822-9276 (AFL-CIO WSH A) FAX 202-637-5058 RESEARCH MANAGEMENT Survey Studies Inventor Award Plans in Major Companies Nearly 60% of the major U.S. corporations have some type of plan for rewarding employee inventors, according to a survey made by the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel (ACPC). About 200 companies representing a total sales of over $500 billion in 1976 and employing in the order of 400.000 employees in technical jobs participated in the study. Reporting on the survey at the Fall Meeting of the Industrial Research Institute, Dr. R.C. Clement, general manager of patents and licensing at Shell Develop ment Company, said that a similar ACPC study in 1972 found that only 48% of the responding companies had inven. tor award plans. The current study learned that most companies now having award plans adopted them in the past 25 years. About 33% of the plans reported in the survey provide only for honoraria while 66% involve other recognition instead of or in addition to honoraria. The amounts of the honoraria vary, with most running in the range of about $100 to $200. However, special awards that go beyond honoraria are given by 44% of those companies which have inventor award plans. They are discretionary in amount, and are most frequently awarded only to those inventors whose inventions are judged to be of special economic benefit for the company. Typical awards range from $1,000 to several thousand dollars. Some are part of a broader company-wide plan for rewarding creativity and extraordinary con tribution in general, whether or not a patent application is involv. ed. But many are independent of such broader plans. Reasons for Award Programs The survey found that the highest ranked reasons for inventor award programs were: To communicate the employer's interest in inventive work of employees to encourage inven. tive work; to simulate timely disclosures; and to encourage the inventor to assist in the patent process. Rewarding the inventor was the principle objective in very few cases. About 30% of companies that have plans believe their inventors are more productive because of the plans. The rest either do not believe that or don't know. According to the survey results, the cost of inventor award plans does not appear to be a substantial factor. A majority of plans, 78%, cost less than $50,000 a year. Administrative costs add to this. perhaps substantially in some cases, but most of the participants who commented on this point, indicated that no accounting was made for such administrative costs or that they are insignificant. The study also elicited information on negative aspects of award plans: For exmaple, encouragement of secrecy among employees; difficulties of administration: increased patent manpower required to handle nonmeritorious inventions and jealousy on the part of employees in areas unlikely to result in patentable ideas. Most of the con:panies participating in the survey that have plans indicated that they observed these negative aspects only slightly or not at all. Most of the participating companies that have no inventor award plan said that inventions should not be singled out over other valuable work and inventors are already being well rewarded by pay increases and promotions for a job they were hired to do. Some companies are especially concerned about the possibility that an inventor award plan would inhibit free and open communication of ideas in the same technical area. Large Pian Differences In commenting on the survey results. Dr. Clement emphasized the large differences among com. panies and industries. He said: e importance of the legally designated inventor relative to the importance of others in the entire innovation process and how the inventors should be compensated vary greatly depending upon the kinds of business, the kinds of technology and the nature of the particular invention. A method of compensating inven tors in one company of one in. dustry is most likely, I believe. not to be suitable at all for another company or another industry. It is for this reason particularly that I am convinced that legislated invention compensation would be a bad mistake. I do not think that government regulations should be allowed to intrude into the arrangements employers make with employee inventors. I do think that we need equitable treatment designed to encourage enthusiasm for innovative achievement. This is something we can do much better for ourselves." American Chemical Society 1979 Comprehensive Salary and Employment Status Survey L. Category which most closely approximates your present, or most recent, principal work function: Research and development Management administration of R&D Applied research development design General management admestrabon other than research development) Marketing sales purchasing techucal whyun economic evaluation Production quality cont Forensa analyses other lah anak Teaching reaching and research A C. " D. " F. G. " H. K. |