Mr. HUGHES. Now, Mr. Addison, welcome. STATEMENT OF KENNEITH F. ADDISON, JR., PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA INVENTORS CONGRESS, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED INVENTORS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TULSA, OK Mr. ADDISON. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I will address you today representing the organized American inventive community presenting our views relative to the intellectual property provisions in the proposed GATT treaty. First, however, let me respond to some of Commissioner Lehman's remarks relative to his statistics on patent pendency. We do not agree, and the experience of our inventors has shown that the period of pendency is generally much longer than 19 to 23 months. I have one of my own patents here at the table which was 42 years in prosecution, and it only had one moving part. So those figures are somewhat misleading. It is very important to note that the Patent Office also controls many of the delays which Mr. Lehman was speaking of, controls those delays in that the inventor has no control over the period of time it takes the Patent Office to return an action to him, how long it takes them to react. He, the inventor, is statutorily and administratively bound to a response period. The Patent Office is not, so frequently their response periods run much longer than we would like. Please understand that we have no quarrel with the GATT legislation, as it relates to tariffs and trade; only to the inclusion of provisions relating to intellectual property. In discussions with our inventors, we have also found that it is going to be more difficult for them to obtain venture capital if they are unable to provide a fixed period of time during which they will be protected. As I doubt that there are any inventors among this august body and as the public perception of inventors is frightfully inaccurate, I would like to preface my remarks with a few historic facts about inventors and their contributions to the technological progress of these United States. Cartoonist Rube Goldberg made millions of Americans laugh with his zany cause and effect inventions, and did a grave disservice to the American inventor. Contrary to the common perception which he fostered, the American inventor has been responsible for the creation of entire industries, providing employment for millions. The American inventor was the driving force behind the industrial revolution which established this country as the world's greatest industrial power. Throughout our history, necessity may have been the mother of invention, but invention was the mother of industry. What made this happen was the fact that our forebears had the wisdom to enact strong patent laws giving the inventor the incentive to exercise his art, by providing a fixed term during which he had exclusive control over his creation and the right to manufacture or market it or allow others to do so for a financial consideration. Strong, inviolable, and unchanging patent laws were the greatest single factor in the establishment of the American industrial empire. In the early 1980's, pressure was exerted by our trading partners and a number of multinational corporations to harmonize our patent laws with theirs. They proposed a treaty, which would dilute our strong patent laws to make them coincide with their weaker ones. Under the treaty, we would abandon our system of first-toinvent in favor of a system of first-to-file, thereby allowing the fleet-of-foot, and not necessarily the inventor, the right to patent protection. It would change the term of patents from 17 years from issue to 20 years from filing, and allow the filing of provisional patent applications. The proposal of these unwise, unwarranted and unnecessary changes brought forth massive opposition from inventors, inventors organizations, universities, pharmacological firms and a number of patent law practitioners, and caused Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Lehman to hold public hearings in October 1993. Subsequent to those hearings, Secretary of Commerce Brown announced on January 24, 1994, that, "the United States would not seek to resume negotiations of a treaty harmonizing the world's patent laws at this time." It wasn't necessary, as our Commissioner of Patents had 4 days previously executed an agreement with the Japanese Patent Office accepting some of the provisions of the highly contested and onerous Patent Harmonization Treaty. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a major breach of the armor that protects American creativity, and of the public trust. It took 6 years for the U.S. delegation to negotiate the minimum verbiage in the GATT language, yet, provisions relative to intellectual property were made mandatory by a stroke of a pen of an administration appointee. This is a shameless example of political expediency. To whom does this country belong? It is inappropriate that any language relating to patent protection be included in any agreement on tariffs and trade. Certainly, not without indepth hearings, including as many inventors and CEO's as it does patent attorneys. Patent laws are not bargaining chips to be used in trade agreements. We cannot allow our patent laws to be sacrificed, diminished or revised by gratuitous contract in the subterfugeous guise of a trade agreement for the benefit of other nations, to the detriment of our own. Surely, historians will identify and record this as the most anti-Jeffersonian action of the Clinton administration. We call upon you, the members of this committee, to at least initiate proceedings to revise all language relating to the length of patent terms in GATT by substituting, "20 years from the date of filing or 17 years from the date of grant, whichever is longer." Otherwise, honesty to your constituency and the people of this great Nation demands that you retitle this treaty as the Guaranteed Arrangement for Technological Theft. Thank you. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Addison follows:] Kenneith F. Addison, Jr. Intellectual Property Consultant Post Office Box 27291 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74149-0291 The following testimony given by Kenneith F. Addison, Jr., Pte., a resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma relates to the proposed unwarranted, unnecessary and inappropriate changes to the patent laws of the United States which have been included in the language of the GATT implementing legislation without adequate Congressional and/or Public hearings. This testimony is in particular opposition to the changes proposed for the term of patents to 20 years from filing, rather than the current 17 years from issue. The testimony includes a short history of the contributions of American inventors to the development of the American industrial empire, the history of the proposals under the Patent Harmonization Treaty, excerpts from testimony given at the public hearings of the USPTO of October 1993 and the clandestine implementation of provisions of that treaty, without public knowledge, by the U.S. Patent Commissioner. The testimony further provides reasons for the removal of intellectual property issues from the GATT legislation and suggests corrective measures and an alternative. These views represent the position of a number of state and regional inventors organizations and of the United Inventors Association of the United States of America. IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, 1994, Comes now, Kenmeith F. Addison, Jr. Pte., to give testimony before the joint House and Senate hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Chairman: Distinguished Members of the Committee on the Judiciary: Ladies and Gentlemen: Good Morning. I come before you today as a member and representative of the organized American inventive community to present our views and state our position relative to the inclusion of the provisions concerning intellectual property which are contained in the proposed General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which we have all come to know and love as GATT. As I strongly doubt that there are any inventors among this august body, and as the public perception of the American independent inventor is more than somewhat inaccurate, I should like to preface my remarks with a few simple historical facts relative to invention, inventors and their contribution to the technological progress of these United States. The late cartoonist, Rube Goldberg, while making millions of Americans laugh with his zany "cause and effect" inventions, did a grave disservice to the American inventor. Contrary to the common perception, which he fostered, the American inventor has been responsible for the creation of entire industries and has provided employment for millions. The American inventor was the driving force which brought about the industrial revolution and established this country as the World's greatest industrial power. Throughout our history, "necessity" may have been the "Mother of invention" but, invention has been the "Mother of Industry!" What made this happen was the fact that our forebears had the wisdom to enact strong patent laws, which gave the creative individual the incentive to exercise his art, by providing a fixed term during which he had exclusive control over his creation and gave him the right to manufacture and market his invention, or license others to do so, for a financial consideration. Strong, inviolable and unchanging patent laws have been the greatest single factor in the establishment of the American industrial empire. In the early 1980's, pressure began to be exerted by some of our trading partners, by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a United Nations agency and a number of multi-national corporations, to "harmonize" our patent laws with those of other nations. They proposed a treaty, under the terms of which, we would dilute our strong patent laws to make them coincide with their weaker ones. Under the terms of this proposed treaty we would be required to abandon our tried and proven system of "First-to-Invent" in favor of a system of "First-to-File," thereby allowing the "fleet-offoot," not necessarily the inventor, the right to patent protection; change in term of the life of patents from seventeen years from date of issue to twenty years from the date of filing of an application and; would allow the filing of "provisional" patent applications. Proponents of the change in the length of the patent term argue that inventors actually have a longer period of protection under the twenty year (from filing) term than they currently have under the seventeen year (from issue) term. In their zealous support of change, they have conveniently overlooked the fact that it frequently takes than three years to prosecute a patent application to issue. Under Patent Office accounting procedures, the termination of an action, by an examiner is reported as a completed prosecution, when in fact a continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional application or appeal becomes a new action, still however, subject to the original filing date. Many of these prosecutions, especially those involving "pioneer or break-through inventions" may take as long as 10 to 12 years to issue. One of Gordon Gould's laser |