Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, in my reading of the amendment, I believe it is very clear from the plain words of the amendment that the Patent and Trademark Office current search files would need to be maintained. I think what this means, in a practical manner, is that the current 33 million documents search files that are on paper would need to be maintained forever. I think, although I presume not intended, that would be a very serious problem for our country when we think about what we can accomplish with computerization, especially dealing with massive amounts of data. So I think that that unintended consequence, if for no other reason, should lead us all to oppose this amendment. I do not know whether the chairman of the subcommittee wished to be recognized for the remainder of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, under current law, if one publishes one's patent application in America before the patent is issued, one does not have any protection. Under H.R. 400, provisional rights attach at the time of publication. So one is protected from the time of publication. Under current American law, it would be foolish indeed to put oneself out otherwise. Secondarily, I understand, and I believe, that the gentlewoman does not want to do damage to her country any more than I do. That is not what is at issue, as we both recognize. It is a difference of opinion over how to proceed, how best to protect our country's inventors. It is my judgment that the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by U.S. companies, and in some cases individuals, to submariners is indeed important. The cited number of 200 does not matter as much as the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Is it my understanding that the first recorded vote is on the Campbell 1 amendment, to be followed by 5 minute votes on Campbell 2, the Kaptur amendment and the like? I could not hear.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Eileen Goodwin, who since 1993 has served as executive director of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority. The Santa Clara County Traffic Authority was established in 1984 by the voters of Santa Clara County, who approved a half-cent sales tax to bring much needed road improvements to Silicon Valley. Known as measure A, this highly successful road improvement program helped to preserve Silicon Valley's economic viability and quality of life. The role Ms. Goodwin played in ensuring the success of this program, first as deputy director of the Traffic Authority and then as executive director, cannot be overstated. During Ms. Goodwin's tenure, the Traffic Authority built 18 miles of new freeway and improved 40 miles of existing freeway. This monumental $1.2 billion public works project was not only completed on time and within budget, but at each stage of development Ms. Goodwin went to great lengths to make sure that the public's concerns were taken into consideration and addressed. Ms. Goodwin's skill, vision, and unsurpassed professionalism have earned her the respect of her peers in both the private and public sector. She is recognized as one of Santa Clara County's most distinguished public administrators. The replication of measure A by counties throughout California is a further testament to her outstanding leadership qualities. Mr. Speaker, on March 31, 1997, the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority terminated its operations. Today I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Ms. Goodwin for her extraordinary service to the residents of Santa Clara County.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 400 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation. As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has just indicated, I represent Silicon Valley in California. I know well the importance of ideas and the value of intellectual property. Our thriving economy back home is based on ideas and on technology. It is worth pointing out to many Members who do not have exposure to high technology in their own districts the origin and history of our system of patent law. As my colleagues know, our Founding Fathers recognized the value of ideas in American ingenuity, and they put in our Constitution the authority of Congress to, ``promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' That is in section 8, article I of the Constitution. By sharing ideas, inventors would advance the body of human knowledge and they would avoid the duplication of other scientists and knowledgeable people, and in exchange for sharing their ideas to advance human knowledge the inventors would receive for a period of time the exclusive ownership of that idea; and that really is the gist of patent law then and now. Obviously the patent system today is different than it was in the 19th century. The original patent reform legislation was in 1836. We had revisions again in 1952. And here we are at the dawn of the 21st century once again updating patent law for the information society. H.R. 400 does that very well, as many of the speakers have already indicated. I do, however, want to talk about some of the comments that have been made in criticism of the bill because it is important that they be put in the context of what is actually part of the law. First, I have heard today and elsewhere the issue of gifts. I think that is quite a stretch, but it has confused many Members of this House because H.R. 400 does not change the current law in any respect relative to gifts. In fact, the Patent Trademark Office presently enjoys the right to use the authority to accept gifts and bequests granted to the Secretary of Commerce, and they are not unique in that regard. For example, the Library of Congress is able to accept gifts and bequests along with the Secretary of Agriculture for the national ag lobby. We have taken it out. Unfortunately we have taken it out in the manager's amendment only to deal with an issue that did not need to be dealt with in reality. There has been a lot of discussion that all of the inventors and all of the innovators are opposed to H.R. 400. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I would like to tell my colleagues that of the really thousands and thousands of people who are immersed and employed in technology, the overwhelming thrust from Silicon Valley is in favor of this reform of our patent bill, and of the high-tech companies who have been in communication with me, I would say there have been none, none who have opposed H.R. 400. Hewlett-Packard, Intel, and the inventors at IBM all beg us to adopt H.R. 400. I must say also they are considerably confused by the controversy that has erupted over this and cannot understand any of the argument being made in opposition since those arguments bear so little relationship to the law, to the facts and to the need for this update.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Is it not the case that in the bill if you are only filing in the United States and not abroad and are a small inventor or small businessperson, you have the ability to delay publication until after the second Office action, which is an up or down, and then have the ability to withdraw? So, the issue being raised is really not a problem because it has been dealt with in the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct. The main point I wanted to make is to have rights that are enforceable one must seek access to courts, which requires lawyers, whether your rights attach at publication, whether the rights attach, as used to be the case, at issuance or the like. Your rights are only as good as what you stand up for.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I doubt that I will use the entire 5 minutes. I just think it is important to point out a few things. There is an accuracy deficit here. Mr. Chairman, in the bill with the exemptions provided for in the manager's amendment, which I support, publication is at 18 months, and the inventor is protected from that time forward. So it is not as if we are asking people to publish their invention without protection. Mr. Chairman, I would like to complete my sentence. There has been a lot of discussion that the little guy will not be protected because he or she does not have access to the fancy lawyers and the legal system that is necessary to protect themselves. Let me point this out: If someone obtains a patent--they have an invention, they file for their patent and their patent is issued--that patent is only as good as their ability to enforce it. Enforcing the patent requires them to oftentimes come into contact with the legal profession and to actually expend fees in pursuit of protecting their patent. And I would point out that there are many lawyers, if they have a good case, who will take the case on a contingent fee if the patent holder is being attacked by a foreign corporation in a patent infringement action. It is important to talk about the issue of submarine patents. I have heard a lot about statistics. I do not hear those same sorts of arguments when we stand here and talk about, for example, product liability law. It is not our problem because it is only a percentage. If it is 500 million, it does not matter because it is only one case. Let me talk about the case of Jerome Lemelson who filed in America for a bar code and robotic technologies who delayed his patent for 35 years. He collected $500 million in royalties from manufacturers from the late 1980's until the early 1990's. His patent attorney made $150 million in 1 year, and then later the Federal district court found that he did not have an enforceable patent. I do not know Mr. Lemelson, I have nothing against him personally. I would just say that is nothing to advance the economic interests of America or of working people or of countries or of innovation. That is important; do not tell me about percentages. We need to prevent it.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. LOFGREN. I do not know and I certainly never fault an attorney for earning an honest living. I would just point out that this issue is a big deal to those companies that paid those fees and the attorney fees. I will tell the gentleman something else, and I do not want to quote the entire letter, but some of my colleagues have heard of Charles Trimble, the president and CEO of Trimble Navigation, a brilliant physicist and an individual who owns many patents and who was a leader in global positioning systems. Were it not for Dr. Trimble, we may not have that technology at all. I had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Trimble just a few short weeks ago. He followed our conversation with a letter to me. He is the owner of the patents. He is the one who has designed this system. He is fighting off submarine patents right and left. It is not the right thing for our country to allow.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that that leaves only right-wing Democrats such as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and myself in support of the manager's amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of clarifications statements for those Members who are listening to this debate. First, I think it is important to emphasize that any matter that is sensitive from a national security point of view that is a secure matter may be held confidentially under the past law before it was changed last year under current law, under H.R. 400 and under the Rohrabacher substitute. So there is no question that none of the alternatives would allow national security matters to be published, and I think that is important. Second, I want to address the issue of the Congressional Research Service. Now I am a relatively new Member but I have found CRS to be a useful office here, and I from time to time get their publications and read them, and I do not know the author of the report that has been quoted here. I will say, however, that in my experience in reading through Congressional Research Service publications, they are not always the only person with a viewpoint nor are they always the most expert person in the world with a viewpoint. And I think it is worth pointing out that the intellectual property section of the American Bar Association, lawyers of whom represent both patent defenders and those who might attack patents who do not have--they are not for one side or the other. The intellectual property section of the California Bar Association where most of the high-tech industry in the country is located and most of the patents issued in the country I believe emanate from California, as well as the American Intellectual Property Law Association, as well as the Intellectual Property Owners Association, all oppose the Rohrabacher substitute, all support H.R. 400. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the compliment, and acknowledge that it was certainly made in jest. I had to do that for my district, to clarify that.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, a number of the speakers, and especially the last speaker, have addressed important issues for Members examining this whole issue. But I do want to address the matter that has been raised by a number of speakers, and that is the position of employees of the Patent Office regarding the bill, H.R. 400, as well as the Rohrabacher substitute. I have here in my hand, and I include for the Record, dated April 16, a letter from the National Treasury Employees Union. The National Treasury Employees Union, Washington, DC, April 16, 1997. Hon. Zoe Lofgren, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Lofgren: As the full House of Representatives prepares to consider important intellectual property reform legislation later this week, I am writing to bring your attention to an issue of great importance to members of the National Treasury Employees Union. H.R. 400, the ``21st Century Patent System Improvement Act'' is scheduled for floor consideration on April 17, 1997. It has come to my attention that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is expected to offer H.R. 811 and H.R. 812--two patent bills introduced earlier this year--as a substitute to this legislation. While H.R. 811 deals primarily with patent term and publication issues, H.R. 812 includes a number of provisions that would exclusively benefit the PTO's patent examiners. NTEU supports improving the training and benefits of all of the PTO's employees, and we therefore believe that it would be grossly unfair for such benefits to accrue only to patent examiners and not to their counterparts in the Trademark Office. For this reason, I urge you to oppose the Rohrabacher substitute if it includes these provisions when intellectual property reform is considered by the full House. H.R. 400 includes several important elements of H.R. 811 and H.R. 812, including a provision allowing for the above referenced training and benefits for patent examiners and trademark examiners. Although NTEU has remaining concerns about the labor-relations provisions in H.R. 400, and would prefer to see the labor-relations language approved last year by the House Judiciary Committee adopted as this issue goes forward, this bill is a better alternative to the proposed Rohrabacher substitute. Sincerely, Robert M. Tobias, National President. Mr. Chairman, I will not read it all, but I will say, and this is a quote, ``I urge you to oppose the Rohrabacher substitute.'' And the final paragraph says, and this is again from Mr. Robert Tobias, the national president of the National Treasury Employees Union, ``H.R. 400 includes several important elements. Although NTEU does have remaining concerns about the labor relations provisions in H.R. 400, and would prefer to see the labor relations language approved last year by the House Committee on the Judiciary adopted as this issue goes forward, this bill is a better alternative to the proposed Rohrabacher substitute.'' I think it is important to note, and perhaps the Chairman and ranking member can address the issue raised as to the remaining labor- management relations issue that the Treasury Employees Union wants addressed, and I, for one, would pledge to work with them on that issue, but it is important to note that even without that issue being resolved, the Treasury Union employees prefer H.R. 400 and they oppose the Rohrabacher substitute. I think that is an important issue for Members to know. Second, I have heard a lot of discussion in this Chamber today, and people discussing it at large, about a variety of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the issues before us. We have heard about GATT, we have heard about NAFTA, we have heard about the Red Chinese Army, we have heard about multinational businesses. That is not what this bill is about. It has nothing to do with the patent bill. What this bill is about is not deferring foreign countries or conforming our law to theirs. What H.R. 400 is about is to advantage Americans who are presently being disadvantaged by our patent law. I have heard people say, well, why would we want to dumb down our patent law? Why would we expect the rest of the world to change, to conform with us? My response is because they are taking advantage of us right now. Why should they change when they are taking advantage of us? Why should we expect them to willingly give up the advantage that they currently have? It is up to this Congress to stand up for America by rejecting the Rohrabacher substitute and supporting H.R. 400. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon] for his eloquent comments about why a conservative would support H.R. 400 and oppose the Rohrabacher amendment. I think it is also important to note that the high-techology sector has accounted for 40 percent of the growth in the gross domestic product in the last several years. These companies are not all multinational corporations. Some of them are. I am not opposed to that. In fact, I think Intel Corp. is a great citizen. They just made a decision to give stock options to every single employee in their company down to the janitor. They do a great business. They have many patents, they are innovative, they are successful, and they support H.R. 400. I am proud that they do. But I would like to point out that the Biotechnology Industry Organization also supports H.R. 400, and also opposes the Rohrabacher substitute, and 95 percent of the membership of the Biotechnology Industry Organization is made up of companies with 500 employees or less. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to simply say I do not want to address every single issue raised by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] because Members are getting restive. I just would point out that in H.R. 400, if the patent issuance is delayed through no fault of the applicant, the term is extended and added on to remainder of the 20-year term.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the applicant does not take action to delay it, the term is extended and added on to the 20-year term.