Time: Mon Jul 14 21:37:32 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA21571; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:36:45 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA14416; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:36:22 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:36:01 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Sen. Hatch's Attack on Inventors' Rights -- Phyllis Schlafly (fwd) <snip> > >Hatch's Attack on Inventors' Constitutional Rights > > July 9, 1997 > > Fast track for NAFTA expansion, Most Favored Nation > status for China, and foreign aid are all issues that > pit the internationalist ideologues and > multinationals against grassroots Americans and small > business. But the issue that marks this division most > clearly is the Ominous Patent bill (oops, the Omnibus > Patent bill), S. 507. > > The United States has produced more than 90 percent > of the world's inventions because our patent system > is superior to every other country's. Other countries > that want to steal or copy our technology, and the > multinationals that want to curry favor with foreign > markets, are demanding that we change our system. > > Senator Orrin Hatch's sponsorship of this bill is one > more instance of his puzzling lurch to the left, > along with collaborating on Kennedy KidCare and > expediting Clinton's liberal court nominees. Hatch > has rushed a slightly amended S. 507 through his > Judiciary Committee. > > Senate Small Business Committee Chairman Kit Bond > (R-MO) is circulating a Dear Colleague letter > pointing out that, even as amended, S. 507 will > "jeopardize the value, certainty and protection of > the American patent, threatening the ability of > independent inventors and small businesses to > continue their incredible work." Here is why: > > (1) Hatch's bill would greatly expand the procedures > for reexamination of all existing patents, making it > much easier for foreign and domestic corporations to > challenge a patent immediately and invalidate patents > already issued. This would dramatically decrease the > existing rights of all current U.S. patent holders. > > Challenging and defending a patent are very expensive > processes. Forcing the inventor to defend his patent > in a second examination puts a very costly burden on > inventors and small businesses and would be a > significant advantage to deep-pocket corporations. As > Senator Bond explains, this "will destroy the > certainty of a patent that is critical for the small > guy to attract investors." > > (2) Hatch's bill would undercut our whole patent > system by creating a new defense for patent > infringers called "prior use." This would exempt from > the payment of royalties an infringer who asserts he > was using the idea before it was patented, thereby > diluting the U.S. patent holder's constitutional > "exclusive right." > > Small businesses that have spent time and money > creating a new idea and bringing it to market would > thus have the value of their patent dramatically > reduced. The advantage would shift to the big firms > that poach on the ideas of individuals, then use > large legal resources to avoid the patent process and > the payment of royalties. > > (3) Hatch's bill would change the patent office from > a government agency to a corporation with an outside > board of directors and employees excluded from civil > service. Hatch's big-business bias is painfully > obvious: the text of S. 507 actually states that the > directors shall include "individuals" (in the plural) > with "achievement" in "corporate finance and > management." > > In his amendment, Hatch agreed to allow one member of > the board to be an independent inventor; but, as > Senator Bond points out, no space is reserved for a > small-business representative. Hatch's gesture is > tokenism, and it certainly does not protect > inventors' rights. > > The bill would even allow corporations to influence > the patent office through "gifts" (a.k.a. bribes). > Hatch bragged in his press release that he > "accommodated the Administration" by "fend[ing] off > the unjustified but politically appealing attacks on > the corporation's gift provision." > > (4) Hatch's S. 507 as originally introduced would > have eliminated our traditional rule that all patent > applications remain secret unless and until a patent > is actually issued. Although the amended S. 507 now > includes a limited exception for U.S. inventors > willing to forgo applying for a foreign patent, early > publication was and is the primary goal of the > extraordinary lobbying effort to change our patent > system being made by the Japanese, the multinationals > and the Clinton Administration. > > Senator Bond accurately points out that the initial > secrecy about an invention is "the cornerstone of our > patent system" because it preserves the property > right of the inventor until he gets his legal rights > recognized in a patent. Publication of the details of > an invention before a patent is issued would set it > up to be stolen by infringers and copycats all over > the world who are, as Bond says, just "waiting around > for American ideas to take to market." > > The game plan of the lobbyists for the foreigners and > multinationals is to use the newly created > corporation, with a board dominated by > big-corporation types, to accomplish the same goal > through regulations that never go through Congress. > > Last year, FDA Week exposed that Patent Commissioner > Bruce Lehman had made a deal to give the Chinese the > entire U.S. patent data base on magnetic tapes, > including five and a half trillion characters of > information with technical drawings and chemical > formulations. Americans have to pay to get this data, > but Lehman wanted to give this multi-million-dollar > American asset free to the Chinese. > > Senator Bond says that S. 507's changes in our patent > system would have "enormous consequences." Indeed, > they would. The consequences are all bad, and S. 507 > has no redeeming value. > >---------------------------------------------- >Phyllis Schlafly column 7-09-97 > >E-mail YOUR SENATOR: > http://www.senate.gov/senator/membmail.html > > PS REPORT > Patent Report : > http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/may97/psrmay97.html > > COLUMNS > The Patent Fight Gets Ugly : > http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1997/may97/97-05-14.html > > Who's Interfering with Our Constitutional Patent Rights? > http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1997/apr97/97-04-15.html > > > NEWS RELEASE: > http://www.eagleforum.org/patent/news_release.html > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Eagle Forum http://www.eagleforum.org >PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org >Alton, IL 62002 618-462-5415 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To subscribe please e-mail us a message with > SUBSCRIBE in the subject line >------- >To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message >UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact >owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail