Chemical and Engineering News 1155—16th St., N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20036 Editor: Albert F. Plant Managing Editor: Michael Heylin Assistant Managing Editors: David M. Kiefer, James H. Krieger, Donald J. Soisson Senior Editor: Earl V. Anderson (New York) Senior Associate Editor: Howard J. Sanders Staff Writer: Joseph Haggin Associate Editors: Ernest L. Carpenter, Thomas E. Feare Assistant Editors: P. Christopher Murray, Rebecca L. Rawls, Richard J. Seltzer Editorial Assistant: Theresa L. Rome Editing Services: Joyce A. Richards (Head) Editorial Reference: Barbara A. Gallagher (Head) Graphics and Production: Bacil Guiley (Head). Leroy Corcoran (Manager). Norman W. Favin (Art Director). John V. Sinnett (Designer). Linda McKnight, Gerald Quinn (Artists). NEWS BUREAUS: New York: William F. Fallwell (Head). Chicago: Ward Worthy (Head). Houston: Bruce F. Greek (Head). Washington: Fred H. Zerkel (Head), Janice R. Long (Assistant Editor) FOREIGN BUREAUS: London: Dermot A. O'Sullivan (Head). Tokyo: Michael K. McAbee (Head) ADVISORY BOARD: Alfred E. Brown, Marcia Coleman, Arthur W. Galston, Derek P. Gregory, James D. Idol, Jr., Gerald D. Laubach, Paul F. Oreffice, Edward R. Thornton, Herbert L. Toor, M. Kent Wilson Published by AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY Robert W. Cairns, Executive Director Division of Public Affairs and Communication Richard L. Kenyon, Director Arthur Poulos, Editorial Promotion EDITORIAL BOARD: Mary L. Good (Chairman), Herman S. Bloch, Bryce Crawford, Jr., Robert W. Parry, B. R. Stanerson; PresidentElect: William J. Bailey; Representative, Council Publications Committee: Arthur Fry; PastPresident: Alan C. Nixon © Copyright 1974, American Chemical Society Subscription Service: Send all new and renewal subscriptions with payment to: Office of the Controller, 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. All correspondence and telephone calls regarding changes of address, claims for missing issues, subscription service, status of records and accounts should be directed to: Manager, Membership and Subscription Services, American Chemical Society, P.O. Box 3337, Columbus, Ohio 43210; telephone 614-421-7230. On changes of address, include both old and new addresses with ZIP code numbers, accompanied by mailing label from a recent issue. Allow four weeks for change to become effective. Claims for missing numbers will not be allowed if received more than 60 days from date of issue plus time normally required for postal delivery of journal and claim; if loss was due to failure of notice of change of address to be received before the date specified above; or if reason for claim is "issue missing from files." Subscription Rates 1974: nonmembers, U.S. and Canada, 1 yr. $9.00, 2 yr. $15, 3 yr. $19; foreign $16, $30, $43. Postage: Canada, Pan American Union, $4.00; foreign $5.00. Air freight rates available on request. Single copies: Current $0.50. Rates for back issues and volumes are available from Special Issues Sales Dept., 1155—16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. An annual index is available for $20. Standing orders are accepted. Back and current issues are available on microfilm. For further information, contact Special Issues Sales, ACS, 1155 —16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Published by the American Chemical Society from 20th and Northampton Sts., Easton, Pa., weekly except the last week in December. Second class postage paid at Washington, D . C , and at additional mailing offices. The American Chemical Society assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the editors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Advertising Management CENTCOM, LTD. (For list of offices see page 31 )
2
C&EN July 22, 1974
Editorial
Starting a new reform movement Although disagreeing with the form of the bill, Sen. John L. McClellan (D.-Ark.) nevertheless recently voted to report the Patent Reform Bill (S. 2504) from the Patents Subcommittee to the full Committee on the Judiciary. I share Sen. McClellan's concern, since I wholeheartedly agree with his judgment that the bill as it presently stands will weaken rather than strengthen our patent system. As such, I find it difficult to classify it as patent reform. I think the wiser choice would have been to have retained it even longer in the subcommittee, particularly since, when reported out, it still did not contain the inputs of C. Marshall Dann, the present Commissioner of Patents. To Sen. McClellan's credit, he had been attempting for months, unsuccessfully, to get Commissioner Dann's comments and proposed modifications. These are now available, but they would have been much more valuable and susceptible of incorporation by the subcommittee rather than the full Senate Judiciary Committee. Although this potential disaster to our present patent system is probably a fair distance into the future—final Congressional action is not expected this year—the danger still exists. It is now up to the Senate Judiciary Committee to correct the errors in the bill before the disaster is allowed to strike. Consider, for example, that the present bill is regarded as being contrary to our international obligations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. This is just one of the many points that need to be resolved. The present bill also provides for a program to assist (in both an advisory and economic capacity) individual inventors and small businessmen in prosecuting patent applications. Aside from the fact that this will place a significant additional burden on the Patent Office and transfer costs to paying patentees, the basic concept of this provision is inappropriate to the patent reform bill. If there is a desire and a need to assist the smaller inventor, it should be done as separate legislation. S. 2504 should concern itself with patent law and the patent system, not with assistance programs. Nor is the Patent Office the appropriate place for such assistance programs, which could constitute a serious conflict of interest. It's not all bad, of course. At least the present bill does not include the exclusive licensing provisions being pushed by many corporate patent attorneys and R&D executives for incorporation into the bill. Although I agree with the concept of exclusive licensing as an aid in moving unused government patents into the private sector, again, I don't think the patent reform bill is the appropriate place for such legislation. Let's hope that in the revisions made by the Senate Judiciary Committee, they don't compound the felony by adding such a provision. We desperately need patent reform and when the first hearings on the subject were held—way back in 1967—it looked like we might finally be on the way to some improvement in the system. Now, seven years later, it looks as though we're further behind than when we started. Maybe it's time we started a movement to help Sen. McClellan and the Senate Judiciary Committee reform the bill on patent reform. Albert F. Plant
C&EN EDITORIALS REPRESENT ONLY THE VIEWSOF THE AUTHOR AND AIM AT INITIATING INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION
