hosts of improvements that have been invented by others, so it would be diffused. There wouldn't be any more concentration in one hand. Mr. PRIEST. This is an interesting discussion Mr. LANHAM. I wanted to put in one pertinent thing along the line of suppression of patents which a great many authorities show is not being done. But of the peculiar stories that go about I think this is indicative of some of them. I heard this one: That there had been a supervitamin discovered that was so effective that if a dentist would extract a tooth and put this supervitamin in the cavity, a new tooth would grow, but that the dentists were suppressing that invention because it would be money out of their pockets. Mr. SADOWSKI. That one I hadn't heard of. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Bennett? Mr. BENNETT. I have just one other question I would like to address to the chairman and the author of H. R. 12 on this patent thing. I understood him to say this morning that students or people who had scholarships would not be regarded as employees under this section. Mr. PRIEST. Those under scholarships or fellowships are not regarded as employees of the Government. Mr. BENNETT. So a fellow with a scholarship or a person with a scholarship or a fellowship could have the complete benefit of any device that was patentable that he might devise as a result of his work with the Foundation. Mr. O'HARA. Except that he might be further restricted by his contract with the particular foundation or school that he was working with. Mr. PRIEST. Yes. That might enter into it. Let us say that a student has a scholarship at Johns Hopkins. The terms of the contract that he has with Johns Hopkins for carrying out the work under the scholarship would be the determining factor in that respect. Otherwise, he would be unrestricted except as the contract with Johns Hopkins might restrict him. Mr. BENNETT. He would be a free agent. As far as his information was concerned he could use it any way he wanted to. Mr. PRIEST. A free agent in negotiating the contract with the university that he might attend. Mr. BENNETT. But the minute he got over his scholarship and got to be an employee of the Foundation, then he wouldn't have that protec tion. Mr. PRIEST. If he was an employee of the Foundation, he would not have. Mr. BENNETT. It seems to me that is a pretty thin line to draw. I should think that some language could be devised here to spell out the rights of every person who might become an employee, who might go to work for the Foundation. Let us put it that way. So that he, as a result of his own efforts would be protected at least to the extent that he would be entitled to reasonable compensation as a result of his own initiative and his own endeavors, because if you don't have some kind of protection like that you sort of stifle, it seems to me, the efforts of an individual scientist working for this Foundation. There is no pecuniary reward to him whatsoever. In other words, under the present language he is simply at the mercy of whatever the Directors of the Foundation may see fit to give him. Mr. O'HARA. It would also apply, on the other hand, to employees. Mr. BENNETT. That is what I mean. Mr. PRIEST. If I might add a point here, I think we should understand that this Foundation will have very few employees, actually. The organization is not an agency that will have very many employees because most of its work is done under contracts with colleges and universities and industrial laboratories where contracts are signed with these institutions and research agencies. As such, the Foundation would have a few actual employees, enough clerical help, and a few advisers, employees of that type directly employed by the Foundation. As I see it, that entire section, if it were not in the bill, it wouldn't make a great deal of difference, frankly, so far as the operation is concerned. There might be a few instances in which it would be necessary. Are there any other questions? Mr. Stanley, do you have any questions? Mr. STANLEY. I have no questions. Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, may I thank you for your very patient and courteous hearing. I know through long association with so many of you that you have exactly the same interest that I have, and that is to protect this country of ours and maintain its preeminence. I did think it worth while to call attention to what I believe is some of our fundamental philosophy. Mr. PRIEST. Thank you, Mr. Lanham. The subcommittee will stand adjourned. The following was submitted for the record: Mr. ROBERT CROSSER, AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, DEAR MR. CROSSER: The patent committee of the Aircraft Industries Association suggests that the committee report on section XI of the National Science Foundation bill S. 247, and related House bills state that the interests of the Government and of individuals or organizations contracting with the Foundation are to be recognized; otherwise, by inference, section XI as presently written may be construed as taking away the rights of such individuals or organizations. To accomplish this clarification, we request that the following statement be included in the report of your committee: Section XI of this bill is designed and intended not only to protect the public interest by securing to the Government a free license to make, have made, use and sell or otherwise dispose of in accordance with law inventions made in the performance of any contract entered into with the Foundation under the provisions of this bill, but is also intended to insure an incentive to the individual or organization contracting with the Foundation by preserving to the contractor the commercial rights to such inventions." We are sorry that previous commitments prevented our appearing in person at the hearing and we trust it will be possible to include this letter in the record. Thanking you, we are, Very truly yours, STEPHEN CERSTVIK, National Chairman, Patent Committee. (Thereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1949 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., in room 1333, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C., the Honorable J. Percy Priest (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. PRIEST. The subcommittee will come to order. We are meeting this morning for a one-morning session in continuation of hearings on the Science Foundation legislation. This hearing date was set immediately after we closed hearings, back earlier in the month, in order to accommodate the National Patent Council representative. We had hoped, and we still hope, to be able to conclude this hearing this morning. We were able only to set this one day for that purpose. We are ready to proceed. Will the witness, Mr. Anderson, give his full name and identify himself for the record, stating his connection with the National Patent Council? STATEMENT OF JOHN W. ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PATENT COUNCIL, GARY, IND. Mr. ANDERSON. Chairman Priest, may I be seated? Mr. PRIEST. Yes, sir, you may. Mr. ANDERSON. My name is John W. Anderson. My residence is 578 Broadway, Gary, Ind. I speak in my own behalf as a citizen and in behalf of National Patent Council, of which I am president. The council is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization controlled exclusively by smaller manufacturers who are its associates and who operate in many different industries throughout the Nation. I am president and active administrative head of the Anderson Co., Gary, Ind., which I founded in 1918. My company is in its thirtysecond year of uninterrupted research, product development, and manufacture. Hundreds of millions of products embodiments of patented inventions originating and perfected in its laboratories have served and are serving citizens of America and of all other civilized countries. Its inventions have provided for military and commercial uses a sole source of an important type of functional components developed by it to meet military needs. I have served, during the past 25 years, as president of other national associations of manufacturers and am at present a director of 169 one State, and three national manufacturers' associations. During three consecutive years of World War II, I served as president of Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association. I have represented industry on various advisory committees of Government. National Patent Council is concerned with any movement, condition, or influence that may affect the potency of the American institution of incentive enterprise as catalyzed by the United States patent system. The council, its members and associates, which include hundreds of men engaged everywhere in research, invention, manufacture, or the practice of professions related thereto, are much alarmed by persistent efforts of other men, coldly fanatical men, alien-inspired, believed to have as their objective the stifling of that incentive to invent and produce which has given to America its phenomenal industrial growth. Even those carrying most responsibility for the quiet hospitality extended to those enemies among us seem no longer inclined to deny that infiltration of our productive and protective institutions is approaching the point of saturation. That infiltration is by citizens and noncitizens, bearing allegiance to a common and hostile alien handful of cunning conspirators against human liberty everywhere. The public press and radio now shock us almost daily with new revelations of the depth of penetration by this vast fifth column of underground operatives set upon us by the Kremlin. Constantly more and more Americans are shaken by the realization that they have supported, in good faith often translated into enthusiastic activity, organizations, theories, and legislative programs skillfully contrived to appear inspired by patriotic motives when in fact intended only to entrench the master planners at one or another of what they have termed the vital "nerve centers" of our national economy. Among the favorable signs, which it is hoped may not prove mere straws, we have frank reversals of opinions and positions, by conscientions Americans who at last have realized how seriously they have been misled. Men and women in public life, who formerly were innocent relays for the enemy's preachings and propaganda, now seek, by bold denunciations of their erstwhile affiliates, to repair in part the damage they have done. Publishers formerly transmitting, to the public, viewpoints of editors and writers infiltrating their staffs to use the prestige of the publication as a carrier for narcotic thought, are showing unmistakable signs of a struggle to rid themselves of such influences and reset their editorial and reportorial policies. Perhaps the most heartening manifestation of growing awareness of the character of the conspirators, and of the subtleties they employ, is to be seen in the stubborn resistance of our Congress to a strange new pattern of proposed legislation that has made clear at last, even to those most reluctant to believe, the unholy strategy and ruthless intent of the master planners, who would entrap all our people through the vanities or venalities of a few of them. Frightening import of mounting public disclosures suggests a careful examination of facts seeming to warn that the proposed legislation for a National Science Foundation dovetails significantly into this general subversive pattern. Reluctance to accept such facts as significant can be understood, because such acceptance may mean reevaluation of relationships once cherished and a reclassification of personalities once respected. But such seems to be the order of the troubled days in which we live. May we first trace, toward its still somewhat obscure origin, the National Science Foundation concept, believed by some to have been spawned somewhere within the long leftist shadow of Henry Wallace? In 1943 Senator Harley M. Kilgore introduced his "science mobilization" bill (S. 702). I was honored by Senator Kilgore's acceptance of an invitation by its publishers to debate that bill with me in the September 15, 1943, issue of Modern Industry. Because of its pertinence, I offer herewith, as an exhibit to my testimony, a photostatic reproduction of the original publication of that debate, with underscoring and other emphasis supplied. It is interesting to note that it was argued in 1943 by Senator Kilgore, and of course by others, that a tremendous emergency existed, and that the war could not be won without the enactment of his bill for "science mobilization." To quote from my argument in the debate with the Senator, that bill would have placed in the hands of a single Administrator, with minor checks and restrictions having partisan political origin and subject to partisan political dominance, the arbitrary power innocently to plant, by his own rules and regulations (which "shall have the force and effect of law") unlimited numbers of assorted monkey wrenches in every part of the machinery of our complex industrial economy. This same criticism applies equally to the Science Foundation bill recently passed by the Senate. The present H. R. 12, while in some respects not phrased as frankly as the Kilgore bill of 6 years ago, does present the same general pattern of controls as did the Kilgore bill. The more refined and restrained language of H. R. 12 nevertheless confers upon the Foundation--and, in the version recently passed by the Senate, confers upon the Director of the Foundation alone-the power to destroy the equilibrium of private industrial research programs by legalized trespass thereon. Industry would be disciplined through the manipulation of patent rights acquired by the Foundation. Those rights, as will be shown, could be taken from the citizen through condemnation proceedings if such were the will of the Foundation. And the trespass may be expanded by similar acquisition, retention, and/or transfer of other property, real or personal, conveniently regarded by the Foundation as "necessary for, or resulting from, scientific research" (sec. 11 (e) of H. R. 12). In substance, many of the same arguments used in support of the Kilgore bill are now being used to support H. R. 12 and its companion bills, to which this statement is directed. The testimony and exhibits in hearings on the Kilgore bill, before a subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs in the United States Senate in the Seventyeighth Congress, are voluminous. In their testimony, proponents of the bill argued that industry could not cope with the technological problems presented by the war and that only Government control in fields of research and invention could bring victory. Now we are told that national security again is in jeopardy because the citizen still may follow his research programs without legalized trespass by mental |