toward big business. He seems to think that we are here of our own accord, but we are not; we are here because of your invitation; we are here because we believe you are doing a great public good, and we believe that the bills that you have prepared are a pronounced step forward, and it is our intention to do everything in our power to spread the good news that you are doing good work; and I think it comes with unbecoming grace from any lawyer to criticise us under those conditions.

We are not in exactly the same situation that Mr. Ford is. He is an individual

The CHAIRMAN. What group do you represent?

Mr. MCKENNA. I represent the General Motors Corporation, and that corporation is composed of 345,000 stockholders. Now that is a goodly number to represent, and I want the record specifically to show that we are here at your invitation, that we believe you are doing a great public good; and that we hope that the legislation you propose will be passed.

The CHAIRMAN. And you realize, Mr. McKenna, that Mr. Emery is the only man that has appeared who objects to certain features of the bill, without really citing the facts that I know the committee ought to pass on?

Mr. MCKENNA. Even after you requested that he do present them.

STATEMENT OF R. S. OULD

Mr. OULD. I have presented a memorandum which is printed in the hearings, and I do not mean to go into any detail regarding it, but just to mention, briefly, two of the points involved. Various witnesses have pointed out the importance of substantial improvement in classification division, and I would like to point out the very great need of substantial improvement in the library of the Patent Office. For instance, we will get, so far as possible, the very best type of supervision and library personnel and try to maintain the highest recognized standards of library service. It may not be generally recognized that the Patent Office library constitutes a very important part of the examination system of the Patent Office, and is not an inconsequential appendage, as some persons would think.

It undoubtedly is very important that the Patent Office shall acquire and contain all of the really useful materials, books, and periodicals in connection with the activities of the office; that it shall have the very best possible kind of index and biographies, and so on, which are a part of the best technical libraries of the country. For instance, the engineering societies' library in New York. It seems to me that the Patent Office library should be as good a library as that; and it is important that the Patent Office should have adequate funds to purchase books and periodicals, and bind the periodicals and other materials very appropriately, which should not cease at the present time; and that there should be formulated standards of library service to be maintained in the library, and to establish a means to maintain those standards; and it probably should be pointed out that some of the large corporations have very com

prehensive classified files with reference books, and articles and periodicals, in which a research can be very quickly made. Nothing of that kind is available in the Patent Office at the present time.

I have understood that, years ago, perhaps 30 years ago, as a part of that classification division, something of that kind was attempted, but there is certainly nothing of the kind now, at the present time, when it is very hard to get any money out of Congress, and I know of no place in the Patent Office where $1 will go further in substantially improving the standards of examination than to build a classification division, which provides for something like $125,000; whereas, an additional appropriation for the library of something like $15,000 would undoubtedly very materially improve conditions.

Just one other point which I would like to make, and that is in regard to the qualifications of examiners. Up to something like five or six years ago, one expected that an examiner in the Patent Office would be able to read French or German and learn, generally, both of those languages; something like five or six years ago, the Civil Service announcement, setting forth the requirements of that position, made the ability to read French or German an optional requirement; and if one qualified under those options, he was placed on the preferred list, the preferred register. However, my understanding has been that the number of persons who have passed the examination, say five years ago, was so small that it was not more than the actual need, and getting on the preferred list meant nothing. It is very important that an examiner should be able to read those languages.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Ould, for your suggestions.

Now, Mr. Robertson.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. ROBERTSON, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the various speakers before the committee. I realize fully, after having had about 30 years of practice before the Patent Office and having been commissioner for almost 11 years, that no bill can pass this committee of a constructive nature that has for its object to remedy certain faults in the Patent Office system that is not making a hardship for a few. The bills before you are bound, in some way or other, to hurt the poor inventor now and then. They are also bound to interfere with the operation of some corporations now and then.

But, as I understand the purpose of your committee, it is to try to pass some measures here which will give the greatest good to the greatest number. With that in view, I have looked at these bills, studied the bills, listened to the arguments, and studied the arguments; and I have, I want to say with a great deal of reluctance, cast aside the belief I have had for 30 or 40 years, in order to come around to support some of these measures, and I know that some of the members of the bar, who have spoken before your committee, have had to do the same thing. They have had to ruthlessly shove aside their beliefs founded upon 30 and 40 years' practice, in order

to come around to the position where they can support some of the measures before you, and when that support is given it means a whole lot more than when casual support is given to any bill which is presented before you.

Now, this is not a new thing, this question of delays in the Patent Office. I find that Commissioner Hall, back in 1887, Commissioner of Patents under President Cleveland, one of the ablest men we ever had in the Patent Office, used this language:

There are two classes of inventors who apply for patents: One is composed of those who are exceedingly anxious to obtain their patent at the earliest possible moment; and the other are those who desire to prolong the issuing of their patents and to keep the applications pending in the Patent Office until the very latest date possible.

The CHAIRMAN. They even had the disease then of "prolonged patentitis"?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes; and again, in 1891, the Republican Commissioner, Simonds, who was one of the ablest practitioners the Patent Office has ever known, favored limiting the term of the patent to not more than 20 years from the date of filing.

The CHAIRMAN. He was ahead of his time.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes; and, again, Commissioner Duell, who was probably one of our best known patent lawyers before he was appointed commissioner, and after he resigned as commissioner and went back into the practice, and who was appointed judge of the court of appeals by President Roosevelt, found this same evil existing, because I find in his report the following:

The practice of keeping a patent pending in the Patent Office is, in my opinion, reprehensible, and it certainly does not support the progress of invention.

Commissioner Moore took up the battle. Commissioner Ewing, under President Cleveland, did all he could to stop delaying applications in the Patent Office.

The CHAIRMAN. All of these people must have represented vested interests then. I wish I had known that when Mr. Ewing was here.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have yet to see a patent lawyer who does not like to represent vested interests.

The CHAIRMAN. Sure, I can see where a patent lawyer wants to have more litigation; his livelihood is impaired otherwise.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Now, the Patent Office is met with many problems. I do not want you to get the impression that the administration of the Patent Office at present, or under any other commissioner, is all that is desirable; it never has been and never will be.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Commissioner, I, for one, have personally the highest admiration and respect for you. I have got to judge you on the basis of the tools you have to work with, the law and the other things you have got to contribute with; and when I see all of this eminent group that comes here representing both the inventor and the great corporations, men who formerly served in your organization, I can readily see what wholesale capability and efficiency the corporate interests take away from you.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say, in that respect, that when I came up here before a Democratic committee for the first time we had always before had Republican committees one of the sweetest parts of my life has been to hear the tribute you have paid to me, and I want to express my appreciation for it.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not serving here only as a Democratic chairman of the Committee on Patents. I am here to serve the public irrespective of politics.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I realize that fully, sir; and that makes my appreciation all the greater.

Now, coming back to this problem, the Patent Office is a big piece of machinery with 1,400 employees. Up to June 30, 1930, we were losing, every single month, seven trained men each month, and I am not talking about stenographers, but I am talking about technical examiners.

The CHAIRMAN. What was their average salary?

Mr. ROBERTSON. They come into the Patent Office, now, at $2,000 per year, and after they have been there for some time, sometimes a year and sometimes five years, or sometimes seven years, they would go out with an average salary-the average salary of the entire Patent Office pay roll is between $2,400 and $2,500 per annum-they would be taken out of the Patent Office, by private employers, and sometimes the man receiving $2,200 in the Patent Office was started at $4,500 in private practice; the man receiving $3,300, would be started at $5,000; and one man left the Patent Office who was receiving $3,300 there who was started at $6,000 in private practice. The result is that we would have seven men resigning every month, and sometimes 11 and 12 a month, and we would have to fill their places with young men of the character referred to by Mr. Ould, the previous speaker, men who had never seen a patent, knew nothing about patents, but who must go in and take the place of these trained men.

That would be intolerable in any different situation, but when you have to have those men study over applications that have been pending 3 years, 4 years, or 10 years, and then acted upon already by trained men, and then they have to take the place of the trained men and cope with the exceedingly efficient attorney on the outside, you can see where the Patent Office is hampered and delayed. I do not know anything short of the kind of appropriation you refer to, which would permit our examiners to be paid salaries you spoke of two or three weeks ago, when you said you thought the examiners should receive $7,500 or $10,000 a year. I do not know anything except that which would help the Patent Office more than some of the bills you have before you now.

These long delayed pending applications are not merely detrimental to industry, but they tie up things in the Patent Office, and they retard progress there. I am saying this very reluctantly, because all of my life I have been trained to believe that it is the proper thing for an attorney, when his clients want it, to prolong the time of the application in the Patent Office, and I can assure you that it is not an exceptional case—

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the reason at all that Article I, section 8, paragraph 8, of the Constitution was written.

Mr. ROBERTSON. No; I can assure you that is not the case, because many attorneys who keep dockets-there are attorneys who keep dockets of some kind, and in some offices.it is the practice-it was the practice up to three years ago-when the law was such that an application has to be acted on within a year, for the docket clerk in a large office to call attention to the fact that this application must be amended within the next 30 days, which means that that normally delays it some 11 months. Now, that is not the exceptional

case.

The CHAIRMAN. That was perfectly legal, as we have heard the lawyers say the Supreme Court has to declare it.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Perfectly legal and indulged in very frequently, except in those cases where the attorney was instructed to hurry up and get the patent through. Now, there are a number of men as Commissioner Hall said-there are many of those who are exceedingly anxious to obtain their patents at the earliest practical moment, but those cases, those individuals sometimes are hampered by the ones who are in there so long.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think all of these bills that we have before the committee now will be instrumental in expediting these things and helping the situation?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I have no doubt whatever that the bills you have before you are going to cause a great change in the Patent Office procedure, so far as affecting the Patent Office is concerned, and so far as they affect the practicing attorneys. I want to come back to what I said before, that it is going to hurt the individual now and then.

Taking up the bills in their order, I know that the bill introduced by Mr. Underwood, 10152, is going to be of great assistance to individuals as well as corporations, who have paid good money for the purchase of inventions. I hope the amendments put into it will safeguard the public as well as the inventor-the amendment incorporated by Mr. Fenning to-day, and the result of yesterday's conference.

H. R. 10153, introduced by Doctor Sirovich, I am supporting with a great deal of reluctance. That is the bill which requires the patent to be issued within 20 years, that provides a man may have more than 20 years to obtain his patent, except under certain conditions he is given 2 years more under the special provision here. I am supporting it with a great deal of reluctance; but the very reluctance that I have in my own mind, in the light of the experience that I have had the last few years, makes my support of the bill all the stronger. My experience teaches me that the bill should be passed.

The CHAIRMAN. In my opinion, Commissioner Robertson, and I have studied all of the hearings and have presided over them during the last two months, and I have a scientific mind-when I go to operate and open up an abdomen, I know what to remove; if I want to take out an appendix or gall bladder or tumor, I know what the cause of it is-and as I have sat here listening to man