But I would like to just bring up one thing. The proponents of the bill are saying this is tort reform. And how could this be tort reform when the National Association of Manufacturers are on the other side, oppose it? It is not really tort reform. It is an all-out assault upon awarding reasonable damages to the inventor. That is done in two ways. One is through extreme limitation of damages, and the second is finding a way to lengthen the process of litigation. Now, another portion of this bill says, well, you shouldn't be able to shop for venue. And in America it has always been the tradition that you can bring a suit in any area, any county, any State where damage has occurred, and with a widely distributed product, you should be able to bring a lawsuit really wherever you want. And now, of course, the proposed reform says, well, you can't bring it in certain areas unless you have a certain nexus. Here's the problem: If you bring this in Chicago, the little guy, it's 5 years. If you bring it in Washington, D.C.'s ``rocket docket,'' it's called, you get it there in 1 year. Well, who is to gain by taking litigation and lengthening the time of it? It's the big guys versus the small guys.
On the recordSeptember 6, 2007
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a tort reform bill on inventors and litigation.
Share
More from Donald Manzullo
May 17, 2012
This amendment has been a long time in coming. Congress overreacted back in 1998 to move export licensing decisions for commercial communication satellites (COMSATs) to the highly restrictive munitions list. As a result, worldwide market…
May 16, 2012
I could go through my district, shop by shop, union by union, and demonstrate conclusively the benefits that happen as a result of union shops.
May 15, 2012
I think Americans would be aghast to know that if a State or municipality or the Federal Government... is opening up this bidding process to the Chinese when their record of IP protection is becoming worse.





