Andrea Joy Campbell: “what is a compelling need to change the patent system of the United States that has served us so well? The case has not…”

“what is a compelling need to change the patent system of the United States that has served us so well? The case has not been made on the floor today. I have one additional reason to suggest that H.R. 400 actually does more harm than has previously been brought forward in this debate, but before I do that I do wish to identify and draw some very clear focus on the fact that the only argument that has been made for the need to change is the submarine patent. That issue is taken off the table once we realize that the Rohrabacher bill also deals with the submarine patent. I believe that issue is no longer in debate. For those who are in doubt, those Members perhaps who are watching the debate, do check the Congressional Research Service, page 12 and 13, the quotation that I gave before. Both bills seek to curtail submarine patenting and would likely end the practice. So what is the compelling need? Does it make sense that there is some benefit to be gained by those large firms who wish to have earlier and more ready access to information that would otherwise be patented? Yes, it is in their interest. But insofar as it enhances their interest, it takes from the inventor. The inventor cannot be substituted for. There can be commercializers, there can be developers. Japan of course is the key commercializer probably in the world of somebody else's ideas. But America is unique as being the key inventor.”