Andrea Joy Campbell: “there were three points made in opposition to my amendment. I would like to rebut each of them. First of all, prior…”

“there were three points made in opposition to my amendment. I would like to rebut each of them. First of all, prior domestic use; it has been asked: Prior to what? The answer is already in the bill. Remember the bill itself creates the prior domestic use as a right. Accordingly, I am saying whatever that prior domestic use is, it shall be limited to its scope as of the time of the prior domestic use recognized by the bill. So it really is a circular argument against my amendment. Second, opponents of my amendment argue that this is a disadvantage for America in regard to Europe because Europe has a prior domestic use provision. This is the debate we had last week. If a European files over here, the European's prior domestic use does not give an excuse to violate American patent law. Everyone over here is treated the same. Over in Europe, whether an American or a European files, there is a prior domestic use exception. So there is a no unfairness between the two; we have a better system. In America the patent means more, and that should be protected. And, last, opponents argue that small businesses are somehow disadvantaged. I have now had the opportunity to read Mr. Lehman's letter. He claims small inventors are disadvantaged--but what he says is disadvantaged as opposed to what the amendment would provide instead of the bill, not disadvantaged as compared to the status quo. There is no prior domestic commercial use in the status quo.”