REF ID:A68973 

COPY 

OFFICE OF SCIEIJTIFIC Ri'..5EA.RCH AND DEV-~Pl-SJT 

WASID:NGTOI~, D. C. 

The Honorable John F~ Sonnett 

Acting Head, Claims Division 

Department of Justic~ 

Washington, D. c. 

Dear Mr. Son.nett: 

lfovcmbor 2, · 1945 · ·· ·· 

·.:· ·.· 

., . . . . . .. · .... 

Your ptedecessor, Mr. Ra'irlings Ragland, by letter dated August 

14, 1945 transmitted to me a copy of the ••Firs~ Report of the Atto~ey 

General to the President" co·1ering the Department of Justice Patent 

Policy Survey. 

On August 20 I acknowledged receipt of the copy of the report 

and pointed out that although I had not had opport\Ulity to study the 

document with the care that I wished to give it, there -.va.s one matter 

of importance which I desired to bring to your attention at that time, 

namely, the treatment of industrial contractors as though their.positions 

with respect to the Government were exactly the sarae as those of Govermnent 

employees. 

In my letter I pointed out that an independent contractor of1ie!1 

brings to the research that he docs for tho Government u.~dcr contract 

not only provious "knmv-how", but a substantial investment of tir.i..:.., r.1011ey, 

and personnel in such research and that this investment should in equity 

be recognized by the Government in contracting for further research. In 

my letter I also stated that while I was inclined to agroe with the con-· 

clusions contained in tho report with rcsp~ct to Govern.~ont o~plO"'/~~s, 

suc;h conclusions introduced problon1s of' their mm and I would 17I'i to ~;au. 

in more detail about these matters in tho noar future. . 

Since that time.: I hEivc had· opportunity to give ·t;hu r...a.tt..:r furtl:cr 

thought and obtain thu vio115 of others. In this con..'1..;ction, I hav~ had 

opportunity to review Secretary of ~iar PattLrson•s lotter to you of 

September 24·, 1945. In that lett~r hu sets forth three reasons 1;hy a 

mandatory rt.-quircmont that .f.'u:l ownership by th._ Govurn.~~nt of pat~nts 

eventuating under all Govornl!lcnt contracts should not be made.:. In this 

connection I ~hould like to bring to your attention thL RLport of th0 

Federal Aviation Commission of January, 1935 (?4th Congress, 1st Session, 

Senate Docum~nt No. 15) uhcrc at pages 176 and J:7? ?!r. Clark HO'::cll, 

Chairman, Mr. Ecb-rard P. lfarner, Vice Chairman, Ht.ssrs. Albe.rt J. B .... rre:s, 

Jerome c. Hunsaker, Franklin K. Lane, Jr., as mcr.iburs of th(, Co!:!.::iission, 

and Mr. J. Carroll Cono as Executive Secretary to th~ Commission, ar~ of 

the same vicv1 as Judge Patterson. · 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 01-03-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
• 

REF ID:A68973 

-2-

I fully agree 11ith Judge Patt,erson :Ln; each of ·the reasons·. why 

contractors should not be required t.o a~si~n title t·:> their· ·inventions 

to the Government and add that if such :req:uirement had be·en in existence 

in 1940 this Office could not have accompl~shed the objectives obtained 

by it in the successful prosecution of the: war. The vi01vs of the 

gentlemen mentioned above should not be pa~sed over ~ithout serious 

consideration. 

As to~he policy to be established fo~ inventions of employees 

of the Government·, the Secretary df -.:iar is : of the vie':; that ·they, like 

development contract.ors, must be dealt with on the basis of f'air dGaling 

in the individual case. He points out tha~ in the expcricncu of the 

rlar Department many notable contributions qf ·vital ir.iporta11ce to ·the 

national defense have been evolved u..~dor tho practice of lcavinci commercial rights in the inventor and that tl1i~ systo.:1 of inccntivi:: !:lay 

be wor:th mor..:; to all thG pcopl0 than it c;:os~s sor.1:. of th;,,;..'n. Hu them 

urges i:h lieu of recommending to th;;; President that th..;se: Il'.attcrs bu 

handled by :C:Xocutivc Order, you rocoLllncnd t~a.t th~y be disposed of by 

legislation duly introduced b.:..foru the Cong:h::ss i;;, vi..;;w of (1) th ... great 

public interest in tho r.:a.ttor, (2) tlw d:Lvo:i'sit,y of opinion which has 

always boon associat0d nith th0so qaostions,; (3) th.:. fact that s~ch 

procoduro will afford to Government omploycus and dovc.1-:>p.:!wnt c·:mtractors 

an opportunity to present thoir vicYiS to Congress, and· "(L,.) ·the. opinion 

of the majority of th..:. court in the case of ,Unit0d Stat;.:;s v Dubilic...r 

Condonsor Corporation, 289 US 1?8 to thu c.£.t'.cct that those q:i .... stions 

should bu ha.."'1.dlod by 1.igislation rather than'. by adr:lir.istrativc regulation. 

' 

I join tho Socr..;tar-,y of War in urgin.,. t~at thusc questions be. 

not disposed of by lJ!l:'ecipitous Executive Ordf.r, but ·!;hat thLy b..; sub-· 

miti:..:id to Congress to the: end that it may obtain th..; vie:ws of all 

interested_, and ·t;h0n datorr.rlno the question by duly enacted le:gislation. 

. 

Very trUly you.rs, 

(3i5ncd)·v. Bush 

v. l3usli · · Dir.::.ctor· ·· 

I • • '• ''I 1' • I " 

. • .. 

. :; 

.. ... ---··---~ 

. ....._,. 
,. >C 

.. 

. • 

I ' 

REF ID:A68973 

COPY VIAR DEPARTimlT 

OFFIC~ OF TIIE UNDER SECJfilTARI 

WA,SHiilGTOH, D. C. 

Honorable John F. Sonnett 

Acting Head, Claims Division 

.·.-Department of Justice 

·Washington 25, D. c • 

. ·Dear Mr. Sennett: 

24 September 1945 

· In his letter to me of August 14, 1945·your predecessor, l·Jr, . Raglan.d., requested an expression of my viev1s ·regardi~ a proposed r~port 

which the Attorney General contemplates submitting to the President concerning the patent policies of the Government. The portions of the proposed report which particularly concern the liar Department are those which 

suggest an Executive Order making mandator-J the inclusion of certain patent 

provisions in all developraent contracts and contracts with Governmeμt 

eraployees, subject to deviation only upon application in individual cases 

to an interdepartmental Government Patents Board. Those proposed pa.tent 

provisions provide for an assignment to the Government of all inventions 

made in the pcrfo:rn.a.::icc of such contracts. 

In view of its experience in this fiuld, the· liar .UulJartmont would 

feel coopolled strongly to object to your proposud recomr.icndations of an ~::ccutivo Order of this kind, ~~or reasons v1hich I summariz.e belmv. I-. 

believe such an Bxocut:\.vo Order would constitute so scri·ous an obstacle to 

the maintenance of modern and efficient arhla.~en~ in thu days to cora~, that 

I rcquc.st that this lc..:ttcr, or a copy thereof, be. tI·ansr.ti.ttcd to tho 

.Pri:isident with th1.; proposed report if it be detcnnim:d to tip.l<:o substantially 

th.:; rccornmond.ations to which obj1...ction is ~1crc taken. 

Certain ty-~cs of mandatory contract provisions, _pruscribe.d by ~o.cutiv..: ·Ordcr, hav:c been used during the war, and ~~cy have mot·:with.substantially uniforza acceptance by Governmunt suppliors. Such provisions 

include tho anti-discrimination clause, the vmrranty against payment.of 

contingent fees, and thu like. ~uch gcnoral.ace1:1ptancc of· tllc.sc clauEJcs 

affords no basis honcver to believe that th1.;· mandatory patent clause you 

propose would mcct·rdth equal, or indeed any, acceptance among Govornm.cnt 

suppliers. .. 

' 

.. A r.mndatory requirement that full mm;;;r.s.hip of. cvc;;ntuating ~:>a.tents 

shall pass to th1.; Gov~rm.lcnt undor all dovc.l.opnoot contrac·ts would in effect 

require such contr~cts-to include not. only tho purchase-of Govcrnmont.rights 

to use the; knowlcdgo achi~vcd, but also the right ·to authorize others to 

usu it for thei..r privatu. ·commercial purposes •.. This would lw.yc.. throe. . i."llportant cff ucts.. · , . .. .. . 
• • 

REF ID:A68973 • 

. , • 

... 

First, it would ~eriously hinder the Government's obtaining contractors able and qualified to underta.k.~ a JJ(l:l'ticular·research and de- • 

veloprumt project. The Government cannot effe9t:i;.vely obtain research or 

developnent by compulsion. Pr41dugtive rese&J'P.~ and deve1o:tnent result only 

from the. co:osent and cooperation of the contractor. In most cases the "riar 

Depa.rtc.e1it has little•· choice as to who the research or developnent contractor 

shall be. COllllalonly the selection must be 1:1&de from a very small group of 

qualii'ied contractors, a large percentage of 'tlhi.ch are indust~ organizations, 

which are so qualified because ot teclmical informa:t:i,on anii ~OWledge acquired 

in a competitive commercial market. The wartime experience ·of the War De~di 

is that such contractoi-s arc unwilling to scll invontio:ris having an actual 

or potential cor.miorcial value to them. The proposed .zi'ccu\ivo Ordor is · 

certain to encounter sorious resistance from such qualifiqd contractors · 

which \10uld gravely ha.cpor tho programs of research and devolop:iont upon ·. 

llhich tho •afl'Octivont)SS of our military cstal;!~shm.Ont in tho yoars to cano 

tdll chiufly rest. . : : . 

Secone;t, it l7ould further narrm\f the Govermn~nt 1 s choice in selecti~ 

contractors because.in numerous cases the scientists employed by industry 

insist upon retainint; all or sone part of ti1e comrner,cial ri.t;hts in inventions 

made in the performance of their duties. In these instances contractors 

cai::.1ct a~ree to transfer to the Govermnent inventions n'IB.de in the performance 

of a developnent contrac~ because of restrictive agreements between the contractor and the inventors. The Govenlc.ent has no power to qompel suc.h 

scientists to transfer their ri311ts to the contractor or to the Govermilent. 

Accordi~ly, unless the Government is able to purchase such inv~ntions fro:.1 

thase sc"ientists at· a price which can be j'J.Stified it will .be !=OMP'-Ued to 

let the contract •Ii th -a less qualified. contractor. · .: · 

Third, it \70Uld t;rcatly incrcasu th\'.. ovt:1•all cost or rtscarch arid. I 

dav~lo}%lont. \•ben tl1e:: contractor grants tt; th~ Gov,::μuru.;;,1t· ~~y ·tho· royalty-

. £rt;v ri.)1t to practice anJ. cause to bo practicud f_or it: thu +nvuhtions made 

in the pcrfoI'LlB.llcG of thu contract, -~far Du:Jarti.le:nt c.:~pt.;riuncc has· be::c!-i that 

tt.... contractor ro;;artis fair co-.. ;.pcnsatiot1 as consisting of ustiroat.'.'~d costs 

of th~ l:crk tp bu dono, plus a profit th...r<.:on. aowov~r, when a contractor 

is called upon to agree to .. assiJn to. tn\) Govcrn.'il~•1t .i'ull ti tlu to inventions 

mad..; in the performance or tho .contract (\·rith "th..: ri~ht t.o lic..:.:1s~ otht.1·s) 

th.:. ..:~pl.rionc-.. ~"ld •judg;ncnt of thi:. 'i•Bl' Dc.:_::~rttJ.(..nt indicat ... s '·t.lia:~ .th ... contractor, faci:<i ·w:L th th~ fact· that .his co::u.l(.;rcial c0!1pct+ "ttQrs uill -i;,hus b;.: · 

:rr~u to usu th.:. im•.:ntions, nill r~g~ . fai,r c01n1:.1.IDsat.ior.: as including not 

only the. ..;.stirn8.tcd costs of t!1.:. -.1ork, plqs .a profit th.:;ri.'.on, but, also an 

cvaluatio:i of all past accu:nula.tcd W::iJ .. ri-.;1'}.9~ a;1tl .mou-ho-.: .:nt..;.r:l.ng .1..ato 

th ... ·.-ork to b ... don ... , tog...:thur -.ti.th ad .. quate,; co:r.irx.nsation for th" loss or 

c:xcl"..lsiv ... co:.i.'?lcrcial rights. Th ... add~d coat thus ~ntail~d -,rould c~i;istitut .. 

a suLstantial drain upon fWlds al:>propria~~~ py Col'l.3r ... ss fol' rcs~arcn and 

dcvcl.opr.i.:nt in the :military ... stablisli:n ... nt a11:d ~-rould to that ... xtvnt- ·ctll'ta.il 

r ... s~arch and :i.mprov.:.mit.nt in aid of th~ rational d~f'-ns..;. '.i'his r1.1sult ~:ould 

b~ :i. r.iattor of s.:;rious conccrr. to the. ~lar p .. po.rtci.:.r.t. 

-2- • 
.. I• .,:; 

, 

REF ID:A68973 

With respect to Government employees, it is to be observed that 

they, like developnent contractors, must be dealt with on the basis of fair 

dealing in the ind:ividwil case. The circumstances of employment vary wid~ 

between the several Departments. In many laboratories, arsenals, provin3 

grounds and engineering installations of the 17ar De:partment it has been 

found that the ingenuity of the er11ployee has been usefully stimulated by 

leaving commercial rights in him. I appreciate fully the force of your 

suggestion that this creates a contingency in which the employee may profit 

personally. It must not be overlooked,. ho,·revcr, that in 1"iar Department 

establishments, engaged in perfecting the weapons and arma111cnts of warfare• , many notable contributions of vital importance to the national defense have 

been evolved under the practice of lcavill3 comznorcial rights in the invc.:ntor9 

and that this system of incentive may b~ v1orth more to all the people than 

what it costs some of them. 

Ii', not1rl.thstanding the foregoing considorations, you adhere to the. 

recommendations containod in the proposed raport to the effect that ovor:1 

Goyarnm.cnt agency, by regulations and by agrcur.icnt with cmployoos and 

contractors, shall reserve tho right to an assignment of th~ title to every 

invention which involves the.: use of Government facilities, z,iatt.::rials, tine. 

or funds or rcla tes to the: authorized or p.::rmissi vc functions of tho 1..;r,1ployco 

or to the work called for by tho contra.ct, I urge that in li<..u of recommending to the: President that these matters iJc handled by Executive Ord1..:r, you 

rocanmond that they be disposed cf by legislation duly introduced before the 

Congress in vi~~, of (i) tho great public interest in the mat~or, (ii) the 

diversity of opinion -.'Viti.ch has always been associated \"Tith those qu~stions• 

(iii) the fact that such proccduru 1T.ill afford to Gov~rnr.1unt um?loyccs and 

doveloJlll.ont contractors an opportunity to present thoir vic-;rs to Congr~ss 

and (iv) the opinion of tho majority of tho court in th~ ca.s~ 0£ United States 

v Dubi.lier Condonsor CorporatiQn, 289 US 178 to tho cff oct that these questions 

should be baiidlcd by legislation rather than by administrative regulation. 

Sincc1·c:ly yours 1 

sigili.;d 

ROB!SRT P. P4TTERSON 

Und.c.:r Secretary of 11ar 
REF ID:A68973 

c 0 p y .19 January 1947 .. :;,, .. 

L&.10RANDUH FOR Tl£ UiljER SECRETARY OF UAR 

SUB.r.;.:.CT: Comment on So :i.iuch of the b'oposed Govermnent 

Patent J?olicy Recommended ia a Heport Rendered 

to the ?resident by the Department of Justice 

as Applies to Government L.mployees. 

The pro~osed policy recommended by the De:tJS,rtment of 

Justice to be applied by the ;1ar Department in dealing with its 

eir.ployees who are potential inventors is, substantially, that the 

Government take complete title to all inventioI).S and patents made 

by such employees. 

. . The terr.1 11 employee" when applied to the Jl,rmy irn;:ludes not 

only strictly military personnel such as officers, warrant officers, 

and enlisted men, totalling around a million, but also approximately 

455,010 W'ar Department civilian employees (as of 30 Novor.ibar 1946), .· part of whom work in the War Depa.rtmont at Uashington,.D. c., and th~ 

balance in the Field Service outside.: U"ashington,•but all of whom arc, 

for purposes of pay and administration, divided into eight catcgoriGs; . Professional and Subprofessional; Clerical, Adi:dnistrativ~ and Fiscal; _ Custodial, Protective and Crafts. · 

I 

Sinco an invention is privattJ property,, as. h(jld by tho Su- ;_ 

prumc Court in 1890 in Solomons v. Unitod States, 137 u. s. 31.2, 346, 

and since r..aintaincd, it cannot b~ taken from.the ovmc.:r by the Gqvcrn~. 

r.icnt l'dthout cor:ipc:.:nsation whilu tho 5th Admund."llunt to thu Constitution 

still stands, in th~ absoncc of a contract to convey the sar;.c to tho 

Govurrunc.nt. 

Thor~forc, in order to carry out th~ policy propqsad by 

thu D~vartr.J.~nt of Justice, it would b~ ncccsoary to pl~cc every 

employee of the ~-iar Dopar~"lc,nt (Civil and lJilitary) ~dc.:r a contract 

of c:i.ploymcnt which Vlould providc•that thu o.rnploycu assign all right,, .. title and interest in ovary inv..::ntion he may maku uhilc in Govcrn-n.cnt 

service. 

. . . ~. . . . . 
REF ID:A68973 

Such a procedure1 aside from the practical difficulties 

of operation1 such as administration and the i~quality of the 

neiotiating parties 1 would obviously so antagonize "employee" 

inventors that the probable result v1ould be that any inventions 

they made would be concealed, or taken out for them as patents 

by others. outside the service. The general effect would be to 

discourage, rather than encourage, invention. 

I·t is believed that in the matter of inventions the 

present wise and long-standing policy of the Government toward 

its employees should remain undisturbed. That policy is that 

the relation of the Government toward them is to be considered 

the same as that of any corporate or other employer t~rd its 

employees (where the common la~ relation of rhaster and.se~yant 

has not been modified by contract). 

This policy1 as set forth in par. ? 1 sec. 3, of 

AR 850-50, generally provides that: 

(a) · In the case of an employee of tho ~iar Department or of tho Army \7ho is "specifically desiinatod or employed to invent a specific ~hing and docs 

so at tho exponsq.of'thc Government, the title to tho 

invention and to tho patent obtained thereon becomes 

'the proporty of th~ Government" j .· . 

(b) If the invention 11 is. made in the course. qf . tho · .· general empioyiiient of such pe·rSon on .the t'imc or' at .the 

·.expense of tho Government but· not by. c:iircct "dcs~g~ tion L: 

·or employment for that purpose, tho Government has an .. l 1 

implied license to use the invention, but the titlo 

thereto and to thu patent acquirud thereon is the P.~opcrty of tho . invontor11 r . . .• .. · .. ;: 

· (c) i~ ~sos. where thDro is· no db~ign.S.t~on.to 

"invent and the devclopnont is· not evolved ·in tne.linc 

of duty of the .employee, tho Government invcritor becomes 11 tho sole °''mer of the invention and of the 

patent acquired thereon, ~d no implied license 

accrues to tho United 5tatcs" by reason of his Clilploym.cnt. · · 

2 

-. 

.. 

... . ' 

.• 
~ . . ) 

REF ID:'A68973 

In addition to tho considerable legal difficulties 

inherent in the modification of the present Uar Department 

policy proposed in the .Department of Justice report, there is 

the practical difficulty of re1arding Government 11employee" 

inventors for their inventions. In my opinion the hope of 

financial reward offers the strongest incentive to invent. 

Under the present policy, ,.,herein the 11 employee" retains the 

commercial rights to his invention, many valuable inventions 

are made available to the Governm&nt on a royalty-free basis. 

Unless a system of cash bonuses or promotions and salary increases is provided which would substantially replace the 

financial returns that might be realized from patent rights, 

the incentive to invent 1'Till be destroyed and man~,r valuable 

men will be led to leave Government service and enter private 

eraploy. 

Considered beth fror.i the legal standpoint and as a 

question of practical, operative administrative policy, a uniform 

equitable policy of procedure for tho Govcrmumt controllinr, its 

relations with Gover:nr.ient employees as to their inventions and 

patents is highly desirable, but, because of public interest and 

the porsonal legal ri~hts of the parties involved, such policy 

can be defined only by Congress and no pov1cr to declare such a 

policy is, or can be, legally vested in administrative officqrs. 

This identical point is stated at length (pp, 205-209) by Justice 

Roberts in writing the d·.:;cision of ·the Supremo Court in United 

States v. Dubilicr Condenser Corp., 289 u. s. 1?8, -which sa.rnc. 

point was also concurred in by Justice Stone a...1d Justice Cardozo 

in scparatu opinions (pp. 219-223) in thut c;..•so. 

I::-i vi..:::~·.r of thcsu considerations it is rocor,un~ndod that 

tho War De:part:.;,cnt ass~nt to thi..; rccomr.:icndc.;.tion of ,i;hc Dcpn.rt:a~~nt 

of Justic(; only to th... .:ixt'-'nt that -~hl: decisions of the 3uprc.:me 

Court as '-'XPr'-'ssod in Solonons v. United Status, 137 u.s. 342 (1890), 

and Unitud States v. Dubilicr Condcnsur Corp., 289 u.s. 1?8 (1933), 

and th~ existina policy of ·thi..; ·1inr Dc.;>artrnont as c:xpr,~ssr..:d in 

AR 850-50, legally and lo~icnlly perr.iit. 

'I'HOI:iAS !i. GIGEU 

Major Gcncro.l 

Tho Judge Advocat~ Goncr~l 

3 
REF ID:A68973 

27 January 1947 

The President 

The White House 

Dear Mr. President·: 

This letter is to express the views of the iJar Department with 

respect to the Final. ~port made to you by the Attomey General, dated 

October 9, 1946, recaJunending a unitozm patent policy for all governnent 

agencies. The War Department has not seen this Report, but the Attorney 

General subm.i·i..ted llllder date of December 6, 1946 a summary of the con- -tents or the Report. 

· You are fully aware of the absolute necessity .for an adequate 

research and development program to meet the national defense needs 

of the United .States. Such a progt"am will naturally result in mny 

new inventions some of which will have commercial application. The 

obvious purpose of the pi.tent policies recommended by the Attorney 

General is to assUl"e .i'ull ani free use of such inventions when made 

by Govemment employees or contrc.;ctors. I realize the desirability 

or a Wlifozm policy and will accomplish this result. However, after 

careful study and consideration, I am satisfied that adoption of the 

recornmen:ia tions would. wreck the :"Jar DepartmEllt 1 s research and development pro gram. 

Ch August 14, 1945, the Assistant Attorney General sutmitted a 

similar plah for the consideration or the :Jar Department. In my 

reJJ].¥ of September 24, 1945, copy of which is inclosed, I pointed 

out at sane length the reasons why I was satisfied tha. t plan muld 

not work. In a letter of November 2, 1945, copy or which is also 

inclosed, Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific 

Research and Develo pnent, expressed his concurrence in 'IlJ3" views. 

The experience or the ~-:ar Depart:rrent since VJ-Da.Y in attempting to 

place re search and develo pnent contracts has served to strengthen 

1If3 former views. 

'fhe facilities of the Government and of private organizations 

en~ged solely ;n research are wholly inadequate to meet the needs of 

the War and Nav Departments. The cost or acquirihg ad.equate facilities and staffing them with qualified personnel 11:>1.W:l be prohibitive. 
REF ID:A68973 

Consequently, lie must depend upon industry for a J.r.,rge and important 

part ot our program. Industrial concerns have exhibited extreme 

reluctance to enter into research and developnent contracts under 

present policies which are considered by them as unduly favorable to 

the Government. The adoption of an arbitrary policy would :nake it 

impossible to carry out our research and development progt"am. 

The except.ion provided in the Attomey General 1 s plan would be 

slow and CtL"nbersome and Y«>uld not overcane the objections of industry. 

Moreover, final authority to determine whether a War Departnent contract could be made would be placed in the hands of the proposed 

Patent Administrator, a Govemment official who Y«>uld have no responsibility ~or the national. defense. 

However, to comply as far as practicable with tm spirit o:t the 

Attorney General's recommemations, the ·~·;ar Department will endeavor to 

obta:Ui title to inventions made in the performance of research and 

developnent. contracts when feasible and provided the add.it ional cost 

therefor is not unreasonable. It is believed. that agreemants of this 

type can be arranged with contractors who have no co.l!l!nercial patent 

position to maintain, such as educational institutions and organizations 

whose main business is research and developnent. I am causing instructions to this effect to be issued to the procurement se!'V'ices. 

The Govemment Patent Administration, as proposed by the Attorney 

General, is unsatisfactory to tm War Department. N'otwithstaIXling the 

fact that, according '\iO our estimates, t.he War and Navy Departments file 

95% of all patent applications hand1ed by govemmental. agencies, control 

over 90% of all patents owned by the Government, and supply over 95% of 

the .federal funds expended for research and development contr0:1.Cting, the 

l7ar and Navy Departments are each accorded bit one representat.ive on the 

Govemment Patent AdJninistration recommended by the At.torney General, as 

against representatives fran eleven other Govemment agencies and four 

piblic grcups. While such a body might. be valuable in a cocrdination and 

advisory capacity, final administration of patent policies with respect 

to contractual matters and employee relations should be le.rt to the executive departnents charged with responsibility therefor. 

Inclosed herewith is an opinion of The Judge Advocate General which 

e:xplains the i:resent ·war Department practice with respect to inventions 

mde by employees. It. also points out the necessity for legislation b,y 

the Congress to put the proposed plan into effect. In my letter of 

September 24, 1945, mentioned above, I pointed out the value to the 1ia.r 

Department of encouraging ingenuity- on t.he part of employees. In 11\'V' 

opinion, the hope or financial reward otters the st.rongest incentive to 

invent. Unless a syst.em of cash bonuses or promotions and sal&17 

increases ia provided which would substantially replace the financial 

returns that might be realized fran patent rights, t.he incentive to 

invent will be destroyed and mny valuable men will be led to enter 

private employment rathEr than Government service. 
REF ID:A68973 

To summarize, I believe it is imperative that the ~Jar Department be 

free to negotiate contracts tor research and development on the best 

terms available in order that it can accomplish its· mission ot piooviding 

for the national defense and that the naxilmm efficiency of the i:ar 

Depart.ment can best be obta:ined by allowing employees to retain title 

to their inventions in accordance with arlsting regulations. 

3 Incls: 

Respectfully yours, 

(Signed) KEN~-::."'TH C. ROYALL 

Acting Secretary of War 

1. Letter of 'Viar Department dated 

9/24/45 

2. Letter of CBRD dated ll/2/45 

3. Opinion of The Judge Advocate General 

dated 1/16/47