Evening star., 1941-02-12
Says Patent Lows
Are Not at Fault 4
Writer Discusses Article
Alleging Germon Control
o. Inventions
To the Editor of The Star:

w Inventions
To the Editor of The Star:
An article in The Sunday Star, Ger
many Invades U. S. Business" by Assist
ant Attorney General Norman M. Littell,
attracted my attention. I do not agree
with the conclusions.
The article contains a great many de-
tails which are to say the least debatable.
If officials in the Department of Justice
state that the antitrust laws have been
ineffective in preventing the invasion of
American industry by foreign controlled
cartels, am not prepared to say that it
Is not so. But when it is suggested that
the patent laws of this country are re-
sponsible, I protest
The statement that by virtue of patent
ownership German company has con-
trolled production and prices in this
country since 1885 is fantastic. Such
feat is inherently impossible for the rea-
son that patent expires in IT years.
1t is not true that the best military
optical instruments are made in Ger
many. 1t is not true that BauSch Ss
Lomb and the zeiss Co. exercise world
control of these instruments. On the
contrary. optical instruments are made
by the United States Government. There
is at the Bureau of Standards in the
city of Washington an optical glass man
ufacturing plant which produces glass
which is equal or possibly superior to
any produced in Germany. This plant
was founded years ago for the ex-
press purpose of supplying this essen
tial war material in the event the supply
from Germany was cut off. Recently
it has been expanded and now it is
furnishing optical glass to the Navy
Department in large quantities. This
glass is fashioned into lenses, prismS,
mirrors, which are mounted in gun
sighting devices. range finders. periscopes.
and other instruments, by Government
experts. The basic research in antici-
patton of present conditions was carried
out years ago in America by American
scientists who found little of interest in
German or any other patents. If this
work has ever been held back, it was
not because of patents but because
appropriations have been expended on
departments that make speeches instead
Of those that make glass.
1t has frequently been stated, and 1t
Is probably true, that German-held
patents do not afford as much informa-
tion as could be desired. To the extent
that it is desirable to know about new
inventions of German origin. it is ridicu-
lous to argue that the disclosures of these
inventions through patents should be
discouraged. If the Germans want to
tell us about important military inven-
tionS it is difficult to see any real
objection to using for this purpose the
only plan that has so far been devised
the United States patent system. In
the article referred to, 1t is admitted
that missing information prevented pro-
duction. The value of this information
probably Is greatly exaggerated But
assuming that we want it, it is illogical
to abolish it, by denying to German
citizens the right to take out United
States patents.
The article states that the basic
patents on beryllium are in Germany.
This is a very ambiguous statement.
However, it is made clear that now
beryllium is being used for parts in the
new Garand rife The obvious implica-
ton is that the United States obtained
essential information regarding beryl-
lium from these basic patents Why,
then. abolish the patents?
1t is obvious that the Department of
Justice is attempting to hang its sins
of omission on the Patent Office There
is nothing in a patent that says that
the owner can violate the antitrust laws.
The Supreme Court in fact has laid down
some definite law on the subject. If the
Justice Department can't handle the
situation now, it is time to investigate
the Justice Department
Either the author of the article in
question is seriously misinformed or he
is indulging in rank sensationalism. The
picture that he has presented is so
obviously far from the truth as to place
it in the category of those crusades which
in the past have stampeded the American
people into action which they later had
cause to regret. 1t would be regrettable
indeed if changes in the patent laws
should be based on prejudiced fabrica-
tions.
If the Department Of Justice should
be permitted to abolish property rights
in patents, the next step obviously will
be to further aid the cause by abolishing
other property rights. The conclusion of
this nonsense will be that to make the
antitrust division most effective we will
have to abolish all property.
This attack on the patent system has
gone on too long unchallenged. 1t is
time that those who are informed should
place the true facts before the public.
j. HAROLD BYERS.