The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-03-11

War and Navy Der lrtments, Ma tional Research Council, National Inventors Council have had the most important hands in this devel- opment, after financing work in the research laboratories of private in- dustry. This $2,OOO,OOO,OOO research expenditure, by the way, is esti- mated to be as muc.l as was spent on research in the United States in the 20 years between the two wars. SYNTHETIC RUBBER
 DEVELOPMENT
 Almost the entire technology of working synthetic rubber may be said to have been developeT in gov- ernment-financed, gov ernm nt- owned, Defense Plant Corporation factories, operated by private. man. agement under contract to the gov- ernment. Patents have been pooled and freely swapped. Knowledge gained in one plant has been passed on to peacetime competitors. In many cases, basic patents held by one company have been improved upon and the improvements shared, royalty free-all in 8 generous ef- fort to help win the war, quick.
 When the war is over, however disposing of the $15,500, ,000, ,000 worth of government plants will be a cinch in comparison to untangling the patent situation, all because there is no clear-cut polic.' on own ership and control of patents de- veloped on public funds.
 A simple case in point is best il- lustrated by West Virginia Sen. Harley M. Kilgore's Military Affairs Subcommittee on War Mobilization, which has been digging into patent monopoly and has just issued new volume of hearings and exhibits on this subject. Included is statement presented by Assistant Attorney General Wendell Berge on the de- velopment of vitamin D, synthetic form of sunshine essentia. to bone growth and prevention of rickets and tooth decay.
 DISCOVERY PATENTED
 In 1923, Dr. Harry Steenbock, working in the Wisconsin Agricul- tural Experiment Station, discovered that by irradiating certain foods with ultraviolet rays, they became enriched with what is now known as vitamin D. Dr. Steenbock's re- search was financed in part by fed eral grants-in-aid, in part by state funds. When the discovery was made it was patented, but Dr. Steenbock proposed that 1t be given to the university
 Wisconsin's regents declined the offer, feeling they were not in a pos- ition to commercialize them, but through the president of the alumni association, George I. Haight, pa- tent lawyer of Chicago, the Wiscon- sin Alumni Research Foundation was founded to undertake exploita ton of Steenbock's patents. Up to 1940, the Foundation received $8,- 5O0,O00 in royalties, though 1t was organized as a non-profit body to promote research. University of Wisconsin has no real connection with the Foundation, whose profits are invested and their income is utilized for research.
 By selective licensing, however, the Foundation has restricted use of Steenbock's processes and patents to certain food and drug houses. They can be used only by licensed pro- ducers of flour, dairy or stock feed products. Even the quantity of vita min D units used in any product is restricted, its price fixed.
 The question posed by this case is whether patents developed even in part by public funds. having such admittedly great public benefits if made generally available. should be restricted in any way, or made pub lie property for anyone !. use. And what should be the application of this principle to technolcgical dis- coyerieS of the war?