Insecure Patents Could Translate Into National Insecurity

(Washington, D.C.): The U.S. House of
Representatives is expected to vote
tomorrow on H.R. 400, the so-called
“Patent Improvement Act.” This
benign-sounding legislation could have
very adverse implications for innovative
Americans whose constitutionally-mandated
patent rights may be seriously infringed
by the bill’s efforts to
“streamline” the patent
process. It may also translate into a
serious erosion in the nexus between
national security and economic and
technological interests — a nexus likely
to dominate the 21^st Century
that is the unique focus of the William
J. Casey Institute of the Center for
Security Policy.

The Center shares the concerns of
those like: House National Security
Committee Chairman Floyd Spence;
the Chairman of the Joint Economic
Committee, Rep. Jim Saxton;
the Chairman of the National Security
Committee’s Military Procurement
Subcommittee, Rep. Duncan Hunter;
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a
senior member of the International
Relations and Science Committees; Phyllis
Schlafly‘s Eagle Forum; and the
Alliance for American Innovation. These
distinguished Americans agree that H.R.
400 will undermine a proven U.S. patent
system — probably to the distinct
benefit of foreign competitors and to the
detriment of American inventors.

Particularly distressing is the fact
that H.R. 400 would require the
publication of patent applications 18
months after filing — irrespective
of whether a patent has been issued or
not. By so doing, U.S. inventors would be
denied protection against large
multinationals or foreign-owned
enterprises with a demonstrated interest
in stealing America’s technological
seed-corn.

Since technological breakthroughs
intended for civilian applications often
contribute to significant advances in the
military field, as well, reckless
tampering with the system that protects
such breakthroughs should be avoided at
all costs. In particular, every
consideration should be given to the
concerns expressed by some of the
Nation’s leading legislators in the
defense and foreign policy fields.

What is more, to the extent that this
initiative is a manifestation of what the
Clinton Administration’s Ambassador to
Spain, Richard Gardner, has called the
“house of world order” — which
he recommended in 1974 be built
piece-by-piece and by stealth via
seductive- sounding treaties or other
international agreements, H.R. 400 should
be forcefully resisted. A similar danger
looms in the Senate in the form of the
Chemical Weapons Convention. Both
measures are likely to harm, not
advance U.S. security and other interests
and should be rejected.