🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) says:
> Whoa, we're talking about algorithm patents, not application patents.
> It would make no more sense to allow the patenting of Lotus 1-2-3 than
> to allow the patenting of a Chevy.

In the New York Times for Sunday, 8/5/90, on page 20E, there is an article
by Edmund L. Andrews titled "When imitation isn't the sincerest form of
flattery".  It describes a bill introduced by Representative Moorhead of
California which would "protect new designs with what amounts to a 10-year
copyright".  Automobile bumpers, reclining chairs, furniture, and
"virtually every kind of product marketed in the United States could be
covered."

Here are some excerpts:

 ...
 
 The Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and the Center for
 Auto Safety all say that the measure would mean higher prices.  Automobile
 insurers are also opposed, arguing that the measure would add as much as
 $400 million to the cost of automobile repairs because it would eliminate
 independent supplies of low-cost body parts.  Large discount retailers like
 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and K mart Corporation are fighting the measure.
 
 The most basic change envisioned in the Moorhead bill would involve
 altering the standard for what constitutes a protectable innovation.  Under
 current law, companies can obtain design patents.  But to do so, a company
 must show that its design is more than just different.  It must be new and
 useful and it cannot be `obvious' to others skilled in the same field.
 
 ...

 Both sides agree that the measure would undoubtedly cover things like
 automobile bumpers and fenders, even if these are not innovative in any
 profound sense.
 
 "This elimination of any creativity requirement is a radical departure from
 existing intellectual property laws," argued Clarence Ditlow, the head of
 the Center for Auto Safety, a consumer advocacy group, in testimony this
 spring.
 
 "Clearly, though", he said, "the new `design copyright' would create
 enormous private benefits -- profits -- for proponents of the legislation,
 at the expense of U.S. consumers."

 ...
 
 The main opponent to passage is Representative [Robert] Kastenmeier, who
 heads the House subcommittee responsible for patent legislation.  Indeed,
 the Senate passed similar measures five times before 1976, only to have
 the Wisconsin Democrat kill the measure through inaction. 
 
 Recently, Representative Kastenmeier described himself as a lonely skeptic.
 "Almost everybody on my committee supports this legislation, except me," he
 said.
 
 It remains unclear whether he will try to kill the bill again or yield to
 the wishes of his own party's leadership.

This legislation will protect entire design concepts, not just designs, and
will make compatible parts -- from auto bodies to food processor blades --
illegal to produce.

You can write to your Congressmen at

Senator So and So
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Representative Such and Such
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

You can phone senators and representatives at (202) 225-3121.

					-Michael Ernst
					 mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu