When did you first become interested in IP?
Howard Coble: When we assumed control of the Congress after the 1994 election, I went to Representatives Jessie Hyde and Newt Gingrich and said I would be interested in chairing the subcommittee. I'm not an IP lawyer but I had been on the subcommittee before. I said I would not campaign for the job and maybe that's why I got it.
I have very much enjoyed it. The US is by far the world's largest producer of IP. We have benefited our balance of trade by a sound policy of encouraging IP by developing new inventions.
| Congressman Howard Coble: North Carolina, Sixth District Born March 18 1931 in Greensboro, NC Education 1949-50: Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 1958: BA, History, Guilford College, Greensboro, NC 1962: JD, University of North Carolina School of Law Professional 1952-56: US Coast Guard 1961-67: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Claims Department 1967-69: Assistant County Attorney, Guilford County, NC 1969-73: Assistant US Attorney, Middle District of North Carolina 1973-77: Secretary, NC Department of Revenue 1979-83: Practised law with Turner, Enochs & Sparrow, Greensboro, NC Legislative 1969, 1979-84: North Carolina House of Representatives, November 6 1984: elected to US House of Representatives Website: |
What have been your biggest achievements?
HC: I'm proud of the American Inventors Protection Bill. We had to fight for that a couple of times, but I believe the inventor community has now benefited.
In what way?
HC: It has cleared up the language regarding patents and provided a defence for previous patent infringement, as well as addressing the problems of deceptive marketing practices affecting inventors.
Blaine Merritt: Mr Coble is being modest. One of the titles is that the Bill guarantees a 17-year term and patentees can get back day-for-day protection. Companies have told us that will cumulatively save them hundreds of years in patent term.
HC: With the Bill, we're now less different from other countries.
What about the term of protection and first-to-file?
BM: (USPTO Director) Jim Rogan has talked about harmonization with the rest of the world and user groups want the same thing. Mr Coble is term-limited but the next chairman may hold hearings on this issue. [Under a new rule, congressmen cannot chair a subcommittee for more than two terms; a new chair will take over following Congressional elections this November.]
HC: Another issue pressing now is fees. We fought hard in the last session of Congress over this and I'm very concerned about it. We have just had hearings on the subject and the only witness out of four who was in favour of raising the PTO fees was the Director of the PTO, Mr Rogan.
The problem is the appropriation of fees from the PTO which serves no good purpose as far as the PTO is concerned.
BM: In the last 10 years, over $700 million has been diverted from the Patent Office.
How do you deal with this problem?
HC: The answer is to isolate these fees and don't divert them for other purposes.
BM: A lot of user groups have said they would not be averse to paying higher fees if they were reasonable and related to the PTO.
For example, multiple patent claimants should pay more. Some applications have 300 claims and thousands of pages, and applicants accept that these mean more work than shorter applications. But [Director Rogan's proposed] fee schedule was a little excessive for their purposes.
HC: At the end of the day, I hope the parties will come to some sort of agreement. It is frustrating because they are user fees not tax dollars.
| Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Howard Coble, Chairman |
|
Republicans Henry J Hyde (IL) Elton Gallegly (CA) Bob Goodlatte (VA) William L Jenkins (TN) Chris Cannon (UT) Lindsey Graham (SC) Spencer Bachus (AK) John Hostettler (IN) Ric Keller (FL) Darrell Issa (CA) Melissa Hart (PA) |
Democrats Howard L Berman (CA) John Conyers (MI) Rick Boucher (VA) Zoe Lofgren (CA) Bill Delahunt (MA) Robert Wexler (FL) Maxine Waters (CA) Marty Meehan (MA) Tammy Baldwin (WI) Anthony D Weiner (NY) |
What powers does the subcommittee have in these matters?
HC: As a practical matter, probably none. Appropriation is a matter for other committees. We don't have power to insert our grubby paws on the money!
BM: Under title 35 of the Patent Act, we do not have authorization for appropriation and that is the problem. However, our subcommittee has started to respond more aggressively to the appropriators' point that the PTO should operate more efficiently. They should turn out quality patents in good time.
HC: The diversion exercise is bipartisan. They view the PTO as a deep pocket.
Does IP protection in the US offer good value?
HC: I think generally so.
BM: Everyone always wants patents issued more quickly. For example, biotech firms need patents to obtain collateral. For them it's great value.
What about delays and expense in the courts?
BM: The PTO re-examination process should address that to some degree. Legislation is pending in the Senate to make re-examination an alternative to trials in district courts.
HC: The bill has been languishing in the Senate for several months, maybe over a year.
BM: The Senate has different rules: one senator has the power to hold it up. There is an infamous practice of senators holding up bills. For example, this is the eighth year the Madrid Protocol bill has gone to the Senate. Different senators have placed a hold on it each time.
HC: Yet the Madrid Protocol offers no detriment to anyone.
Do you think Madrid will be passed?
BM: It could move on its own or it could be folded into a larger bill, such as the Department of Justice bill, and passed that way.
HC: That's what we're hoping for, but there are very few legislative sessions left.
Do you think the US can offer
lessons to other countries on
intellectual property?
HC: We have hosted IP representatives from developing countries in the past and we talk to them and share our experiences. Not everyone has the wherewithal to come. If they can examine the US system, I think they will see it is not perfect but there is more good than bad.
BM: There are big problems overseas in some countries in understanding IP. In a place like the People's Republic of China there is rampant piracy, hardware manufacturing, pirating CDs and DVDs. People have to stand up even if it's not easy. Lots of countries want free access to pharmaceutical drugs, but you can't have that and respect IP rights at the same time. To make IP a priority governments have to crack down and enable rights holders to sue. We have a robust IP system in the US but the internet is a weakness ? kids don't even think about downloading something that might be copies. And that idea might spread beyond the internet. It's about education.
HC: I have always known people are driven by greed. I only realized how consistently prominent that is when I assumed the chairmanship of this subcommittee. I have been criticized for defending IP: a lot of people say "If I can steal it, I should have it."
Will IP be less valued in the future?
HC: I will try to stay on the subcommittee if I'm back [after the elections] and will try to support IP rights for the next few years.
BM: Digital rights management is the next thing Congress has to wrestle with, in particular protecting IP in digital format. Is it a legal or technological fix that is needed? And, if it's a technological fix, do you have business or government mandate that?
