Reforms to include longer patent terms? More on Cnet, Feinstein and Levi Strauss

Last week, Cnet ran an article on the congressional hearings associated with the ongoing patent reform movement.  The article closed with this statement:  “Other legislative possibilities include lengthening the duration of a patent, currently 20 years.”

As I said earlier, this is an unfair depiction of the reform efforts based on a single, isolated remark made by Senator Feinstein during the Senate hearing.

Here’s an excerpt of a transcript of the hearing, showing the Senator’s remark in its entirety:

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA):  Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

 

         And I’d like to echo those words.  Patent and copyright protection is a very big deal to California, and that’s really why I’m here.

 

         And it’s interesting to hearken back on an early patent.  And that was a patent which was issued to Levi Strauss for jeans in 1873. I believe at that time it was 17-year patent.

 

        It’s now a twenty year patent from date of application or seventeen years.  And, so there are a lot of questions about these patents. 

  

         Is seventeen years fair?  Should it have been longer?  I mean, when Levi Strauss came forward in those early Gold Rush days, it was a very big deal to come up with a fabric, like jean fabric, because the pants of the miners were wearing out too fast.  And yet, as soon as that patent expires, you see Levi-type jeans everywhere.  And, in this day of high costs, high labor costs, high every kind of costs, I’ve begun to wonder whether the time for the patent is really an adequate time.

 

         So, I look forward very much to hearing your comments, Mr. Dudas, on that subject.  And may I put my full remarks in the record, please?

That’s the entirety of the patent term extension reform proposal.

This issue I feel it important to dispel the notion that patent term extension is part of this reform movement because that issue would, appropriately, generate significant concern in the eye of the public.  Many people would strongly oppose such a change to our patent system and, I bet, would broadly oppose any reform efforts that include such a change.  That’s why I feel its important to clarify the muddy waters created by the Cnet article, again:

Lengthening the duration of the patent term has never been a component of the current reform efforts and will not be a component of any bill introduced as part of the efforts.