National Journal MagazineNational Journal MagazineThe HotlineCongress Daily
Search Congress Daily
 
Advanced Search
About CD
Contacts
Reprints
Privacy Policy


Powered by
Movable Type 3.2


« Map Of Online Communities | Main | Remember The 80s? »

Patent Reform Proponents React To GOP Letter

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, was not too happy with a handful of Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans who have requested that a patent reform bill, S.1145, be further examined before the panel votes on it.

"There have been a number of hearings, briefings, and meetings about these issues over the past four years," said Berman, who introduced a companion bill, H.R.1908. "We've heard from representatives of all the interested parties -- from independent inventors, universities, bio-technology, pharmaceutical, software and financial services industries. Now we need to make some of the hard decisions because all of these parties claim to agree that the time has come to reform the patent system."

A spokeswoman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., echoed Berman's statement. She said her boss and the bill's GOP co-sponsor, Orrin Hatch of Utah, "have held hearings on this issue for several years now." They plan to mark up S.1145 this summer, she said.

Read more about the letter sent by Republican members of Leahy's committee in Technology Daily's P.M. Edition.

Posted by Andrew on June 12, 2007 03:41 PM | Permalink


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3079


Comments



Post a Comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Tech Daily Dose does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.