Re: First Ada software patent issued to Air Force

[jm59@prism.gatech.EDU (MILLS,JOHN M.)]

In article <C3BIAq.35F@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>     There are a variety of reasons why it is a waste of money for the DoD
>to patent Ada technology.  First, patents are usually sought for to allow
>a business to commercial exploit a new idea, and as I thought it was quite
>obvious, the DoD is neither a business, nor very successful at commercially
>exploiting anything.

A few comments:
  (1) there are plenty of reasons to obtain patent protection, aside from
      commercial exploitation.  One is self-protection from others who might
      patent the innovation, and prevent the originator from _using_ it.  Even
      obtaining the patent is not iron-clad protection on this issue, but it
      does stake out turf.

  (2) although I wouldn't encourage government agencies to speculatively 
      develop patentable technology, there is every prospect that an
      agency might produce such an innovation in the course of conceptual
      development or concept verification on a program, and determine that
      the innovation might be valuable to their future contractors or to
      commercial firms on that or other programs.  I know of no mandate
      for the government to give away any intellectual properties which it
      has been required to develop in such a case.

  (3) I don't see where the source language of an algorithm's implementation
      is relevant to determining whether or not to patent the innovation,
      nor would I hesitate to protect my interests in any such patent, just
      because code had been written in some particular language.

  (4) I wouldn't judge the competence or incompetence of any agency to
      exploit its intellectual properties, but:
      (a) commercial contractors are available to undertake this in the
          government's interest (nor will I comment on _their_ competence [8-),
      (b) this is not a new phenomenon (Have you ever read _NASA_Tech_Briefs_?)

  (5) The government (in contracting with us) allows certain rights in data
      to vest with us, since we are an educational institution, provided that
      the government receives the right to freely use, and to authorize free
      use by other contractors, the technologies represented by those rights
      in data. It is my understanding that in general the rights in data
      developed by commercial contractors to the government become the
      property of the government for its own subsequent use.  Insofar as
      those materials are developed under cost or cost-plus contracting,
      with the government paying direct and indirect costs of the contractors'
      work, I think that is appropriate.  Where the innovations are developed
      at the contractors' risk, government data rights are generally
      limited.  IRAD is a muddy one, and I am not interested in debating that.
      I have mixed feelings about some of the F.A.R. provisions which benefit
      us as an educational institution, but they are in place to encourage
      certain types of effort, as is indeed the patent system.

I would say that I paid for these developments (as a taxpayer), and I am
satisfied that the government try to recoup some of my money.  The
government's capability and judgement in pursuing this is another issue,
about which elections are held (I guess).

-- oh, oh  -- I got sucked into Greg's religious war.  well, it's Monday --

-- 
John M. Mills, SRE; Georgia Tech/GTRI/TSDL, Atlanta, GA 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!jm59
Internet: john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu
EBENE Chocolat Noir 72% de Cacao - WEISS - 42000 St.Etienne - very fine