From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4be3788aba545d7f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-08 07:49:58 PST Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!prism!jm59 From: jm59@prism.gatech.EDU (MILLS,JOHN M.) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: First Ada software patent issued to Air Force Message-ID: <88437@hydra.gatech.EDU> Date: 8 Mar 93 15:25:44 GMT References: Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Date: 1993-03-08T15:25:44+00:00 List-Id: In article 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