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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7bcba1db9ed24fa7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-10 17:46:40 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:33:23 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 994811664 16027 137.194.161.2 (11 Jul 2001 00:34:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:34:24 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3B4B4BF9.12C1E8C@lmco.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9764 Date: 2001-07-10T17:33:23-07:00 From: Bob Leif To: Michael P. Card et al. >From my experience with AdaSAGE, I tend to agree with you. The question is how do we improve DoD technology transfer? The US Congress should be upset about this. I might note that DoD should NOT be allowed to justify part of its cost as being reimbursed by technology transfer. The simplest solution for the DoD contractors is to follow the path taken by most well managed universities, turn the intellectual property over to its creators. It might pay to explain this problem to NSF. It would also make a great story for Science magazine or the equivalent. -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Michael P. Card Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:40 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?) Hey Al (& everyone else on CLA)- A minor correction here to Dr. Leif's citation: it isn't my FIRM. I was one member of the excellent team that built FIRM, and today I am one member of the team that is improving and deploying FIRM's successor (RODEO). Strictly speaking, the intellectual property rights for FIRM and RODEO belong to Lockheed Martin Corporation and I think the U.S. Government has "unlimited rights" as well, i.e. Lockheed cannot charge the U.S. Government a "license fee" to use FIRM inasmuch as it was paid for with U.S. tax dollars. Anyway, the situation you portray is this: >This is Ada and military-industrial complex suppliers. I assume it's the same old >story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it. I think the situation is worse than that! Right now, you can't get these particular products no matter how much $ you have because defense contractors are not set up to be independent software vendors like Microsoft, Oracle, etc. Defense contractors are very much (in my mind) like housing contractors. If you want them to build an addition on your house, you give them a call and they come estimate the job and give you a quote (this is the RFP or Request For Proposal phase). You haggle on the price, maybe you decide to give up a few square feet or a half bath to get within your budget (the BAFO or Best And Final Offer process), and then finally you hire them to do the work (going under contract). They then take longer than they originally estimated to finish the work ;-) A business set up to operate in this kind of "build-to-order" environment is simply not capable of mastering the other kind of business model, which would be more like "speculative manufacturing," where you build something you *think* people will want to buy, thus putting your $$ at risk in hopes enough people will buy your product that you can recoup your costs and make a profit. This kind of business model relies heavily on marketing and advertising to try to create interest in the product, and DoD contractors really don't spend a lot of money on that, just like housing contractors don't do much more than put ads in the Yellow Pages (maybe a billboard now and then). So, products like FIRM and RODEO are developed as part of the process of building the requested DoD product (Seawolf submarine, sonar system, EW system, whatever), and the intellectual property rights then lie with a business that is not capable of turning these things into commercial products. Sure, we have made some half steps at this but there really is no easy way to do it, and William Dale's post about lawyers is right on. There are a lot of legal nits to work through when you even try to turn a taxpayer-funded piece of software into a commercial product. There are probably open source legal considerations as well, and without an established policy on what to do even investigating these issues will cost $$. Then there's the questions: How big would the market for these kinds of things be? What would people pay? You have to spend $$ to even get decent answers to these kinds of questions, and in the DoD contracting world that kind of $$ comes straight out of profit as the government cannot be billed for it. That makes this kind of investment a non-starter in most places. The easiest answer (IMO) would be for the US govt to "seed" commercial ventures for these kinds of things by providing start-up funding to commercialize these products. This seems unfair since the government already paid to develop them, but there is typically more investment required to make a truly off-the-shelf commercial product beyond what is needed to build a product as a part of a larger system. The DoD contractors are not paid to spend this extra $$, they are paid and encouraged to spend as little as possible. They are not motivated to start their own commercial enterprises and they are usually not even equipped to do so if they wanted to. This leaves a gap that is generally not filled by anyone. - Mike Al Christians wrote: > "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote: > > From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a > > modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based > GUI could create some rich entrepreneurs. > > > > So, attempting to become a poster child 'rich entrepreneur' on behalf > of Ada I found some materials on-line about FIRM. It's from Lockheed > and Martin, the same people who have done so well with AdaSage. From > the web pages, I look for product or ordering info, so I can see how > much it costs to be rich entrepreneur. No info there. This is Ada and > military-industrial complex suppliers. I assume it's the same old > story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it. > > Al