Until Carter became President, the DFARs (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations) specifically provided for the DoD to own title to patents and intellectual property protected under trademark law associated with their purchases with no variances allowed. This had not so much to do with who owes who what when cheque-writing time comes as it does with allowing the bidders for Defense procurements to compete on each item to be procured: there was no such thing as "sole-source" supply contracts. There is no economic possibility for the USA to succeed in provisioning its forces in the event of an actual war for national survival as the Federal Acquisition Regulations system presently stands. It borders on the imbecilic to think otherwise. The other reason the DFARs are messed up is that the US Department of Defense does not want to take direct responsibility for the performance of weaponry they design, have manufactured under THEIR license, and deploy: the design effort is too much work to administer, the Feds typically do not attract the maestros and magi-class aerospace designers who to this day are revered household names. During WW II up through the time of the Carter changes, of course the Federal government paid their suppliers for design rights and title to those rights but exactly one time and every penny of that design effort had to be justified down to the last cup of coffee and time-and-a-half for overtime charged off. Editor Simonyan, is there anyone in a position at Sputnik News to explain elements of the Russian system of defence procurement, please? Does Sukhoi, for instance, change patent licence fees to Russia's MoD? It would be very interesting to see how it is done right if only in terms of general concepts.
1
shaun.byatt
Kind of destroys Trumps complaints about China stealing IP, yet again the guilty accusing the victims of being the bad guys.
A pair of legal battles has entangled the United States Navy with allegations of intellectual property theft.
The US Navy is facing significant legal scrutiny after it allegedly installed software on hundreds of thousands of computer though its vendor for the software, Germany-based Bitmanagement, says the service was only allowed to download 100 copies according to their agreement.
Bitmanagement stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the July 2016 lawsuit. The company has now requested that federal court in the United States provide a summary judgement on the matter in the protracted legal dispute, Torrent Freak reported March 16.
The company argued that "to establish that it had an implied license, the government must show that Bitmanagement — despite having licensed a less-advanced copy of its software to the Government in 2008 on a PC basis that allowed for installation on a total of 100 computers in exchange for $30,000 — later authorized the government to make an unlimited number of installations of its advanced software product for $5,490."
According to Motherboard, the US Navy is appealing a second lawsuit related to a design for a littoral combat ship that it was found to have stolen. "The Navy completely respects the contractor ownership of all IP [intellectual property] developed solely at contractor expense and the contractor ownership, with a license to the government, of all IP developed by contractors using government funding," said Danny Hernandez, public affairs officer for the US Navy.
FastShip was awarded $6.5 million last April after Lockheed Martin ditched using them as a subcontractor but presented the Navy with the firm's patented hull designs anyway. The judge ruled that the US Navy infringed on "every element" of FastShip's claim by using their patented hull designs without paying for the license, Law360 reported.
"There appears to be no hard and fast rules it has to follow in matters of IP," David Giles, founder of FastShip, told Motherboard Monday. The legal dispute started 10 years ago and did not get an initial response from the federal government until two years later. Before the award to FastShip was announced in 2017, the Philadelphia-based company filed for bankruptcy in 2012.
Access to the chat has been blocked for violating the rules .
You will be able to participate again through:∞.
If you do not agree with the blocking, please use the feedback form
The discussion is closed. You can participate in the discussion within 24 hours after the publication of the article.
SidewaysObserver
shaun.byatt
