3 ms·

I am really confused about something in this article and I hope someone can bring me up to date. The article revolves around this patent: https://federalnewsn

I am really confused about something in this article and I hope someone can bring me up to date. The article revolves around this patent: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/IRS-patent-10_2019.pdf https://federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/IR... The patent is assigned to "Internal Revenue Service United States Department of the Treasury". The article also mentions that "two other related patent applications remain dormant. They lie abandoned, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office calls it, because the IRS wouldn’t pay the issue fees." I thought that government work like this was in the public domain. Can the IRS/Treasury patent an invention?

webmaven 6y ago
You're mistaking copyright and patents. In principle, issuing patents on government developed technology isn't contradictory to their core purpose, which is to ensure public disclosure of inventions rather than keeping them as trade secrets. It certainly helps establish prior art, which is no bad thing, even for software patents. I'm not sure whether the US government then ever exercises their option to restrict competing implementations of the technology for the life of the patent. OTOH, the government produced implementation itself is public domain, as you noted, and not subject to copyright. In theory, this might make patented government software freely copyable (if released), including into collective works of other software, but unforkable due to patents, even though its public domain status WRT copyright allows derivative works.
- wahern 6y ago
  > I'm not sure whether the US government then ever exercises their option to restrict competing implementations of the technology for the life of the patent. Not directly, but since the Bayh-Dole Act (1980) as a matter of Federal policy contractors can retain ownership of patents and the government routinely grants exclusive licenses to federal employee inventions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act
  - webmaven 6y ago
    I've been aware for several years of contractors generally retaining ownership of the federally funded IP they produce as long as the federal government gets a perpetual licence, but not of the government granting exclusive licences to federal employee inventions. Do you have examples?
    - wahern 6y ago
      I guess I overstated the case. AFAIU the intent was for the government to push for commercialization of its inventions using exclusive and non-exclusive licensing agreements. See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710 (sister legislation to Bayh-Dole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson-Wydler_Technology_Innovation_Act_of_1980 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson-Wydler_Technology_In...) https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents https://www.nist.gov/tpo/incentives-inventors https://www.nist.gov/tpo/incentives-inventors https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/LicensingGuideFINAL.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/Licensin... But I couldn't find much evidence that this is common. In fact, this 2017 accounting of royalty payments to federal employee inventors suggests it's not common at all: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/10-20-17-OSTP-Patent-Report.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/10-20-... Perhaps federal employee inventions are typically for basic research and don't lend themselves to direct commercialization. And while use of those basic science patents might be necessary for actual commercial products, nobody in the government is policing infringement--which is probably a good thing. By contrast, even when a federal contractor is doing basic research, they have more financial incentive to aggressively file patents and subsequently enforce them.

webmaven 6y ago

You're mistaking copyright and patents. In principle, issuing patents on government developed technology isn't contradictory to their core purpose, which is to ensure public disclosure of inventions rather than keeping them as trade secrets. It certainly helps establish prior art, which is no bad thing, even for software patents. I'm not sure whether the US government then ever exercises their option to restrict competing implementations of the technology for the life of the patent. OTOH, the government produced implementation itself is public domain, as you noted, and not subject to copyright. In theory, this might make patented government software freely copyable (if released), including into collective works of other software, but unforkable due to patents, even though its public domain status WRT copyright allows derivative works.

wahern 6y ago
> I'm not sure whether the US government then ever exercises their option to restrict competing implementations of the technology for the life of the patent. Not directly, but since the Bayh-Dole Act (1980) as a matter of Federal policy contractors can retain ownership of patents and the government routinely grants exclusive licenses to federal employee inventions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act
- webmaven 6y ago
  I've been aware for several years of contractors generally retaining ownership of the federally funded IP they produce as long as the federal government gets a perpetual licence, but not of the government granting exclusive licences to federal employee inventions. Do you have examples?
  - wahern 6y ago
    I guess I overstated the case. AFAIU the intent was for the government to push for commercialization of its inventions using exclusive and non-exclusive licensing agreements. See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710 (sister legislation to Bayh-Dole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson-Wydler_Technology_Innovation_Act_of_1980 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson-Wydler_Technology_In...) https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents https://www.doi.gov/techtransfer/patents https://www.nist.gov/tpo/incentives-inventors https://www.nist.gov/tpo/incentives-inventors https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/LicensingGuideFINAL.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/Licensin... But I couldn't find much evidence that this is common. In fact, this 2017 accounting of royalty payments to federal employee inventors suggests it's not common at all: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/10-20-17-OSTP-Patent-Report.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/10-20-... Perhaps federal employee inventions are typically for basic research and don't lend themselves to direct commercialization. And while use of those basic science patents might be necessary for actual commercial products, nobody in the government is policing infringement--which is probably a good thing. By contrast, even when a federal contractor is doing basic research, they have more financial incentive to aggressively file patents and subsequently enforce them.