4 ms·

Although there are secret patents: https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html http

by twic 3y ago

Although there are secret patents: https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret...

taneq 3y ago
Like most (all?) governments the U.S. government has a strict set of rules that it must follow unless it decides it doesn't want to.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  Well sure. Because if the US govt's patent on hypersonic rocket propulsion (as a conjectural example) were public knowledge, it would be trivially simple for their rivals to use that information in their own programs or countermeasures. Surely it's evident that most nations would find an imperative in keeping that knowledge guarded? The govt doesn't have to patent these techniques at all. They do so for the benefit of public enterprises (so contractors and military industry can benefit) and so that the knowledge does eventually enter the public commercial sphere. That article itself mentions multiple patents that eventually had the veil lifted and/or expired.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    How do contractors benefit from the patent? They can "eventually" release the information whether or not they had a secret patent.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      they "benefit" by agreeing to play ball getting the (often absurdly huge) defense contract. and since the contractors are taking federal money, the gub'mnt reserves the rights to any of their findings; agree or don't get the contract. but this then gives the Gov another angle if the contractor deliberately or accidently releases or sells those secrets -- not just distributing classified materials, but also patent violations, and potential lawsuits. it's a tool to ensure compliance if/when the government is funding stuff they don't want released
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      It allows Boeing, for instance, to patent their version of hypersonic propulsion (again, a conjecture, not a real example) without worrying about the information becoming public knowledge; which a non-protected patent would require. Government or agency patents are a matter of course and provide attribution and protection to their authors (similar to public patents). There are plenty of technologies the US govt researched and implemented that they did not patent and instead released directly to the public domain. Many of those related to Arpanet and baseband cellular technologies are key examples. So your point is moot. They do both, it's discretionary to their strategic interests, in much the same way commercial entities will sometimes patent their research but make it freely licenseable.
- sparrowInHand 3y ago
  And who watches the watchmakers?

by twic 3y ago

taneq 3y ago

Like most (all?) governments the U.S. government has a strict set of rules that it must follow unless it decides it doesn't want to.

deaddodo 3y ago
Well sure. Because if the US govt's patent on hypersonic rocket propulsion (as a conjectural example) were public knowledge, it would be trivially simple for their rivals to use that information in their own programs or countermeasures. Surely it's evident that most nations would find an imperative in keeping that knowledge guarded? The govt doesn't have to patent these techniques at all. They do so for the benefit of public enterprises (so contractors and military industry can benefit) and so that the knowledge does eventually enter the public commercial sphere. That article itself mentions multiple patents that eventually had the veil lifted and/or expired.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  How do contractors benefit from the patent? They can "eventually" release the information whether or not they had a secret patent.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    they "benefit" by agreeing to play ball getting the (often absurdly huge) defense contract. and since the contractors are taking federal money, the gub'mnt reserves the rights to any of their findings; agree or don't get the contract. but this then gives the Gov another angle if the contractor deliberately or accidently releases or sells those secrets -- not just distributing classified materials, but also patent violations, and potential lawsuits. it's a tool to ensure compliance if/when the government is funding stuff they don't want released
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    It allows Boeing, for instance, to patent their version of hypersonic propulsion (again, a conjecture, not a real example) without worrying about the information becoming public knowledge; which a non-protected patent would require. Government or agency patents are a matter of course and provide attribution and protection to their authors (similar to public patents). There are plenty of technologies the US govt researched and implemented that they did not patent and instead released directly to the public domain. Many of those related to Arpanet and baseband cellular technologies are key examples. So your point is moot. They do both, it's discretionary to their strategic interests, in much the same way commercial entities will sometimes patent their research but make it freely licenseable.
sparrowInHand 3y ago
And who watches the watchmakers?