Patents vs. Secrecy 219
giampy writes "New Scientist is reporting that the NSA appears to be having its patent applications increasingly blocked by the Pentagon. From the article: 'the fact that the Pentagon is classifying things that the NSA believes should be public is an indication of how much secrecy has crept into government over the past few years.'"
If you can't patent it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you can't patent it... (Score:3)
People sometimes think these restrictions only apply if you cross borders. But even if you are in the USA, if you talk about restrict
Re:If you can't patent it... (Score:2, Funny)
I can tell by your UID that you're not new here. I can only believe that perhaps you've been on sabbatical for the last 7 years. Perhaps you are recently recovering from amnesia? Did you buy your Slashdot account on Ebay?
In any case it is my unfortunate duty to inform you that everything is the Bush administration's fault. In fact, I have it on good authority that the Bush administration caused cancer, created the 2004 Tsunami, and were the real authors behind the "Hot Coffee" mod. These acts and m
Re:If you can't patent it... (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, secrecy isn't a new idea in government. However, the sheer amount of secret things - classified data, blocked FOIA requests, and so much more has grown exponentially in the past 20 years or so. The amount of secrecy allowed in the US now is leaps and bounds above what it was when Reagan was president. (And it was a lot then!)
It used to be that data defaulted to "unclassified" unless it was specifically classified. But lately it's taken a quite a turn - more and more data is defaulting to "classified".
I think a large part of this has to do with two realizations at the government level. One, the less information about the government is out there, the less accountable their constituents can hold them. (This is why the FOIA is so critical for the protection of rights for US citizens.) Two, statistical mining, data interpolation and extrapolation, and other sophisticated, computationally-intensive information guessing techniques have advanced so rapidly and with such efficacy that even when only "non-sensitive" portions of data are released, people are becoming extremely good at figuring out the underlying secrets.
Personally, it scares me that the government can keep secrets from me without even telling me why they're keeping it a secret. ("National Security" has become the catch-all reason to classify ANYTHING, it seems.) It scares me more that the government will no longer let me keep secrets from it. That disparity is beginning to undermine the balance of power between the electors and the elect, and could very easily lead this country into a tryannical state. I thank God that there are still some idealists in the government who are trying to make the right decisions; it is they who help to counteract the creep of power and those it affects.
Re:If you can't patent it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I believe their numbers are dwindling, as corporate sponsorship (what else can you call the necessity of corporate "campaign contributions") continues to become more necessary for one to be elected.
Re:If you can't patent it... (Score:3, Interesting)
If information was released under the FOIA that is linked in an incident (eg terrorism) somebody will pay. Most people don't care about the FOIA, something doesn't get released, it's on 60 minutes for 15 minutes, and then people forget about it. One memo linked to an incident and there will be outrage for years about how the goverment failed to protect
It doesn't matter what the intention is. (Score:5, Insightful)
You may be right.
...But you may not. That's kind of the point. When everything is a secret whether there's a valid reason or not, none of us knows what kinds of motivations are at work behind the scenes.
Even if I give the people in charge now the benefit of a doubt and pretend like all they're doing is covering their ass, it doesn't change the fact that now that the precedent is set and government secrecy is the rule, not the exception, there's nothing to stop someone who is truly evil from taking power and wreaking havoc the likes of which this planet has never seen.
Imagine a modern-day Hitler. (No, I'm not comparing him to George Bush, I'm talking about a hypothetical person who's litierally—word used correctly—much more evil.) Does anyone remember that he was Time Magazine's Man of the Year [about.com] of 1938? As he was working his way into power, people loved him, because he seemed like an average working-class guy who wanted to do right by the German people. They had no clue what future atrocities were to come. It's not too hard for me to imagine someone like that being elected in this country. Now imagine if this modern-day Hitler managed to get in charge of the one and only world superpower, and that once he started doing things like, well, Hitler did, there was no way to hold him accountable. No one knew because all of his actions were classified as national security secrets. Hey, wait, isn't that pretty much exactly what happened back then?
Again, I'm not saying that that is what's going on right now, but who knows? Maybe it is. But even if it's not, if we allow a political environment in which it can happen, there's nothing to stop it from happening in 2008. Or 2012. Or 2016. Because it can, it's just a matter of time before it does. Such is the nature of absolute power.
Is this what we really want?
I'm sorry, but whether they're covering their asses or trying to take over the world doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is evil, and it literally—word used correctly—has the potential to destroy any semblance of freedom in this country and maybe even the whole world.
And to the parent post, that was an excellent point about the government not letting us keep any secrets from them. I've never really thought about it before, but it's really a scary thought. Every intimate detail of my life is open to Uncle Sam, but when I ask stupid questions to try to make sure Uncle Sam's not evil, well, it's a totally different story.
People are so wrapped up in how Uncle Sam will protect us from the terrorists that they forget to ask the question that's much more important: Who will protect us from Uncle Sam?
Re:It doesn't matter what the intention is. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why you have to vote for massive tax and program cuts. A small government is a powerless one. Get rid of the entitlements, the discretionary spending, and leave just a smaller military, and you won't have to fear government so much simply because it won't have money to act.
Re:It doesn't matter what the intention is. (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, ultimately most people are more concerned with their day-to-day safety than the ideal of freedom. Those in public service know that they will be held more accountable for a failure of safety than by eroding freedoms. This isn't a recent thing, just look at the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2.
Re:It doesn't matter what the intention is. (Score:3, Interesting)
Right... And they can go wherever they want there, and talk to whoever they want without US forces being present? Can they describe to all what they saw/talked about?
OK, class is in session. (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps you weren't paying attention, but up to September 11, 2001, the biggest Bush administration story was the unprecedented level of secrecy they demanded.
Things that had heretofore been matters of public record or simply allowable to discuss had become privileged and confidential. Bush adminsitration secrecy hasn't changed at all post 9/11, except now they say it is becuase "the world has changed," and invoke national security instead of executive privilege. But before 9/11 they were very aggressive about executive privilege, in effect saying that the administration could not conduct its business with the public looking over its shoulder in certain situation, despite the fact that the past four or five administrations managed to do so.
Just a month prior to 9/11, the top story was Cheney's drafting energy policy with his old business cronies and claiming it was a state secret. There were countless smaller stories about how data on government decision was drying up. Information on the composition of a group which advised the administration on stem cell research in April of that year was a closely guarded secret. Earlier that year, there were complaints that important parts of the Administration's trade policies were being kept secret.
State secrets have always exist. Political discretion has always been wise. But this administration has always found the free flow of information to be intolerable.
Re:OK, class is in session. (Score:3, Interesting)
While that was a big story, it wasn't about the Bush adminsiration. It was a routine military and diplomatic mishap.
Why should they be made public?
Accountability. The administration itself put its finger on the reason in their excuse for w
Re:If you can't patent it... (Score:3, Informative)
2001: 0 NSA Patents Blocked
2002: 0 NSA Patents Blocked
2003: 0 NSA Patents Blocked
2004: 5 NSA Patents Blocked
2005: 9 NSA Patents Blocked (up to March 2005)
win/win (Score:5, Funny)
Re:win/win (Score:4, Informative)
Re:win/win (Score:5, Interesting)
although Feynman eventually did manage to get $1 for the idea of a nuclear submarine...
Heh. Though of course, while you could call that story an example of an inventor being screwed out of his IP rights by the government, I'd say it's more an example of patents being granted frivolously.
As I recall, the way he told it was that, after the Manhattan Project was done, Feynman was asked if he could think of any other (i.e., non-bomb) applications for atomic energy. He replied by listing, off the top of his head, a bunch of "things that use energy". He later found that he'd been granted, for each $X in his list, a patent on "an atomic-powered $X".
Kinda puts "1-click shopping" to shame, huh? In a way, it's heartening -- at least the USPTO's willingness to grant patents on vague ideas, without even requiring them to have been implemented first, is nothing new.
Re:win/win (Score:3, Interesting)
A patent's claims may be rejected as "unspecific" under the first paragraph of 35 USC Sec. 112.
It is not as easy to get a patent as many people here on /. seem to think.
"Ought" vs "Is" (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that if I'm going to be investing $50000 in parts and equipment (say because I've just figured out to make a Farnsworth generator actually produce power), another $10000 for a patent makes a lot more sense. It is software patents that have such a ridiculous discrepancy between the cost of invention and the cost of a patent. That is why "people on /." (and Groklaw.net) are against *software* patents, not patents in general.
It is also software patents for which the Patent Office seems to have the most trouble distinguishing real inventions from the trivial. But even if that problem (USPTO ignorance of software technology) is fixed, there is simply no need for patent protection of software, because there is no hard cost of invention. It "only" costs time to write and debug code - and that debugged and working code is already protected by copyright. Software patents are purely a tool of oppression.
They can not stop you..... (Score:2)
What are they keeping Secret? (Score:2)
http://www.hedfud.com/media/albums/videos02/mobile _laser.wmv [hedfud.com]
Direct link to WMV file of a military film introducing an operational high power laser. They show it taking out shells and rockets in midair. Some lousy special effects, but educational.
So what stuff are they keeping secret?
RSA and GCHQ (Score:2, Informative)
However, given the prevailing attitudes in the English speaking world, I suggest you patent your ideas in the non-UK EU. Luxembourg?
Geritol. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now there's a double helping of Irony.
The pentagon is more paranoid than the NSA.
Plus it was the NSA that was paranoid back during the RSA era.
Re:Geritol. (Score:5, Insightful)
To boil it down to
Re:Geritol. (Score:2)
As to the the Pentagon being pro-MS, well, lets just say that the NSA is pro-freedom.
Re:Geritol. (Score:2)
* dispatches Sam Fisher to go correct that misapprehension *
That said... you may well be right. I don't know about NSA, but GCHQ (the UK equivalent) is derived from the wartime codebreakers of Bletchley, Turing's mob, who were u
Re:Geritol. (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article:
However, at another level, the Pentagon appears to be relaxing slightly: it seems to be loosening its post 9/11 grip on the ideas of private inventors, with the number having patents barred on the grounds of national security halving in the last year.
The Pentagon is blocking patents from the government, but allowing patents to private inventors... i.e. corporations. (this of
Re:Geritol. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am wondering if this is indeed related to secrecy, or if it has more practical (read "monetary") implications. If a patent is granted, do you want Halluburton (as the default DoD contractor) to pay a license fee? Or do you just give them the information to use as they see fit (and probably charge the governament for R&D in the process)?
Never underestimate the corruption of the political elite...
Compensation? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Pentagon makes your patent secret, will they compensate you? I know that's a hard call as far as value is concerned. But let's say you're in negotiations with some company. You're coming to an amount of $5 million. Will the Pentagon send you a check for $5 million. Will they compensate the company in negations with you too? Or will they just say "Eminent Domain" and just take the thing and if you object, put you in jail?
What would happen if you just said "Fuck you!" and release it on the Net - jail you? The cat's already out of the bag.
Re:Compensation? (Score:3, Informative)
The principle of eminent domain does not allow the government to just "take" things. Eminent domain [wikipedia.org] requires that the government compensate you a fair market value [wikipedia.org].
Of course, that says nothing about other methods they have of preventing you from releasing your invention (national security?) or who decides what "fair market value" is.
Re:Compensation? (Score:5, Informative)
Back in the sixties, a company my father started did a lot of government contract electronics design and manufacturing, mostly for the Navy (some Air Force.) Some of his designs were parsecs beyond what the Navy was currently using at the time, so good that the Navy simply classified them outright. Okay, that's a compliment in a way, but it meant that he couldn't tell anyone about his concepts, couldn't use them for anything himself, and couldn't market any products made with them unless the government chose to buy them from him. Which they didn't, because after stealing his IP they simply shopped it around to other vendors to get a better deal (or to somebody's brother-in-law, whatever.) After that experience, he learned to withhold key parts of specifications so even if they classified what he gave them it wouldn't do them any good. He pissed off more than a few Navy engineers that way, but his attitude was simple: if it's good enough for the Navy to steal it's good enough for them to pay the inventor a fair price.
This all happened was forty years ago, and given the turn our society and our government has taken since, I can't believe the situation has improved any. Really, working for the military is a risky business for any private-sector operation, no matter how you slice it. Money to be made, sure, but you gotta be careful.
Re:Compensation? (Score:2)
It's the government's IP. No doubt about it. (Score:2)
Re:Compensation? (Score:2)
Re:Compensation? (Score:2)
Re:Compensation? (Score:2)
The can may be out of the bag, but don't think they wont try and make an example out of you. You're likely to end up in jail, then bankrupted from legal expenses, and a convicted felon when you get out.
The government has locked people in prison for months, untill they finished their investigation, because they "think" they "mishandled" classified information.
Never mess with the guys that can answer (Score:3, Funny)
US Military: "We don't want you to release that information."
You: "Oh yeah who is going to make me? You and what army?"
US Military: "Well......."
Re:Compensation? (Score:2)
Of course they'd jail you, that's generally what happens when you break a law and the crime is serious enough to warrant jail time. It's exceedingly rare that people are jailed before committing a crime...
There is not enough data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is not enough data... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There is not enough data... (Score:5, Informative)
The rate of FOIA challenges and denials has also skyrocketed.
Hmmm... Government getting more secret, AG writing memos about how torture is justifiable, enacting laws that permit indefinite incarceration without being charged, end to judicial oversight of wire-taps, congress considering a shield law for that would make it so only certain people can report government wrongdoing without threat of legal action... At this rate, how long will it be before the bill of rights falls into desuetude?
Re:There is not enough data... (Score:2)
Now was the 9-11 commission from the Judical branch? If so my rather limited understanding of the US democratic system is completely wrong - I thought the three branches each had reasonable levels of power and could get the others to at least answer questions. "No one is above or below the law" was a quote from a former leader of the e
...plus some contradictory data (Score:2)
"However, at another level, the Pentagon appears to be relaxing slightly: it seems to be loosening its post 9/11 grip on the ideas of private inventors, with the number having patents barred on the grounds of national security halving in the last year.
In the financial year to 2004, DTSA imposed 61 secrecy orders on private inventors, a number that had been climbing inexorably since 9/11. But up to the end of financial 2005, only 32 inventors had "secrecy orders" imposed on their inventions."
I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that the Pentagon is more concerned with preserving an edge in weapons technology, than with secrecy-as-secrecy.
The secrecy thing is just a side effect of wanting the edge.
Secrecy (Score:4, Insightful)
===
Having done a smidge of work for the government, I'm happier with secrets "just in case" than creating holes that might not have to have been made.
Does this mean that what is being kept secret *needs* to be? Not always... but it is better safe than sorry.
[obviously there are extremes, making an office supply order confidential for example, but patents are understandable]
Re:Secrecy (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, but this attitude just smacks of laziness on the part of a classification clerk. When I worked at Department of Energy sites I was amused to discover that groundwater well construction documents known as 'as-builts' were classified during the Cold War. We had to send over a guy with a clearence to review the well log and report back to the classification clerk that no national security information would be disclosed by declassifying the record. At one site the DOE was custodian to over 4,000 wells, of which 90% of the records were classified. Every hour spent by a PhD geologist reviewing well records cost the government real money. This laziness in applying a classified status to well records cost the taxpayers millions of dollars throughout the DOE complex without advancing national security one iota. Countless other examples of construction records for other non-proliferation items were also classified.
Perhaps you like throwing money away for useless 'feel good' measures, but I don't.
Re:Secrecy (Score:2)
I don't feel that patents are one of them.
===
Of course, that assumes that putting the patent out there will drum up problems, who knows if it does.
By the same reasoning, though, let us use the analogy of a plane. You go up in a plane, it is nice to have the parachute with you, even if you are never going to use it.
Patents aren't "wasteful" secrets. It's not clerical laziness. I don't feel that it is a waste of mone
Re:Secrecy (Score:2)
No, patents were the issue of the article and the submission. You generalized the topic with the statement "Having done a smidge of work for the government, I'm happier with secrets "just in case" than creating holes that might not have to have been made." but, to be fair, you did qualify your statement by citing examples of poor classification candidates.
My point was that I prefer an op
Re:Secrecy (Score:2)
That sounds rather high, I know, but they were monitoring an area of 560 square miles.
The wells tended to be concentrated around reactors, separation facilities, fuel fabrication facilities, and liquid disposal facilities (read: the ground).
Were they looking for uranium or something?
That and tritium, nitrate, and cobalt-60. Now they monitor for a whole raft of nuclear and non-nuclear materials.
Re:Secrecy (Score:2)
Re:Secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA has a supposedly democratically elected government.
Virtually everything that government tries to keep secret somewhat undermines the ability of the people of the USA to judge what their government is doing with their money, and hence undermines their ability to make a good choice on whom to vote for next time.
So, keeping secrets undermines democracy, which to me means that while you need them in specific cases, it is a very good idea to limit that to situations where it is really really needed.
The 'better be safe then sorry' should be applied to this in an entirely different way then you did, better be safe and not undermine the voters then be sorry that you lost democracy.
Re:Secrecy (Score:2)
But well, since you had to mention the USA beign a republic, for the rest of the world (those outside the USA) a republic says a lot about the head of state, and very little about how a government is chosen/assigned.
Ie, the former DDR (Eastern Germany) was a republic, the USA is a republic, so is France. Some of those have elected governments, one did not.
The UK and
Why? (Score:2)
===
If you've never been in a position handling classified information, it may be hard to see security holes.
I garauntee, in that position, you see a lot more paranoia than declaring certain patents a secret.
I don't think it is out of line... the line "better safe than sorry" may be a cliche, but in my experience, when it comes to government security, the cliche holds true.
*shrug*
That's just my point of view, you are free to your ow
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have "been in a position handling classified information" -- some of it very classified indeed -- and here's why I think you're wrong:
1) Classification costs insane amounts of money; not just the classification process and the protections classified material requires, but in the case of technology, the potential profit to be realized by releasing the technology for civilian use. A good example of this is what the British government did to their nascent computer industry after WW2. At the end of the war, they had the best computer technology and computer scientists in the world, bar none. No one else, including the US, was even in the running. So, of course, in classic late-stage empire style, they classified everything, destroyed the actual machines, hounded people out of that line of work (and at least one of them to death)
2) Classifying everything is equivalent to classifying nothing. People who work with classified information which they know is bullshit tend to get contemptuous of the rules (I've seen classified documents just sitting around in public areas, no one watching them, with people milling by!) So it increases the chances of genuinely important information getting leaked.
3) We, the people of the United States, pay for that work with our tax dollars. I don't think anyone will argue that everything the government comes up with should be for sale at Radio Shack -- but the government must have an overriding interest in keeping potentially useful technology (and everything else, for that matter) secret from the people who paid for it, and whose interests it is supposed to serve. And no, "this might be useful to someone somewhere sometime who wants to do something bad, better safe than sorry" just doesn't cut it.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but in an over-classified world, how would you know that we were losing the war?
Secret governments fail due to internal decay. The only cure for that disease is the sunshine of open government.
Only in the most extreme cases should information be classified. Once you start creating state secrets "just in case" it is impossible to stop.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, those with broad powers to keep secrets will eventually misuse such power in order to cover up wrongdoing. The temptation is simply too great-you screwed up, badly, you can either:
A: Admit it, or
B: Keep it secret.
While there are exceptions, most will choose to keep it secret. That's an unfortunate reality but a true one.
And in fact, it's been found that classification has quite often been used unnecessarily or even maliciously. It has also been found that information is kept classified far longer then it need be (i.e., it held strategic value 50 years ago, and needed to be classified, it lost its strategic value 40 years ago and could've safely been declassified, but it stayed classified until 2 years ago because it would've embarrassed someone. Coincidentally, of course, that person died 2 years ago.)
A democratic government (or ANY government which claims to serve, rather than rule, the people it represents) must by definition be open. If we cannot get a complete picture of what any given leader or organization is up to, then we cannot make an informed choice as to whether to re-elect that leader. If we do not know a problem exists, we cannot protest it to our Congressmen/Senators. If the press are routinely denied access to critical information on potential wrongdoing, their "freedom of the press" becomes a farce.
We are indeed "better safe then sorry"-and we are safest when we can keep a close, critical eye on our government. Not when they're allowed to keep anything secret they wish with no oversight and no consequences for misuse of that authority.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Sorry, that's classified. Go away.
What The Post Doesn't Say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What The Post Doesn't Say (Score:2)
Inventions for Bond Jr. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Inventions for Bond Jr. (Score:2, Funny)
"US04375625 Method and apparatus for penetrating tin-foil hats"
Re:Inventions for Bond Jr. (Score:5, Insightful)
I went to the uspto.gov site and looked up a few of them (in particular "rocess of preventing visual access to a semiconductor device by applying an opaque ceramic coating to integrated circuit devices," No. 5,258,334) and the assignee is listed as "The U.S. Government as represented by the Director, National Security."
I wonder if this means that the patented idea is essentially public domain? Other creative works which are products of the Government are automatically public domain in terms of copyright, so is the right to use an idea as well? Or if you want to use one, do you have to go to the NSD and ask for permission / licensing? And if the latter, what do they charge, and who gets the money?
I suspect, judging just by the problems and obvious conflicts-of-interest that you'd get if licensing was required, that they are free to use, in which case having the NSA patent something is much like having one of the Linux associations trademark something; they're never going to actually profit from it, but it potentially prevents someone else from doing so unfairly. And I suspect it also looks really good on the NSA's researchers' resumes and improves morale.
Re:Inventions for Bond Jr. (Score:2)
The patents are NOT public domain. They are licensed out to companies. The money is then (i'm pretty sure) put into the gen
Re:Inventions for Bond Jr. (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, the delicious irony. The patent "Scanning confocal electron microscope, No. 6,548,810" is assigned to Nestor Zaluzec and Argonne National Lab.
It was developed specifically as an easy [easier than super high energy xrays, the kind you need a linear accelerator for. Note IANAP, I am not a physicist.] way to look at the structure of a circuit without destroyi
Re:Inventions for Bond Jr. (Score:2)
If you think that is paranoid, read this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Two and a half months after a Freedom of Information request was filed, a 376 document was produced, but with 149 pages completedly blacked out and 102 pages partially blacked out.
Re:If you think that is paranoid, read this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry, this is self-limiting. After enough of its material becomes non-disseminable, the NSA's ability to innovate will quickly dry up...
How about patenting overseas first? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How about patenting overseas first? (Score:2)
Well, if you live in the US (especially if you work for the NSA) the answer is this: you won't be enjoying any of the profits from those overseas patents while you're sitting in Leavenworth.
I suppose (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I suppose (Score:2)
Actually, the patent was disallowed because of previous art from Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, LBJ, Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton [wikipedia.org].
-h-
So, all secrets are bad then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Classic conflict of interest (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think the Department of Defense should remember why the word "defense" is in their name to begin with, and not just some sort of Orwellian "Minipax" ploy. The priority here should be defending the United States, not necessarily attacking our enemies. The best defense may be a good offense, but it isn't the only defense.
Re:Classic conflict of interest (Score:2)
Some consider it the beginning of political correctness when the name was changed from the "War Department".
Why is the government applying for patents anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does the government do this?
Re:Why is the government applying for patents anyw (Score:2)
To recoup money from it's investment. The feds spend millions and in some cases billions developing technology. Why should businesses get that research for free? They license out the patents and put the money back into the gen
Gov't agencies can patent things? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps they're trying to patent ideas in order to make them public and prevent anyone else from obtaining a patent on the same idea, and we're all free to use the idea. But then why not just publish the idea and make sure that the USPTO is aware of it?
Patenting is an exchange (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Patenting is an exchange (Score:2)
Or at least nobody I've been able to find. I've talked about this to people the do research (including taking out patents) in computer software, in food process engineering, and for physical engineering for consumer devices. All find the patent database basically useless except for finding out if something they know how to do anyway is p
Fed Patents? (Score:2)
Hypothetical question.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So here is the hypothetical question, suppose I invented a new method to decrypt information VERY fast (i.e polynomial time). If I did not apply for a patent here, but either patented it in europe, or just published it, would that be illegal?
As far as I can tell there are no requirements that you must try to patent an invention, nor any requirement that a u.s. inventor patent an invention in the US first.
Thoughts?
Re:Hypothetical question.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hypothetical question.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It has happened [wired.com]
Re:Hypothetical question.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"So here is the hypothetical question, suppose I invented a new method to decrypt information VERY fast (i.e polynomial time). If I did not apply for a patent here, but either patented it in europe, or just published it, would that be illegal?"
Release the information anonymously, and enjoy being the catalyst that begins the post-crypto world.
If you came up with such a discovery, would you *really* let any government have it?
Some problems (Score:2)
2. What if you did not patent an invention that was previously patented and classified and start selling a product based on it. Again there is no way you could have known ahead of time the idea was patented.
3. What if the invention you tried to patent gets classified only to discover later that another compa
So What (Score:3, Insightful)
But we are dealing with the government, the U.S. government. While we (the citizens of the U.S.) have many rights (like the freedom of speech) we no longer have control of our government. It will do what it damned well wants to. It has been that way since WWII with only a couple of notable exceptions. The truth is they will spend what they need to in order to accomplish what they want. Their lawyers will obstruficate enough laws and outspend anyone who tries to get in their way ten to one, making it impossible for even the wealthiest people or corporations to be little more then a speed-bump on the agenda.
I'm not anti-government. We need government and we need the laws that protect us. But face it, what we have created is something that lives and operates behind closed doors and establishes its own rules. Nothing, or nobody is big enough to change it. That hardly means don't try. As citizens we need to demand accountability because it is we who they represent. The article was good from that standpoint. It uses our freedom to challenge the government to explain itself. Unfortunately, we already know the answer will be a stoney wall of silence.
Re:Is this really that significat??? (Score:2)
When Coca-cola does this people call it a trade secret. When the United States government does this it infringes on someone's rights???
Yeah. Coke keeps its forumla secret. You try to patent something, only to have the Pentagon declare ti secret and not pay you.
Re:Is this really that significat??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly now...
Coca-cola is a private company. The government is by definition a public body that we, ideally, control. If Coke invents some new thing and decides to keep it a secret, you can tell them how you feel by not buying any Coke. You have no choice with the government.
They take your taxes, period. I think it is quite reasonable to insist that what the government does/creates with our money be made, if at all possible, public. That's how government is supposed to work.
Re:Is this really that significant??? (Score:2)
> The government is by definition a public body that we, ideally, control [...]
> They take your taxes, period. I think it is quite reasonable to insist that what
> the government does/creates with our money be made, if at all possible, public.
> That's how government is supposed to work.
That only works with a government that only governs.
Unfortunately, some governments are not content with just governing. They want to rule.
Re:Is this really that significant??? (Score:2)
govern
v 1: bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage; impose regulations; "We cannot regulate the way people dress"; "This town likes to regulate" [syn: regulate, regularize, regularise, order] [ant: deregulate] 2: direct or strongly influence the behavior of; "His belief in God governs his conduct" 3: exercise authority over; as of nations; "Who is governing the country now?" [syn: rule]
v. ruled, ruling, rules
v. tr.
1. To exercise control, dominion, or direction over; govern.
2. To dominat
confusing singular with plural (Score:2)
Yes, but not each of us personally. We don't live in a direct democracy, where every action of the state requires our explicit approval and understanding.
The deal is, we elect representatives, and they have complete access to all information in the government, and complete control over everything it does, secret or otherwise. If the President wants to know exactly what the NSA is doing in some deep-dark secret lab, he'll ask and be to
Re:Is DOD screwing up great NSA plans? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Is DOD screwing up great NSA plans? (Score:2)
More than a couple of years. GCHQ had public key crypto long before R, S and A invented it. Someone upthread noted that secrecy led the British to throw away a massive lead in computer technology at the end of WW2; well, we did it again there. We had RSA for years and did sod all with it.
Not that I'm bitter, angry or resentful about the British government's policies on science and
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, that the military is fighting a 2 front war (and looking at the very real possibility of a 3 front war in another year), they are getting a lot of power. More importantly, they are willing to use it.
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
I don't like to support an obviously trolling GPP, but from your answer I can't help wondering... If Bush/his administration/their policies didn't cause this to happen, who did?
Re:Not really. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wish we knew what they were trying to patent. (Score:2)
Something tells me that the Pentagon is more concerned with foriegn governments getting a hold of the patents rather than terorists.
Re:I wish we knew what they were trying to patent. (Score:2)
Re:I hope they give you compensation (Score:2, Informative)
Military Judge? (Score:2)