6 ms·

If you support export controls for security reasons, this is kind of inevitable. The government shouldn't be forced to buy any type of military technology some

by dkopi 10y ago

If you support export controls for security reasons, this is kind of inevitable. The government shouldn't be forced to buy any type of military technology someone creates. But even if the government won't buy your tech, it still can be dangerous in the hands of other countries. One could argue that if the government is preventing you from selling your tech abroad - there should be some sort of compensation for this. Others could argue that's just the cost of being in the business of weapons manufacturing.

icebraining 10y ago
There is a process for compensation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/183 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/183 According to the article, it simply rarely pays up; it's a shame they don't go more into why.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Development is the risk involved in that business no? After you have a contract you are guaranteed to sell a certain number of units and the risk disappears. Seems like a good way to private the gains and socialize the losses.
- pmorici 10y ago
  An inventor in that position doesn't have any negotiating power that's the why.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Could he denounce his US citizenship and move to, say, Moscow or China?
    - pmorici 10y ago
      If he were willing to put himself in the a position where the US government could claim he had broken the law sure he could do whatever he wants. That would arguably make his bargaining position worse though because then he has the US government after him for what they will likely frame as espionage and he would be dependent on the good will of some other government which effectively puts him in an Assange Snowden style predicament.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    One possible reason is it's very hard to prove the market value of something that you never sold. You can say that your product is worth $1bn until you're blue in the face, but there won't be any evidence of that without any buyers.
    - pmorici 10y ago
      I think it's more basic than that. The company has no BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement).
- Animats 10y ago
  The Government never pays out on 28 USC 1498 claims (Government infringement of a patent) either. I once filed FOIA requests to get data on this.[1] The administrative claim procedure is useless. You have to file suit in the Court of Claims to collect. One reason for this turns out to be that if the agency settles, it comes out of their budget, but if the agency loses in the Court of Claims, it comes out of a separate Treasury fund for claims against the Government. [1] http://www.animats.com/foia/index.html http://www.animats.com/foia/index.html
syshum 10y ago
One should argue that being prohibited from talking about your technology is a 1st amendment violation, and if we are to have the concept of "Intellectual property" then the government banning you from selling it would be a 5th amendment violation with out just compensation., However given that the constitution is widely ignored by the US government today, with full support of the court system, it is unlikely that the constitution will protect anyone.
- tombone12 10y ago
  The government awards him both the patent and the intellectual property, the latter not being defined by the constitution.
  - tomohawk 10y ago
    Not quite. The government has patent laws to protect the rights of the inventor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause They've turned it upside down and made it protect the state instead. The constitution does not grant this power to the state.
  - syshum 10y ago
    The authority to create copyright and patent law is most certainly in the constitution, if it were not all copyright and patent law would be unconstitutional People seem to forget what the constitution is, the Constitution grants government its power, if the constitution is silent on a matter than the government is suppose to be powerless, is not suppose to engage in that activity. This means a whole host of things the government does, should be unconstitutional, but sadly the courts have interrupted the constitution to include powers it does not contain.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    An interesting exercise would be to find court rulings that refer to "intellectual property" rather than to some specific thing that gets dumped in that basket.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
> Others could argue that's just the cost of being in the business of weapons manufacturing. Well, sure, you could argue that, but that argument justifies every rule that exists now or might in the future.
- dkopi 10y ago
  Not really. Military grade weapons are a big deal. They're used to kill people. Export controls are there to prevent killing machines getting in the hands of a countries enemies (or potential enemies in the future)
  - syshum 10y ago
    This is only valid if 1. You live in the US 2. You believe the US government is moral and "good" 3. Any "enemy of the US" is evil 3 assumptions I am not willing to support
    - karlmdavis 10y ago
      Or if, 4, you live/operate in the US, and are thus bound by their laws.
    - dkopi 10y ago
      Not really. Every country that has weapons development also has export controls. It isn't about believing your government is moral or good. Its about understanding that your government is responsible for the safety of citizens, and that your enemies will want to kill you (or at least kill your soldiers).
      - syshum 10y ago
        >>Its about understanding that your government is responsible for the safety of citizens, and that your enemies will want to kill you Governments are about control, not safety. as to the "enemies want to kill you", most that stems from government aggression in the first place, government is the cause, not the effect of that equation
Houshalter 10y ago
In the past it was illegal to export cryptography, which lead to some ridiculous situations. I once found an export restriction that says it's illegal to export neural network technology (or at least if it's applied to ASICs or FPGAs.) I doubt many people in the industry are familiar with this. Now that Google is starting to produce NN ASICs and Intel is building NN instructions into its chips, this is a serious concern.
- thrownawy987 10y ago
  Indeed it is illegal to export a "Neural network integrated circuit" without a license, Commerce Control List (CCL) section 3A001.a.9. Reasons cited for control: NS (National Security), MT (Missile Technology), AT (Anti-terror).
- b2600 10y ago
  Export regulations have been relaxed since 1996 in the U.S. but export is still regulated and may require review and license from Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.
toomanybeersies 10y ago
Argh, export controls. I wanted to buy a new rifle stock from the USA, but apparently since it's over US$100, it's a controlled export (firearm component). It's a damn piece of timber with a couple of holes in it! Apparently I'd need an export certificate to get it out of the USA, which of course requires stacks of paperwork. No issues getting it into New Zealand though, no restrictions at all (I think magazines and receivers are the only parts that require import certificates).

by dkopi 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago

There is a process for compensation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/183 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/183 According to the article, it simply rarely pays up; it's a shame they don't go more into why.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Development is the risk involved in that business no? After you have a contract you are guaranteed to sell a certain number of units and the risk disappears. Seems like a good way to private the gains and socialize the losses.
pmorici 10y ago
An inventor in that position doesn't have any negotiating power that's the why.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Could he denounce his US citizenship and move to, say, Moscow or China?
  - pmorici 10y ago
    If he were willing to put himself in the a position where the US government could claim he had broken the law sure he could do whatever he wants. That would arguably make his bargaining position worse though because then he has the US government after him for what they will likely frame as espionage and he would be dependent on the good will of some other government which effectively puts him in an Assange Snowden style predicament.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  One possible reason is it's very hard to prove the market value of something that you never sold. You can say that your product is worth $1bn until you're blue in the face, but there won't be any evidence of that without any buyers.
  - pmorici 10y ago
    I think it's more basic than that. The company has no BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement).
Animats 10y ago
The Government never pays out on 28 USC 1498 claims (Government infringement of a patent) either. I once filed FOIA requests to get data on this.[1] The administrative claim procedure is useless. You have to file suit in the Court of Claims to collect. One reason for this turns out to be that if the agency settles, it comes out of their budget, but if the agency loses in the Court of Claims, it comes out of a separate Treasury fund for claims against the Government. [1] http://www.animats.com/foia/index.html http://www.animats.com/foia/index.html

syshum 10y ago

One should argue that being prohibited from talking about your technology is a 1st amendment violation, and if we are to have the concept of "Intellectual property" then the government banning you from selling it would be a 5th amendment violation with out just compensation., However given that the constitution is widely ignored by the US government today, with full support of the court system, it is unlikely that the constitution will protect anyone.

tombone12 10y ago
The government awards him both the patent and the intellectual property, the latter not being defined by the constitution.
- tomohawk 10y ago
  Not quite. The government has patent laws to protect the rights of the inventor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause They've turned it upside down and made it protect the state instead. The constitution does not grant this power to the state.
- syshum 10y ago
  The authority to create copyright and patent law is most certainly in the constitution, if it were not all copyright and patent law would be unconstitutional People seem to forget what the constitution is, the Constitution grants government its power, if the constitution is silent on a matter than the government is suppose to be powerless, is not suppose to engage in that activity. This means a whole host of things the government does, should be unconstitutional, but sadly the courts have interrupted the constitution to include powers it does not contain.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  An interesting exercise would be to find court rulings that refer to "intellectual property" rather than to some specific thing that gets dumped in that basket.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

> Others could argue that's just the cost of being in the business of weapons manufacturing. Well, sure, you could argue that, but that argument justifies every rule that exists now or might in the future.

dkopi 10y ago
Not really. Military grade weapons are a big deal. They're used to kill people. Export controls are there to prevent killing machines getting in the hands of a countries enemies (or potential enemies in the future)
- syshum 10y ago
  This is only valid if 1. You live in the US 2. You believe the US government is moral and "good" 3. Any "enemy of the US" is evil 3 assumptions I am not willing to support
  - karlmdavis 10y ago
    Or if, 4, you live/operate in the US, and are thus bound by their laws.
  - dkopi 10y ago
    Not really. Every country that has weapons development also has export controls. It isn't about believing your government is moral or good. Its about understanding that your government is responsible for the safety of citizens, and that your enemies will want to kill you (or at least kill your soldiers).
    - syshum 10y ago
      >>Its about understanding that your government is responsible for the safety of citizens, and that your enemies will want to kill you Governments are about control, not safety. as to the "enemies want to kill you", most that stems from government aggression in the first place, government is the cause, not the effect of that equation

Houshalter 10y ago

In the past it was illegal to export cryptography, which lead to some ridiculous situations. I once found an export restriction that says it's illegal to export neural network technology (or at least if it's applied to ASICs or FPGAs.) I doubt many people in the industry are familiar with this. Now that Google is starting to produce NN ASICs and Intel is building NN instructions into its chips, this is a serious concern.

thrownawy987 10y ago
Indeed it is illegal to export a "Neural network integrated circuit" without a license, Commerce Control List (CCL) section 3A001.a.9. Reasons cited for control: NS (National Security), MT (Missile Technology), AT (Anti-terror).
b2600 10y ago
Export regulations have been relaxed since 1996 in the U.S. but export is still regulated and may require review and license from Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.

toomanybeersies 10y ago

Argh, export controls. I wanted to buy a new rifle stock from the USA, but apparently since it's over US$100, it's a controlled export (firearm component). It's a damn piece of timber with a couple of holes in it! Apparently I'd need an export certificate to get it out of the USA, which of course requires stacks of paperwork. No issues getting it into New Zealand though, no restrictions at all (I think magazines and receivers are the only parts that require import certificates).