Subscribe via RSS Feed

Military Procurement and IP

[ 4 ] January 26, 2011 |

My latest at WPR is on military procurement and IP:

The IP dynamics of military equipment are complicated, and two alternative systems of managing IP issues in military procurement have emerged. The first, adopted by the United States and its allies, relies on robust IP protection for producers at every step of the ladder… The other system, more traditional in some ways, disregards the value of protecting intellectual property in military acquisition. In this system, which can be thought of as the “anything goes” system of IP management, states beg, borrow, and steal whatever technology they can, often attempting to copy or reverse-engineer systems developed in other countries.


Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DocAmazing says:

    In a similar vein, see INSLAW.

    • ploeg says:

      The late Netezza suit provides an even more recent example.

      Certainly western countries have to take a public stand for “robust IP protection for producers at every step of the ladder.” It’s partially to prevent other countries from gaining an advantage, and partially to mollify large IP holders of every stripe (rampant violations are sure not to amuse these companies, and these companies have political power in western democracies). But when the rubber meets the road, they’ll violate IP rights first and ask questions later.

  2. LittlePig says:

    Had to read a bit to realize that no, he wasn’t talking Internet Protocol.

    The geek is strong with me.

  3. upyernoz says:

    like LittlePig, at first i didn’t think he was referring to intellectual property (and i’m a lawyer!). on a lot of blogs i read “IP” means israel/palestine.

    repetitive acronyms annoy me more than they should. (“HRC” is the human rights commission, not hillary clinton goddamit!!!) usually i can tell by the context, but it is better to define them at the beginning of the post.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.