[dkopi]

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]

There is a process for compensation: 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.

[Animats]

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

[pmorici]

An inventor in that position doesn't have any negotiating power that's the why.

[smallnamespace]

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]

I think it's more basic than that. The company has no BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement).

[mistermann]

Could he denounce his US citizenship and move to, say, Moscow or China?

[pmorici]

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.

[cmdrfred]

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.

[Houshalter]

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]

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]

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.

[syshum]

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]

The government awards him both the patent and the intellectual property, the latter not being defined by the constitution.

[syshum]

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]

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.

[tomohawk]

Not quite. The government has patent laws to protect the rights of the inventor.

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.

[toomanybeersies]

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).

[thaumasiotes]

> 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]

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)

[gaius]

Export controls are there to prevent killing machines getting in the hands of a countries enemies (or potential enemies in the future)

In practice that isn't, umm, practical. Consider the Falklands war - Argentina had Type 42 destroyers sold to them by Britain, and Exocet missiles sold by fellow NATO member France.

[Bud]

Those are more the exceptions that prove the rule, though. I don't see any other countries with B-2s or other major US weapons systems, unless the US intended it.

[throwaway1892]

France sold Argentina the planes used to launch the missiles

[syshum]

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

[dkopi]

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).

[nitrogen]

There is a sibling comment that was flagged to death that makes a reasonable point. The word "enemy" is used in political rhetoric as if enemies are a force of nature, like hurricanes or earthquakes. But "enemies" are just people, and there's very little discussion about why those people want to kill those other people, or how their existence is blowback (or even an intended result) from yet another operation against some previous enemy.

I would be much happier with US strategy if the discussion always began with metaanalysis of the motivations and origins of a putative enemy, with the focus on social and humanitarian means to prevent the formation of new problems.

[0xfeba]

That's too hard. Let's just precision carpet bomb them and let God sort it out. Any problems 20 years from now will be the next incumbent's problem.

[fatbird]

Nothing about dkopi's comment requires one to view the US as good and her enemies as evil, or for him to be American. Anyone whose gov't develops or pays other to develop weapons has at least a passive interest in those weapons not being turned on them.

[Houshalter]

Well for 1 & 2, this story is about a guy who is from the US, and is trying to sell military tech to the US. Either he supports the US, or he doesn't care what his military tech is used for. Either way he can't really claim the moral high ground if he turns around and sells it to "enemy" countries.

But you don't really need to assume any of that. If you just assume that spreading military tech is a net negative, then this is good. I don't support the US's use of drones, but I especially don't want other countries to have drones. I don't support the use of nuclear bombs, but I certainly don't want other countries to have them. Whether the country is good or not, I think advancing military tech is at best neutral, and at worst very, very bad.

[syshum]

So then you should get off the internet, as the Internet is Military Technology

Better stop using that GPS as well, and about 1000000000 of other common everyday technology that was created for military reasons.

[Houshalter]

Obviously the internet and GPS are mostly used for civilian applications. Are you really going to argue that there is a huge civilian market for stealth boats?

[karlmdavis]

Or if, 4, you live/operate in the US, and are thus bound by their laws.

[mzw_mzw]

What country do you live in?

Does it have any enemies?

Would you be upset if some local corporation sold breakthrough military technology to that enemy?

[syshum]

I live in the US

Yes the US has Enemies,

No I would not be upset is some local corporation sold breakthrough military technology to that "enemy"...

I lived through the first cryptowars, I do not have the desire to give the government that kind of power

I see the resurgence of the new cryptowars on the horizon, government can not be trusted to choose what information should be public and what should be secret