Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by samlavery 1514 days ago
I'm not exactly in the space you are talking about, but in the USA, we have two broad categories for this stuff, ITAR and EAR. ITAR is the set of regulations that covers technology that only have one use, government (think missiles/night vision goggles/combat body armor). The EAR covers everything that can be used by both the government and consumers/enterprise (think quantum computing, AI, green tech, and cybersecurity), aka dual-use technology.

The difference between a defense start-up and nerds blowing up stuff in the desert is the relationship with the federal government allowing the nerds to blow stuff up. A big pitfall is not knowing you need the governments permission to blow stuff up beyond a certain size. And if you innovate in the field of blowing stuff up, and inadvertently let north North Korea learn about it, you're probably going to jail. I'm not an attorney so I can't speak to other legal risks, but watch for regulatory violations.

Generally, these types of innovations happen inside of institutions that have the capacity to comply with regulations and develop the idea. But if you invent something valuable in your garage, the path forward is probably via a SBIR/STTR grant through whatever part of the government your invention relates to. As part of that grant, you become would 'known' to the government. Other routes that I am unaware of may also exist.

I think the demand for innovation has always been there, but I think it's ramping up since Biden took office. It seems less a function of any looming potential conflict, and more a function of new funding/initiatives.

If you qualify, the government will give you a SBIR phase I and II grant as a form of non-dilutitive investment, and after that, phase III can go any number of ways. That's when VC usually gets involved.

I don't think there is a limit on the research for particle disintegrators, the limit would be on the commercialization and sale of said particle disintegrators. I'm sure the ITAR regulations have the answer somewhere in there, but check with an actual attorney before researching particle disintigration tech.

The dominiant traits, you are a US citizen, your company is owned by US citizens, the work is only done on US soil, and you aren't explicitly banned by the government (they have a list). Military experience, and federal experience and networks are very helpful, but not required if you've got a great idea.

I hope this helps. I'm still trying to figure this stuff out for myself.

1 comments

I’ve seen a few tirades on HN along the lines “the kids are going into FAANG and useless startups instead of working on DARPA projects”.

99% of the time when I try to learn about some program or opportunity with the federal government I get met with most most hostile website on earth which seems to be intent on not giving me any useful information.

It used to be that the government would explicitly solicit for somebody to build them a particle disintegrator. If that was your business, you could then apply for a grant based on that solicitation. Recently, they have added something called “open topic”, which is basically for anything that the government would find useful but isn’t smart enough to ask for, from ray guns to open source cybersecurity projects. I think if it’s related to either blowing things up, or preventing things from getting blown up, uncle sam wants to talk to you!
Lol yep. From my experience hiring can be much slower as well