[londons_explore]

Those kind of rules infuriate me... Some politicians friend will manage to argue that it's in the public interest to grant an exclusive license in return for commercializing the tech. They would argue that without being granted exclusivity, nobody will commercialize it. Then one company gets to reap all the profits of government work.

[nvrspyx]

I'm a little late in responding, but I want to correct my previous comment. It appears that I linked and quoted a section from a title specific to the Department of Education. Instead, [1] applies to all federal agencies. It appears that it's up to individual agencies to determine when it's appropriate to grant exclusivity, so the rules may vary between Departments and their agencies.

With that said, any exclusive license, including prospective exclusive licenses, must be published in the Federal Register. So, any exclusive licensing should be available to the public. Additionally, the agency has to give first preference to small business applicants. However, this only applies if the small business capable and have "equal or greater likelihood as those from other applicants to bring the invention to practical application within a reasonable time", both of which are at the federal agency's discretion.

I think your concern is still valid, as I share it. I just wanted to correct the misinformation I presented previously. It still appears that the "default" licensing of Government-owned patents is to be royalty-free and non-exclusive, but what I didn't previously consider is that is only the default if they choose to license it. They could just as easily not license it at all.

1: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-IV/part-404