Tax-payer funded basic research.

[KitemanSA]

in my own concept, if the government is spending money on something, it should be considered "partner" in the company. Think of the government as a shareholder. I think its simple as that.

to what kind of things do shareholders have rights when when investing in private research?

if you are not happy with those terms, go try to get your funds from the private sector.

Seems the Navy isn't happy with those terms, which suggests they are a bit wiser than you.

[KitemanSA]

@KitemanSA What pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Having been bested in debate you resort to name calling and misdirection.

...no, read the entire paragraph again, and pay attention this time. It's not ad hominem; it's actually part of his argument.

Thanks for trying. Think it will do any good?

It is ad hominem - Appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason) - This to is generally frowned upon in polite circles as it is name calling by innuendo. And just how does such an appeal cause contract deliverable data to become proprietary?

Nope, seems not!

[Aero]

@KitemanSA What pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Having been bested in debate you resort to name calling and misdirection.

...no, read the entire paragraph again, and pay attention this time. It's not ad hominem; it's actually part of his argument.

Thanks for trying. Think it will do any good?

It is ad hominem - Appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason) - This to is generally frowned upon in polite circles as it is name calling by innuendo. And just how does such an appeal cause contract deliverable data to become proprietary?

Nope, seems not!

Sorry guys but your argument may as well be in a completely different language. You are making absolutely no sense to me. I did read the complete post, carefully I might add, and now, let me ask, "Did you read my complete response?" Did you understand that I think your position is foolish? I don't mean just slightly off, I mean ridiculously out of touch with the reality that caused the struggle to pass the Freedom of Information Act. Do you have any idea what it took to get that law passed, or the nature of abuses it targeted? Do you understand that I am no more likely to change my opinion than are you are? Do you know what opinions are like, everybody's got one.

[93143]

All of that is completely unrelated to whether or not his argument is ad hominem. It's not. You may not think it's a good argument, but you have to address the argument; you don't get to dismiss it as "name calling and misdirection" just because you don't like it.

[GIThruster]

I don't see what is so difficult to understand here. If EMC2 wants to develop a private energy system then all is well, they just shouldn't be asking the US government to finance that research...and similarly, the US government shouldn't be financing private research either. The disbursement of those funds should be contingent on the research results being in the public domain, unless there is some compelling national security interest in keeping them private..which is not the case here.

Seems to me the trouble with this position is it confuses the way the world works with the way you think it ought to work. What you think ought to be, is not a workable solution for the many reasons already mentioned. When it comes right down to it though, your main confusion seems to be that you think public funds are administrated by the public, which is an absurd notion. Should we all take a vote on every little thing the government wants to fund? Of course not. Public funds are administrated through individuals, not through the public. Your stubborn refusal to accept facts like this demonstrates you just don't understand the way the world works. Worse is, if someone were to try to institute your unworkable ideals, all federal funding of applied science would stop overnight.

[Aero]

All of that is completely unrelated to whether or not his argument is ad hominem. It's not. You may not think it's a good argument, but you have to address the argument; you don't get to dismiss it as "name calling and misdirection" just because you don't like it.

Tell me what argument KitemanSA has made in the following?

The requirement of disclosure that accompanies government research funds serves to make government funds less desirable than internal funds. The requirements of project control that usually accompanies venture research funds serves to make venture funds less desirable than internal funds.
But, if a company can get outside funds and treat the research project as though it were funded internally, then the company can avoid the risk of loss of the research money, and reap any benefits accruing from the research as well.

In classic terms, they can have their cake and eat it, too. This result is generally frowned upon in polite circles. EMC2's denial of the FOIA request is "not nice," legalities aside.

Aero, do you work in the technical field? Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Are you "not nice". I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them!

By the way, FOIA applies to "government data" not to company proprietary data. So not releasing proprietary data is quite legal, nicenesses aside.

Here is my take on it.

• Aero, do you work in the technical field? Personal - Answer not required
  Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Personal - Answer not required
  Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Personal - Answer not required, but do you know what the manager of a McDonald's restaurant, four years out of high school, earns? A surprisingly high amount.
  Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Personal - also insulting, implying that my skills are worthless - answer not required.
  Are you "not nice". Personal and insulting, as though written by a ######################## redacted ##################. But of course it was not, it was written by KitemanSA who is nothing more and nothing less than another member of this forum.
  I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them! - Opinion and attributing words and thoughts to me which I have not voiced or had. - Answer not required.

Now this part, I've already answered very clearly, but I'll try again as you have asked.

By the way, FOIA applies to "government data" not to company proprietary data. So not releasing proprietary data is quite legal

This is only true to the extent that the data is actually proprietary. If said data has been released prior, it is public knowledge and cannot then be claimed as proprietary. EMC2 spent $1,800,000 on the WB-7 contract. If in fact they did not develop any new data then they have ripped off all concerned. If everything new that they developed is claimed as proprietary then they owe a properly redacted response to the FOIA request, because the report cannot be completely proprietary. Remember, redaction is done at the word level and the report has a specified format which includes stock text, not to mention the text of the purpose of the report, which is already known from the contract and cannot be proprietary.
There are only two reasons I can think of for not answering an FOIA request on a cost plus fee contract. One is because it would expose illegal activity, and the other is inexperience and laziness. In the case of EMC2, I think it is inexperience and laziness. A big reputable aerospace company in a similar situation would simply hire a new PhD physicist and assign him the task (properly supervised) of redacting the report, then they would charge the cost to the contract. They end up with a knowledgeable new employee, more costs, a higher fee and maybe they will justify more money from the government. Remember, they are not paid the contracted amount of cost money, plus the fee, unless they spend the cost money first, so the profit motive should entice them to answer the FOIA request.

[Aero]

... FOIA applies to "government data" not to company proprietary data. So not releasing proprietary data is quite legal

This is only true to the extent that the data is actually proprietary. If said data has been released prior, it is public knowledge and cannot then be claimed as proprietary. EMC2 spent $1,800,000 on the WB-7 contract. If in fact they did not develop any new data then they have ripped off all concerned. If everything new that they developed is claimed as proprietary then they owe a properly redacted response to the FOIA request, because the report cannot be completely proprietary. Remember, redaction is done at the word level and the report has a specified format which includes stock text, not to mention the text of the purpose of the report, which is already known from the contract and cannot be proprietary.
There are only two reasons I can think of for not answering an FOIA request on a cost plus fee contract. One is because it would expose illegal activity, and the other is inexperience and laziness. In the case of EMC2, I think it is inexperience and laziness. A big reputable aerospace company in a similar situation would simply hire a new PhD physicist and assign him the task (properly supervised) of redacting the report, then they would charge the cost to the contract. They end up with a knowledgeable new employee, more costs, a higher fee and maybe they will justify more money from the government. Remember, they are not paid the contracted amount of cost money, plus the fee, unless they spend the cost money first, so the profit motive should entice them to answer the FOIA request.

[GIThruster]

If everything new that they developed is claimed as proprietary then they owe a properly redacted response to the FOIA request, because the report cannot be completely proprietary.

I'm sorry to say but you do not have the foggiest notion of what you speak. First of all, EMC2 does not in any way "owe" anyone any information. FOIA ONLY applies to the executive branch of the government and does NOT apply to private corporations simply because they accept public funds. There are no conditions under which EMC2 could possibly "owe" anyone, any answers about anything.

The same is not true of the US Navy which is part of the executive branch. What data EMC2 tells the Navy is proprietary is exclusively up to EMC2, and you don't get a say in this. None of us do. if they say they don't want any data out there, they are perfectly entitled to this and there is no way to argue with them. They are NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA.

Furthermore, US NAVY can easily say that any/all knowledge of the Poly project is a matter of national defense, and since 1976, all information related to the national defense is specifically identified as an exemption to FOIA. That's the way life is. You may wish it were different, stamp your foot and complain, but that's just the way life is.

[93143]

Tell me what argument KitemanSA has made in the following?

• Aero, do you work in the technical field? Setup question - assume the answer is yes
  Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Setup question - assume the answer is yes
  Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Setup question - assume the answer is yes. This one carries the implication of the well-known fact that people who have high-level skills and knowledge charge money for them.
  Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Leading/rhetorical question, implying that you don't, and that this is perfectly fine.
  Are you "not nice". Leading/rhetorical question, implying analogy between EMC2 not giving away their data for free (which you described as "not nice") and you not giving away your skills/knowledge for free.
  I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them! Takes the abovementioned analogy as valid, and broadens the scope of the analogy to include "pretty much every engineer in the world" rather than just you. Explicitly endorses the described behaviour. Also covers the eventuality that you haven't answered yes to the first three questions, by supplying a set of examples of people who would.

Just so we're clear, I don't intend to take a position in the actual argument...

[Aero]

If everything new that they developed is claimed as proprietary then they owe a properly redacted response to the FOIA request, because the report cannot be completely proprietary.

I'm sorry to say but you do not have the foggiest notion of what you speak. First of all, EMC2 does not in any way "owe" anyone any information. FOIA ONLY applies to the executive branch of the government and does NOT apply to private corporations simply because they accept public funds. There are no conditions under which EMC2 could possibly "owe" anyone, any answers about anything.

You over state your case. While EMC2 is not subject to FOIA, the Navy, as you point out, is. It is the Navy that owes a meaningful response to the FOIA request but EMC2 has declined to provide the information necessary to make that possible.

The same is not true of the US Navy which is part of the executive branch. What data EMC2 tells the Navy is proprietary is exclusively up to EMC2, and you don't get a say in this. None of us do. if they say they don't want any data out there, they are perfectly entitled to this and there is no way to argue with them. They are NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA.

You are right, EMC2 is not obligated to respond to off contract requests from their sponsor. However, their sponsor is required to respond to the FOIA in the proper format. That is, the requested report with proprietary information treated IAW the EMC2 contract, probably but not necessarily redacted. EMC2's failure to provide meaningful data to their sponsor does not release the Navy from its obligation under law.

Furthermore, US NAVY can easily say that any/all knowledge of the Poly project is a matter of national defense, and since 1976, all information related to the national defense is specifically identified as an exemption to FOIA. That's the way life is. You may wish it were different, stamp your foot and complain, but that's just the way life is.

No, the Navy cannot easily classify existing unclassified data. Data discovered or compiled in the future can be classified (not easily as you presume) but existing data not protected by proper security cannot now be classified. The cat is already out of the bag, so to speak, calling it classified now serves no security purpose. There are checks and balances in place to prevent the abuse of classification. It is NOT to be used for the convenience of the contracting office. Further, I believe that fusion research is addressed by international treaty, it is to be shared, not classified. (Not saying shared with us or at our convenience under the treaty.)
The question of what is in this international treaty is pertinent. Does anyone know how proprietary data is affected by the treaty or is this treaty no more than a rumor?

[GIThruster]

I didn't say a word about classification. You're barking up the wrong tree. The Sunshine Act of 1976 makes provision for exception to FOIA, for anything declared in the "national defense." Classified subjects had already been exceptions well before the Sunshine Act. We're not talking about them.

On the treaty issue, again, you're not following the real situation. Even if such a treaty exists (and I'd be willing to grant this without asking you to check) it can in no way compel private industry to share private information! That would be a violation of the Constitution and our right to privacy!

Sorry but the entire argument that just because someone receives public funds, everything they do is subject to public scrutiny, just has no merit whatsoever. Life is full of thousands of examples how this notion is hopelessly flawed. It may be true that according to the law, an FOIA filed against the Navy requires the Navy to write back and say "sorry, can't tell you" but do we have any legal experts here trained in such law that we'd know the details? Fact is, no one has to tell anyone else about the work at EMC2, because EMC2 is a private company.

End of story.

[Betruger]

Aero IIRC that treaty, as it applies to the fusion research we're concerned with here, was discussed here. Incl. how it applied or not specifically. But I can't remember whether it does or doesn't.

[Aero]

I suspect that this is the treaty in question, but maybe their are others?
It does specifically treat proprietary data.

http://www.pi.energy.gov/documents/DOE_ ... fusion.pdf

[KitemanSA]

I suspect that this is the treaty in question, but maybe their are others?
It does specifically treat proprietary data.

http://www.pi.energy.gov/documents/DOE_ ... fusion.pdf

I skimmed thru it.

1. Dept of ENERGY
2. MAY apply
3. Agreed projects
4. dissemination of information they have the right to disclose
5. Recognizes private ownership of proprietary data.

Thanks for supporting our position.

[choff]

I found another website with info and photos related to the arching problem at Emc2 last year, don't know if its been reviewed here before or not.

http://www.nmsbaprogram.org/userfiles/N ... ives08.pdf

If nothing else, the New Mexico landscape looks like a nice place to visit sometime.