FoI for WB7 peer review.

[KitemanSA]

You seem not to understand Navy R&D funding at all. This is not something that EMC2 dreamed up, perverse or otherwise. This is standard business practice for technically oriented business in the US.

That may or may not be the case, but does that make it right?

Well, now you ask an interesting moral question. Is it right for the g'mnt to take money from taxpayers to pay for researdch that the g'mnt wants done? There are a number of folks who would say no, it is not right. But they might say that releasing the data doe not make it any more right. So for this discussion, I think that point is moot.

It also sounds rather like state support for private business which was a no-no under various trade agreements?

Are you saying that it is a no-no for any government to buy anything from any business? And if not, what is government NOT allowed to buy because it constitutes "state support for private business"? I suspect engaging in contractual activities with private business for the government's purposes is NOT considered "State Support" under the meaning of the trade agreements. Just my suspicion.

[KitemanSA]

Hey folks,
Should I continue to try to educate Aero or do you think it is too much of a waste of time and effort? I mean his last screed was impressive. It was so full of the stuff which he felt was put upon him that it might take a long while to rebutt point by point.

Oh, and by the way Aero, please look at the passage by chrismb that I quoted in my first message on this topic. That was what I was responding to, not the lead in to the thread as a whole. But perhaps you can't distinguish that finely?

[chrismb]

Are you saying that it is a no-no for any government to buy anything from any business?

Not at all.

And if not, what is government NOT allowed to buy because it constitutes "state support for private business"?

Personally I think this is very and blantantly clear. I say: A Government is NOT allowed to enter into any contract on different commercial terms to that which any other commercial purchaser would expect or demand.

Such terms are likely to include rights of shareholders to access information to assess whether their company is doing the right thing and what shape the business is in. For the gov, the public are the shareholders.

If the work required is so secret, or is so important that it cannot be allowed to fail, then it should be clearly and distinctly owned by the Government.

To do anything else is 'un-captialistic', and we know where un-captialism takes us....

Now, it is true that commercial contracts can be set up such that, at some reduced rate, the contractors are permitted to keep IPR as their own. But I have never heard of a contract where the owners of the company issuing requests for quotes ALSO SAY that they will not allow their shareholders to know what the work results are. That would be an unfair contract term, in respect of the shareholders' rights, because there has been a long history of problems where companies keep their affairs secret from shareholders, with many criminal convictions resulting and new laws to create yet more criminal offences in that regard.

[GIThruster]

If the work required is so secret, or is so important that it cannot be allowed to fail, then it should be clearly and distinctly owned by the Government.

To do anything else is 'un-captialistic', and we know where un-captialism takes us....

Let me get this straight: you don't like that USG pays to support private research and then leaves it private. You think if USG supports research that by its nature, should be kept private, that then USG has a moral obligation to take over the research, and you think this is a more capitalistic solution than the one we have?

That's really what you're saying?

[chrismb]

Yes, because IF a government MUST have something for national security/interests [which may or may not be secret] then it MUST possess that thing.

Are you really saying that something that is essential to national interests should be controlled by private individuals [like - e.g. the Chinese? How about the case of the Koreans now owning almost all of the eastern seaboard ports ?

If a Government does not NEED a thing, then it shouldn't be buying it. Or are you saying the government should be allowed to fund a load of stuff that is not NEEDED by the country?

Governments possessing things that it absolutely needs for its national interests has got nothing to do with capitalism. That is just plain survival. And if a government doesn't need a thing, then it should NOT be poking its nose into the capitalistic market by playing the part of a 'false' consumer just to promote business or research activity.

[Aero]

Oh, and by the way Aero, please look at the passage by chrismb that I quoted in my first message on this topic. That was what I was responding to, not the lead in to the thread as a whole. But perhaps you can't distinguish that finely?

I have no problem distinguishing your objective here KitemanSA, which is to subvert this thread away from the root QUESTION, which is:

Let's make something quite plain - the peer review on the <=WB7 work that lead to funding for WB8 was an independent work of EMC2 and paid for by the Navy. The peer review is owned by the Navy. If it is not owned by the Navy, then it wasn't an independent peer review!

The answers which you so wish to avoid are:

• Yes, it is owned by the Navy, or
  No, it is owned by EMC2.

If it is owned by the navy, then the navy owes a validly redacted copy of the report in reply to the FOIA request. That is the law of the land.
If it is owned by EMC2, then we and the citizens of the USA have been swindled via the Navy and the WB-8 contract.
Why are you so afraid to address this question KitemanSA, one would think you are on a payroll somewhere. Do you work for big oil and are trying to keep the information of successes contained for your employer's nefarious purposes? Address the question KitemanSA, quit your efforts to redirect this thread. Just stop it. Try to behave like an adult and I will also. Now, Address The QUESTION.

[Helius]

For the gov, the public are the shareholders.

Not even close. Bizarre actually. Being a citizen isn't *anything* like being a shareholder in a company.

It's also a disturbing implication that if you purchase a share of common stock in a company, you then have the right to rifle their files for trade secrets.

There may be some laws regarding Financial information, but a company has a *lot* of leeway regarding the information release to even their shareholders.

One item shareholders and citizens *do* have in common is that for the most part both groups want to have their respective organizations control information to some degree to the benefit of the organization. One group of citizens or one group of shareholders can bring suit against the organization holding information whereby decisions will need to be made regarding what is proprietary and what is appropriate for release, if anything, either in court or by agreed arbitration, but that will take time.

FOIA in the EMC2-Navy case is a comical lost cause. .... and correctly so.

[GIThruster]

Yes, because IF a government MUST have something for national security/interests [which may or may not be secret] then it MUST possess that thing.

That's just plain silly. Off the top of my head I could name hundreds of things vital to national security that are owned by private citizens or companies, from patents on processes, to metalurgical mixes, to encoding algorythms. You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

Are you really saying that something that is essential to national interests should be controlled by private individuals

Ownership and control are two entirely separate issues. If you want to think clearly about them, you have to avoid conflating them. Otherwise, see my answer above.

If a Government does not NEED a thing, then it shouldn't be buying it. Or are you saying the government should be allowed to fund a load of stuff that is not NEEDED by the country?

I don't know where you're from Chris, but our government can buy whatever the people will allow. We pay for more pure research in this country than any other. We have the world's biggest and bestest advanced education system in the world and much of this is paid for by the federal government through the National Science Foundation, under the agis of pure science research. We pay for stuff we don't NEED all the time. One could make the argument that the only thing the federal government NEEDS to pay for is a defense sufficient to keep it in power and protect its people, and our current defense expenses are a small fraction of our federal budget.

Governments possessing things that it absolutely needs for its national interests has got nothing to do with capitalism. That is just plain survival. And if a government doesn't need a thing, then it should NOT be poking its nose into the capitalistic market by playing the part of a 'false' consumer just to promote business or research activity.

Red herring. Got nothing to do with the issue at hand and worse, not only is it a distraction, it's just an opinion with no merit supporting it. You might just as well say you think green Easter Bunnies are the best.

I've got an idea. . .how about Chris and i, and Aero and icarus and Kiteman and anyone else interested, all find something worthwhile to argue over? We're not gonna find much about the Poly to argue, but this country is going to have a new human spaceflight program in a few years and no one knows what it will look like. How about, if we're gonna burn the brain oil, we use it for something useful?

[icarus]

githruster:

if we're gonna burn the brain oil, we use it for something useful?

You haven't addressed the topic yet you want to close off the debate?

Answer this one clear question (if you dare):

Who owns the Navy peer review report of the EMC2 WB-7 contract?

a) the Navy
b) EMC2

are the two most likely answers, in fact, it is obviously the Navy but lets first find some common ground we can agree on and we can go from there.

[GIThruster]

The Navy owns the report. That doesn't mean they can do with it whatever they like. If they have an agreement like an NDA with EMC2, then they can't share anything without EMC2's permission, and it would be absurdly foolish to think the situation is otherwise.

[chrismb]

Yes, because IF a government MUST have something for national security/interests [which may or may not be secret] then it MUST possess that thing.

That's just plain silly. Off the top of my head I could name hundreds of things vital to national security that are owned by private citizens or companies, from patents on processes, to metalurgical mixes, to encoding algorythms. You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

Spoken like a true autocrat. "Hey, General Public, you've got no idea what you are talking about, so you're not allowed to have an opinion. Just make sure you keep giving us the taxes we demand, else we will put you in prison. No point arguing about it, if we decide prison is the best place for you then you've NO idea what you are talking about if you say that this is wrong."

...like I said, sounds like communism to me....

[icarus]

gitthruster:

The Navy owns the report.

Okay. So how can EMC2 claim that the report is, in its entirety, "proprietary"?

Surely that is being dishonest, at best disingenuous or deceitful?

How do you internally rationalise that?

[GIThruster]

Chris, you get a say. Are you a member of EMC2? A Navy Jag? Or are you someone who pays his taxes and complains every time they get used for something he doesn't like?

I've never met a single person who didn't or wouldn't complain about how some portion of his/her taxes were spent.

Your point, is no point at all.

[GIThruster]

gitthruster:

The Navy owns the report.

Okay. So how can EMC2 claim that the report is, in its entirety, "proprietary"?

Surely that is being dishonest, at best disingenuous or deceitful?

How do you internally rationalise that?

icarus, anyone familiar with what an NDA is, or how business gets done, knows that possession of information is not license to disseminate that information however one chooses.

[icarus]

icarus, anyone familiar with what an NDA is, or how business gets done, knows that possession of information is not license to disseminate that information however one chooses.

No-one has said anything like this, it would be released by the Navy under duress of FoI request, if you hadn't been following.

So Navy and EMC2 have a separate NDA, or some such set-up, is your rationalisation of why EMC2 can claim "proprietary" over the Navy's peer review report. In this case, I would scale my accusation back to merely deceptive from dishonest.

Is the existence of an NDA subject to FoI upon the Navy I wonder?