HOME  |  CONTENTS  |  DISCUSSIONS  |  BLOG  |  QUICK-KITs|  STATES

Google

       Search WWW Search wifcon.com

To Contents

Marking of Data - Part 1
By FARA FASAT on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 03:44 pm:

Can unlimited rights data be delivered with a "XYZ Company Proprietary" marking on it? That may seem inconsistent with unlimited rights, but here's my reasoning:

Unlimited rights means the government has the right to release the data to the world, but not the obligation. It could choose to hold the data and not release it, even for reprocurement. Or it could choose to release it for limited purposes. Either way, it is not a foregone conclusion that the data will become public. Therefore, if the contractor hopes to commercialize its use of the data, it needs to protect it.

With that the case, it seems that the contractor needs to mark the data it delivers to the government, or else it will lose its ability to claim it is a trade secret. Part of the definition of a trade secret is that the owner has taken steps to protect the data. If the contractor fails to mark the data, it cannot claim that it has tried to protect the data, and will lose trade secret protection.
In addition, "unlimited rights" is a license whereas "XYZ Proprietary" states the ownership of the data. These are different concepts, and I think they can coexist on a drawing.
So, can you mark unlimited rights data as proprietary?


By AnotherAnon on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 05:34 pm:

Fara,

You don't mention which Rights in Data clause is included in your contract (FAR 52.227-14 Rights in Data - General, 52.227-17 Rights in Data - Special Works, etc.). The text of whichever clause it is might be helpful in answering your question, especially the section entitled "Allocation of Rights."


By FARA FASAT on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 06:02 pm:

Given my question, I don't think the particular clause matters. Nevertheless, assume that DFARS 252.227-7013 is in the contract.

My question assumes that government funding pays for the development of the data and that the government gets unlimited rights. The contractor wants to protect its rights in the data in case the government does not fully exercise these rights and does not further release the data. Can it deliver the data to the government and mark it "XYZ Proprietary"?


By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 07:33 pm:

The answer is no, they cannot mark the data "XYZ Proprietary." That is because the clause states what markings are permitted, and "XYZ Proprietary" is not one of them.

Paragraph (f) of the clause says: "Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this clause, only the following legends are authorized under this contract: the government purpose rights legend at paragraph (f)(2) of this clause; the limited rights legend at paragraph (f)(3) of this clause; or the special license rights legend at paragraph (f)(4) of this clause; and/or a notice of copyright as prescribed under 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402."

Underlining added.

Paragraph (f)(5) of the clause says: "5) Pre-existing data markings. If the terms of a prior contract or license permitted the Contractor to restrict the Government's rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data deliverable under this contract, and those restrictions are still applicable, the Contractor may mark such data with the appropriate restrictive legend for which the data qualified under the prior contract or license. The marking procedures in paragraph (f)(1) of this clause shall be followed."

Underlining added.

Note that the word "proprietary" is not part of any of the authorized legends.


By FARA FASAT on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:10 pm:

Thanks for responding Vern. I actually knew of those sections but didn't want to bog down the original question with a discussion of them.

This may be a long shot, but here are my thoughts: those legends address the restrictions on the government's use of the data. In fact, the first sentence of (f) calls the markings "restrictions on the Government's rights to use, modify, [etc.]...." Marking something as "XYZ Proprietary" merely asserts that XYZ owns it; it says nothing at all about license rights or restrictions on use.

To go further, 7013(h) addresses the removal of unjustified and nonconforming markings. Nonconforming markings are those that are "not in the format authorized by [the] contract." "XYZ Proprietary" is not one of the rights legends, so it's not in the wrong format. For unjustified markings, the government has to follow 7037 - Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data. There, the contractor has to "justify the validity of its markings that impose restrictions on the Government...." Again, "XYZ Proprietary" does not impose restrictions. The rights legends or a separate license do that.

So here's my point: "XYZ Proprietary" announces to the world that the data is owned by XYZ, which is true. If it states no other legend or restriction, then the government has received it with unlimited rights. This is strengthened by the fact that the contractor does not list the data in the required attachment for data submitted with restrictions.

I admit that this may be a stretch, but I think an argument can be made that this is not a legend restricitng the government's use of the data, and therefore should be permitted.


By FARA FASAT on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:13 pm:

Forgot to add: it might help answer the question if anyone knows of an instance where the government challenged a "Proprietary" marking under 7037 when there was no other legend or resttriction.


By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:58 pm:

FARA FASAT:

I disagree with you entirely. The clause says: "A nonconforming marking is a marking placed on technical data delivered or otherwise furnished to the Government under this contract that is not in the format authorized by this contract."

The clause explains how to mark data delivered to the government. It says to mark the data "only" in the way authorized by the clause. The clause prescribes a legend containing the contract number, the contractor's name and address, the expiration date, and the appropriate restriction on government rights. That's it.

"XYZ Proprietary" is a marking. It is not in any format authorized by the clause. It is, therefore, a nonconforming marking.

Aside from the plain language of the clause, another reason to object to "XYZ Proprietary" is that it is vague. What does it mean? What conclusion is one to draw from it? What is it, if not an assertion of exclusive rights of some unspecified kind?

By the way, it doesn't matter what kind of rights the government gets -- unlimited, government-purpose, limited, or negotiated license rights -- the rules for marking data delivered to the government are the same, and "XYZ Proprietary" is a nonconforming marking.

If I was the contracting officer and you delivered data bearing that marking I'd reject it and tell you to take it off.


By Anon on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 08:39 am:

Since the government paid for the development of the data in a contractual context (as opposed to an assistance context) I would say the government owns the data, not XYZ. As a general rule, I was taught that if the government p[ays for the development of the data/software then the government owns it, if the data was developed at private expense then limits on the data/restrictions on the software can come into play.


By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 09:35 am:

Anon:

The government does not "own" the data; the government has certain rights "to use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose" the data. The kinds of rights that it has depends on who paid to develop the data, not on who "owns" it.

Read the clause. The first sentence of paragraph (b) says that it is the contractor who is granting rights to the government (or obtaining rights for the government). The clause does not say that anybody "owns" any data; it does not specify ownership, only government rights.

In any event, the issue in FARA FASAT's case is not ownership, but the kinds of markings that a contractor can put on the data that it delivers to the government under a contract. No matter what rights the government gets under the contract, the clause says what kinds of markings a contractor is authorized to put on deliverable data. The word proprietary is not part of any authorized marking. In fact, the word proprietary does not appear anywhere in the clause.


By FARA FASAT on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:18 pm:

Anon, the contractor owns it whether paid for by the government or not. The government just gets certain license rights to it depending on who paid. (I know, the laws pertaining to NASA give the government initial ownership of inventions, but that's an exception to the general rule).

That is the source of my question. As the owner, the contractor has to demonstrate that it takes steps to protect it, otherwise it loses its right to claim it as a trade secret. Given the nature of unlimited rights, it is probably pretty rare that there is anything left to protect, but it still is just a license to one customer.
I'll have to agree that the wording of the clause doesn't leave much room, but it never hurts to check out the possibilities.


By Anonymous on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 01:43 pm:

Fara -

You've crafted an ingenious argument, but I agree with Vern, and here's another reason why. You say that "Marking something as "XYZ Proprietary" merely asserts that XYZ owns it; it says nothing at all about license rights or restrictions on use." I disagree. If the Govt has unlimited rights in the data, this license right is in fact a property right -- the right to use, copy, disclose to others, etc. The term "XYZ Proprietary" incorrectly implies that the Govt has no proprietary (property) rights to the data.


By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:21 pm:

Anonymous:

Thanks, but I disagree with you that FARA's argument is ingenious.

The clause expressly prohibits any markings on data delivered to the government except those authorized by the clause. "XYZ Proprietary" is not an authorized marking.


By FARA FASAT on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 07:31 pm:

Hey, if I can't get "ingenious" can I at least get an "innovative"?

However, While I agree that a license is a property right, I disagree on the implications of an "XYZ Proprietary" marking. Excluding government work, companies mark data as proprietary all the time, and it says nothing, impliedly or expressly, about anyone else's rights in the data. It's a warning that it belongs to XYZ, and you better have some authority to use it or disclose it.
All PIAs that I have seen require data to be marked as proprietary before the obligations of the PIA kick in. The obligations themselves do not need to be on the data. The "proprietary" marking is the trigger or notice; the obligations or rights appear in something else, like a license or PIA.

In the government case, I would argue (creatively?) that the marking would put the world on notice that unless they got it properly from the government, they have no right to use it. After all, only the government is the license holder. However, I will agree with Vern that there seems to be no way around the restrictions in the DFARS prohibiting such marking.


By Anonymous on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:29 am:

Attention to the government's rights are particularly critical for software after Congress abolished special government licenses for commercial software. It would be absolutely unacceptable to have some commercial terms applied to critical software in certain military or civil applications.

As just one example, consider the limitations on portability and mission critical applications. We simply could not allow a situation to develop where we had to seek permission to move a copy to operational hardware in the event of one platform's failure, yet license terms sometimes contain such restrictions. Software that contained internal enforcement code was totally out of the question. The drive to save by using commercial software in critical systems ran directly into the more restrictive and variable commercial license terms. Those were issues for setting conditions in the acquisition that would force selection of licenses not adverse to mission requirements. We expected, prepared for and provided means to resolve legitimate questions and issues.

We were not prepared for inability in some industry segments to come to grips with clearly explained rationale and comply with explicit requirements. We saw a number of circumvention attempts, such as FARA FASAT is describing, during selections. Those offers went down the tube quickly. On occasion even a contractor didn't get the message. One of the worst cases involved some of our own data (the government did own that) returned "packaged" with a restrictive license. It took a little unpleasant non negotiation to make the contractor see the light and not try that again!

One contractor really had problems understanding that those "yes, but" circumvention attempts would not be tolerated. We got software explicitly required to be delivered with unlimited rights containing hedges. The company finally got the message (deliverable rejected as non compliant resulting in contractor's failure to meet schedule and award fee slashed in multiple areas, among other signs of displeasure). We discovered that we'd run into a situation in which the technical leads understood clearly. The problem was a corporate entity outside our team imposing "policy" with complete disregard, indeed determined ignorance, of the requirement. The company PM had not escalated the issue to a corporate level that could control that group. We had to take it to that level. The new PM clearly understood any such internal problem must not become our problem.

My attitude on the issue was that we'd done a careful evaluation of what we could and could not accept in licenses, what the market tended to contain, explained our rationale, carefully phrased the technical requirement and then selected appropriate contract clauses. Our position to circumvention attempts under those conditions would be zero tolerance. FARA FASAT, if following such a plan, would have had an interesting time with our program. I also must emphasize that we did our homework and had a reasoned approach with adequate provision for issue work-off before we reached such unpleasantness.

I recommend government people take that approach combined with a policy of swift and strong adverse reaction for project being played with this game. For starters, reject the deliverable as non compliant -- with all the consequences that implies -- until the contractor complies with all your terms. Delivery of non compliant license and marking terms is as unacceptable as delivery of a quart when a gallon is required and should be treated accordingly.


By Vern Edwards on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:54 am:

Anonymous of Dec 19 at 11:29 a.m. is right on.

In 1984, in response to the DOD spare parts pricing scandal, DepSecDef Frank Carlucci established a data rights study panel to look at how data rights affected the government's ability to get competition for spares. I was appointed to that panel, which was headed by the Air Force's Darleen Druyun, and I was one of the contributors to the panel's final report.

I had the opportunity to look at many data deliverables and examine contractor markings. We found that contractors regularly marked data as "proprietary," even when the data were developed at government expense. Moreover, faulty markings led agencies to think that they couldn't use data to solicit competiton, even when they could.

It has taken a long time to develop existing data rights policies, and while they are imperfect, industry fully participated in their development, including the rules about the marking of data. It is critically important that contracting officers comply with existing policies to the letter and without unauthorized exception. They must not fall for contractor groaning and wailing and facile reasoning. Read the data rights clauses, know what they say and what they mean, and insist that contractors comply.


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:20 pm:

Vern, based on that study you probably have a rough feel for the hidden costs of responsible government people allowing this issue to slide. The iceberg analogy hardly does justice. I hate to think of how much is wasted by such inattention.

I knew of one case in which government provided code was repackaged, as required, as part of a new system. Cooperating agencies were about to spend millions to purchase government intellectual property simply packaged as "subroutines" and "utilities" due to "proprietary" and some other non compliant markings! A naive government office had accepted contractor "groaning and wailing and facile reasoning" and not challenged the logic. This was not code paid for in contract development; it was code developed in government labs by government people, provided to the contractor that had simply been integrated into a new system! The "groaning and wailing and facile reasoning" apparently included "value added" arguments.

Fortunately, in this case, this came to our attention and the associated program's less experienced technical and contract people got some help. The contractor got some adult supervision. The government had paid for the integration. Paying for the "value" of the code, in my view, would have been acceptance of an attempted fraud.

On a somewhat different topic, increased use of consumer software in government systems requires great attention. I hope we still have very special requirements for military and safety-of-life systems, but just because it is not involved in such operations does not mean software is not critical. As just one example, I wonder how many purchasers are aware of the level of "spyware" and such that comes with almost any commercial product today. I understand a few licenses actually state that disabling the spyware voids the license. Government requirements should probably make such software ineligible for procurement directly or indirectly.


By Vern Edwards on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:28 pm:

Anonymous:

You are making some great points.

The whole field of data acquisition under government contracts, especially computer software, is one about which government contracting and technical personnel need a lot more information and training. What's especially needed is some books written in plain English for practitioners.


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 02:59 pm:

Straightforward written guidance would be helpful. I just posted a message under "Rights to Source Code Data" that includes what I see as a more fundamental problem.

In pre-reform days we had costly, mandated acquisition guidance written by people who had studied the issues. Those were safety nets for the inexperienced, lazy or somewhat foolish acquisitions. They were more like straight jackets for really savvy specialists. They were "reformed" out; a move I supported. The problem is that we threw out the overbearing rules for the "adult" acquisitions while forgetting we had a lot of "teens" who really were not capable of making the judgments. I'm speaking here as much of agencies as individuals.

Duplicating my comments from the other topic: Costly as it was, the highly structured world of acquisition twenty years ago provided some cover for the inexperienced or lazy. In a world where an acquisition may be able to tailor out blocks of boiler plate vital data deliverables may be tailored out. They will be more expensive as add-ons than would have been the cost driven by those old hard wired specs. Reform that allowed flexibility was predicated on smart acquisition staff. I'm not sure the attention on staff qualifications and improvement was adequate to meet the new freedom.

Even if such a book were written I expect a large percentage actually engaged in such acquisition "would not have time to read a book" -- we've seen that here on Wifcon quite often in the past. Meanwhile the waste and abuse continues.


By FARA FASAT on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 04:58 pm:

Darn, now this discussion is getting dreary. It started out with a question and now it's turning into "bash the bad contractors."
Anonymous, here are a few things to consider:

1. What "circumvention" was there in my question? Was there any suggestion that the data would not be delivered with unlimited rights? The question was an attempt to establish trade secret protection against others who are not the licensee. The requirement to protect data by marking it is rock-solid trade secret law. The question was directed at putting others on notice that the data belongs to XYZ, and that they better find out if they have rights to use it.

2. Why is it groaning and wailing to want to protect your data? It is the contractor's data. I challenge anyone to deny that the contractor owns it and the government has a license, even if it is developed with 100% government funds. Picture this scenario: XYZ delivers unlimited rights data; ABC sees it and because there are no markings on it, uses it. This is unlicensed use if the government did not give it out. Why can't the contractor protect against this?

3. In the commercial world, you would slap a "proprietary" mark on every piece of IP, but the rights or restrictions on use would be in a separate license or contract. Check with your IP lawyers. The government is the only one that requires the restrictions or license terms to be on every page. For everyone else, the proprietary marking puts you on notice, but the terms are usually somewhere else. Read your PIAs. That's why my argument that the legend is the restriction on use and the proprietary marking is the notice.

4. If you can't live with the restrictions that come in a standard license agreement, then don't buy commercial software. Be prepared to pay for the development from scratch.

5. Fraud is fraud. It is wrong and should be punished. Marking the government's data as your own is fraud. But does that really answer why you can't mark your own data?

6. "Inability to come to grips"; "circumvention"; "zero tolerance"; "adult supervison." So, what do you really think of contractors?

7. These are genuine IP issues and I resent the assertion that it is a facile attempt to circumvent the regs or commit fraud. The regs appear to leave no room for any other markings, whether there is a legal basis for them or not. So be it.


By Vern Edwards on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 11:00 am:

FARA FASAT:

My comments about facile arguments were not directed at you, but referred to the kinds of arguments contractors often make in an attempt to persuade contracting officers to let them do something that they should not be allowed to do. I'm sorry if anything I said offended you. Please let me tell you why the reasoning you have used is unsound.

Although you acknowledge that the data rights clause prohibits the contractor from marking data delivered to the government with "XYZ Proprietary," you argue that the contractor must mark the data "XYZ Proprietary" in order to protect its trade secret(s). In your first post you said: "[I]t seems that the contractor needs to mark the data it delivers to the government, or else it will lose its ability to claim it is a trade secret." In a later post you said: "As the owner, the contractor has to demonstrate that it takes steps to protect it, otherwise it loses its right to claim it as a trade secret." Yesterday, you said: "The requirement to protect data by marking it is rock-solid trade secret law."

First, by using the markings prescribed by the clause, the contractor has marked the data. Second, the key to protecting trade secrets lies not just in marking it as such, but in taking reasonable measures to keep it secret. Marking data will not help if the owner has not taken steps to keep it secret. In a recent article, an intellecual property law professor outlined the following eight "tests" a court will consider when determining whether or not the owner of a trade secret has taken reasonable steps to protect it:

1. Did the owner have an adequate protection program to insure secrecy?

2. Did the owner comply with standard industry practice?

3. Did the owner invest adequate resources to insure secrecy?

4. Did the owner advise employees and others that a trade secret existed?

5. Did the owner limit knowledge of the trade secret on a need-to-know basis?

6. Did the owner limit access to any facility where the trade secret is used?

7. Did the owner use confidential legends or other labels on documents and other materials wich contain information about a trade secret?

8. Did the owner require employees and third parties to sign non-disclosure agreements prior to disclosing the trade secret to them?

See: Beckerman-Rodau, A., "Trade Secrets: The New Risks to Trade Secrets Posed by Computerization," Rutgers Computer and Technological Law Journal, 28 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L. J. 227, 240 (2002).

In your case, the contractor has marked the data with the restrictive markings authorized by the clause. The restrictive markings authorized by the clause limit use and disclosure by government employees and contractors who have obtained the data legally. Those markings are much more specifically restrictive than "XYZ Proprietary."

The notion that the contractor is going to lose trade secret protection because it didn't mark the data "XYZ Proprietary," even though the data bore the restrictive markings specified by the data rights clause, is, forgive me, ridiculous. "Proprietary" does not say, "Do not use or disclose to others," and it does not necessarily indicate that the information to which it is attached is a "trade secret." Patented and copyrighted data are proprietary, yet they are disclosed.

Persons who obtained the data through unauthorized and illegal means won't be able to defend themselves against a charge of theft or misappropriation of a trade secret by saying: "Hey, the data doesn't say 'XYZ Proprietary'." Moreover, they are going to be in a lot of trouble for the way they obtained the data.

So, there is no merit to the argument that, in addition to the markings prescribed by the clause, the contractor must mark the data "XYZ Proprietary" in order to protect its trade secret. Such a marking does not establish the existence of a trade secret and it is not as specifically restrictive as the markings prescribed by the clause.

FARA, Government and industry intellectual property lawyers worked long and hard to develop the language in the data rights clauses, and individual contracting officers, who often don't understand patent law, copyright law, or trade secret law, or the differences among them, should make no exceptions.

For those who would like to read more about intellectual property law, here are some recent articles:

"Promoting Innovation in the Software Industry: A First Principles Approach to Intellectual Property Law," by Bruce Abramson, in Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 8 B.U.J. Sci. & Tech. L. 75 (Winter 2002).

"Intellectual Property," by Laurence P. Colton and Nigam J. Acharya, in Mercer Law Review, 53 Mercer L. Rev. 1473 (Summer 2002).

"'Other Transactions' with Uncle Sam: A Solution to the High-Tech Government Contracting Crisis," by David S. Bloch and James G. McEwen, in Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 10 Tex. Intell. Prop. L. J. 195 (Winter 2002).

"Legal Protection for Software: Still A Work in Progress," by Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, in Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 8 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 445 (Symposium 2002).


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:45 pm:

Vern's post today pretty much takes care of most and you've answered number seven yourself. I'll take on the personal question first, as I think it introduces a related subject that I'll deal with at the end. I had considerable respect for many contractors. Some of the best, most conscientious people I ever worked with were contractors. Three of the top five organizations I've ever worked for or with are contractors. When I retired I quickly rejected the idea of working as or for a contractor. I was reasonably certain my patience with government would evaporate. I knew I had much more freedom to speak frankly about government faults from within than I ever would as a contractor. Circumventing, dunderhead contractors needing adult supervision caused far less ulceration than having to deal with some of the government organizations I knew. Life is too short to sit on the other side of the table without the ability to do much.

Your one and two I think Vern has covered. I will add comment on three (I believe it also covers five). I have as little patience with contractors that cannot or refuse to understand the rules of the game they are playing as I do with government people who cannot understand that, in contracting, they are dealing with a different model. When you contract with the government you are playing that game. Not the other. Deal with it.

Four deserves an extended response. It is limited to one aspect of the much wider data issue.

Congress destroyed the comfortable world of the special government license wording for commercial software. At the same time Congress helped drive a sensible move toward leveraging the commercial developments. While it might appear this was an idiotic application of counterproductive directions it is really not so grim. Commercial world licenses vary. The problem for the government is finding the mix of functionality and license terms that can fit.

Some of my examples originated in programs where such a problem was put to the integration community: Design a system maximizing commercial products that would work well together and not present us with unacceptable license issues. Some offerors got it. They presented elegant designs and solutions with plans to work off issues that might arise. Others were so dense as to be almost amusing. One was the equivalent of proposing an open candle in response to a solicitation for a lamp to use in explosive atmospheres! "What were they thinking?" was our most benign off record comment.

What I've described above can work. Present the industrial world with a set of problems bounded by your acceptance problems. Let the smart specialists who do this for a living work the issue. I've seen them come up with surprising and near wonderful solutions. Pigheaded government people are more often the cause of problems here. Too often they cannot let go of requirements that really aren't requirements. They are prejudices, opinions, "the way we like its" -- on and on.

Too often they will not take the time or expend the effort to examine their instructions, the requirements documents, for these killers. They are then unwilling to sit down with the experts and rationally examine issues exposed for solution. I've seen near amazing stunts pulled by factions within agencies to maintain certain requirements of vague origin and justification that essentially preclude a sensible solution. Sometimes it involves the proverbial "rice bowl." I think it is more often a sort of arrogance. In any case I pity the contractor having to attempt a solution under these circumstances. Knowledge of its frequent certainty is a major reason I found new lines of interest.

On the other hand, once those requirements are scrubbed, the situation more than adequately explained and then course corrections made for unclear areas exposed by questions, zero tolerance is just fine with me.

If a contractor I was dealing with had asked your question we'd have discussed this, preferably in a relaxed, friendly way exploring concerns. You would have been told why your variance was not acceptable and why your concerns were probably well covered. If you'd tried it anyway? Your delivery would have been non compliant with requirements and not accepted; setting off whatever consequences that drove. You would also have found some sort of clear notice that such defiance was not going to be tolerated again. Under an award fee type you would have seen a hit that would make corporate sit up.

You might ask how I'd like to handle government problems of the same sort. I personally think agencies and acquisition people who cannot get their act together need to have their acquisition authority removed. Despite Vern's mention of the need for a book the guidance, experience, thoughtful discussion is out there. There are years and years of experience documented on these topics. They have to be sought out and studied. And that brings up my final comment on the subject.

We see these problems less in the large organizations who do this sort of contracting on a day to day basis. I see a large part of the problem as being a drive to allow complex, truly specialized contracting, to be done by every agency on the street. You cannot really expect a group of people, often GS-12 and below, doing this once in a while to really have much awareness about requirements issues, commercial license issues, intellectual property issues and the like. I don't have a solution, but I know I'd put that sort of contracting outside the hands of novices. That appears to be an unacceptable solution so it is not one. I expect we will muddle along - expensively.


By John Ford on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 02:11 pm:

While I do not believe it is intended as a circumvention, I question the efficacy of FARA's intended marking. A developer of intellectual property is given the right to protect its possible commercial interests in that property. In other words, the developer is generally given an exclusive right to control the commercial use that is made of its intellectual property. However, when IP is provided to the Government with unlimited rights, the developer loses the ability to control the commercial use of the property. The Government now has the ability to control its commercial use. When the Government obtains unlimited rights to property, there are no restrictions on the Government providing that property to a third party or parties for commercial exploitation. Doing so can provide the Government with multiple sources with which to contract. Also, if there is commercial exploitation of the property, it can bring down the cost to the Government. Thus, a lage portion of the protections FARA wishes to preserve can be obviated when the Government receives unlimited rights.


By Vern Edwards- on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 02:34 pm:

A good source of information about intellectual property in the world of government contracting is "Government Rights in Data and Software/Edition II," by D. Burgett, D.C. Sweeney, and S.G. Kunzi, Briefing Paper 95-11 (October, 1995), Federal Publications, Inc.


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 03:51 pm:

John, we've gotten off into a more general discussion of allowed markings and contractor compliance with requirements. Then I got into the issue of muddled government requirements.

Your point is valid in my opinion. One thing that had occurred to me earlier was this: What is it a company doesn't understand about unlimited rights data? Any restrictive marking on this particular category is logically meaningless. For simplicity I'll personalize "I" as government and the contractor as "you" in the following:
 

I have required and you have accepted that you will deliver unlimited rights data under this contract. You comply with the requirement, then tack on a reservation that these are really "proprietary" or "trade secret" data.

That makes no sense whatsoever. What is it you don't understand about "unlimited"? I decide what limits to place on distribution -- not you. I can post it on a public web site for everyone in the world to see and use. I can choose to give it to cooperating agencies and their contractors for use. I can decide to mail it to every taxpaying citizen and corporation. I have unlimitied rights. I could even determine that I really want to hold this tightly and decide that you cannot obtain or hold these data (As foolish as that sounds something like this does occur occasionally.). Simply by challenging any such action I choose to take you admit to non compliance with the contract. Greetings! We are going to have some fun on that subject such as default or breach.

The data rights clauses have protections for those categories where the government obtains less than unlimited rights. When the requirement is for unlimited rights that is exactly what the requirement means and any attempt to do less with action or markings is attempted circumvention. You should either not have offered at all or negotiated a more limited scheme before accepting responsibility to deliver unlimited data rights.

For FARA, I've been in that last situation too. A very good contractor pointed out some issues with our unlimited rights requirement and how it could have unintended consequences of either added costs or lack of access to certain expertise within the company that might make the deliverable less effective than it could be. We parsed the expected deliverable data and found we could quite easily live with the sensitive portions as less than "unlimited" -- a typical win-win with this contractor. What a difference from some who pigheadedly dug their heels into soft mud and had to be shown the error of their ways!


By Vern Edwards on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 09:55 am:

John has made a good point. Can intellectual property be a trade secret if the owner has given somebody else the unlimited right to disclose it and to authorize others to disclose it?


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 12:07 pm:

Vern,

Based simply on your earlier post I'd say no, once a company or individual has complied with a government contract to deliver data with unlimited rights it fails the tests you mentioned earlier. Those criteria seem consistent with my reading on the issue. My view then was that once an owner relinquished any control over the information to a another party by granting unlimited rights any effort to assert property rights elsewhere would be compromised. Access control has been effectively transferred to the recipient of the unlimited rights. More on that later. To refresh:

Marking data will not help if the owner has not taken steps to keep it secret. In a recent article, an intellecual property law professor outlined the following eight "tests" a court will consider when determining whether or not the owner of a trade secret has taken reasonable steps to protect it:

1. Did the owner have an adequate protection program to insure secrecy?

2. Did the owner comply with standard industry practice?

3. Did the owner invest adequate resources to insure secrecy?

4. Did the owner advise employees and others that a trade secret existed?

5. Did the owner limit knowledge of the trade secret on a need-to-know basis?

6. Did the owner limit access to any facility where the trade secret is used?

7. Did the owner use confidential legends or other labels on documents and other materials wich contain information about a trade secret?

8. Did the owner require employees and third parties to sign non-disclosure agreements prior to disclosing the trade secret to them?

If an "owner" had done any combination of these they would be in trouble with or in breach of their government contract. Numbers five, six, and eight are simply no longer within the owner's control for the data as the recipient determines need-to-know, controls the facilities, and determines who signs what type of disclosure agreements.

The deliverer of these unlimited rights data has, under contractual requirements, relinquished any further control of the content. Any restrictions on access is the government's decision. Most interestingly the decision might be to limit the (shall we say) former owner's own access!

A passing acquaintance related his case where he had once done a project under conditions where he would normally retain "ownership" of his efforts, but the sponsor got unlimited rights. The sponsor "classified" the result and then notified him he had to deliver all copies and notes. He apparently was quite amused when they then wanted some revisions!

I've given that story passing thought in light of some of the legitimate post 9/11 concerns about infrastructure and other information. What might be the position of a completely private firm--never under government contract--long involved with security, physics, chemical, biological or other newly sensitive topics delivering a significant core of its intellectual property under a new venture into government contracting? If the essence of their commercial existence were so delivered might it actually then be placed off limits for further commercial exploitation? Could they become essentially unable to work except under government contract?

Another interesting question, beyond the strictly "classified" question, arises from the government's control on the particular data set. If the government has explicitly decided not to grant access to a particular group, due to general concerns below "classified," is the "owner" still free to then sell the data set to that group? If not, does data ownership still have any meaning?


By FARA FASAT on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 01:02 pm:

Before I answer Vern's last question, let me start by correcting some errors that led this thread off track.
First, Vern, you could have saved yourself a lot of effort on 12/20. My original question concerned unlimited rights data. There are no other markings on unlimited rights data. Therefore the only mark would be a "proprietary" mark if it is allowed. Your whole 12/20 response addressed data with limited and restricted rights legends. Not my question. To the extent your discussion addressed conflicts between these legends and a proprietary marking, it's simply not relevant. Therefore, what you labeled as "ridiculous" is an argument I never made. Talk about a strawman!

Second, of those eight factors and the reasonable steps an owner must take, many of those involve marking data in some way and giving notice to the world that it belongs to you. Since unlimited rights data has no other markings, how should a contractor do this?

Third, many commenters are confusing a proprietary marking with the restrictions on use. True, the restrictions can be on the data itself (like a limited rights legend), but in many cases it is not. The restrictions are often in a license or a PIA. All the data has is a descriptive mark that tells everyone who it belongs to. Read the first paragraph of almost every PIA. It says that for the obligations of the PIA to kick in, the data must be marked as "proprietary", "confidential" or some similar marking. That notice tells the world that there may be restrictions on using the data.

Fourth, to Anonymous, I would answer some of your assertions, but your attitude stops me. "What don't you understand about ____ " is not a dialog-opener. And where in any of my posts did I suggest that I was challenging the government's exercise of its unlimited rights?

Fifth, Unlimited Rights are a license, not ownership!!! It also is not a license to anyone else! I as the contractor have given the government, and only the government, that license. Sure, the government could post the data on the internet, but that's not my scenario. Of course if the government releases it to the world, there's not much you can do. I'm trying to figure out how to protect your data when the government has chosen not to release it.

Finally, I will close with this example which perfectly demonstrates why a marking is important. (I raised this issue with a former government lawyer and now corporate lawyer. He stated that a contractor can add the proprietary marking, and gave me this example). XYZ developed a part for the AF, and delivered drawings with unlimited rights and an XYZ proprietary marking. The AF did not want the drawings released. ABC company was found making the parts. XYZ was able to stop ABC because XYZ had clearly marked them, and the AF confirmed that it did not release or sublicense the drawings. Therefore, ABC's use was unauthorized and a violation of XYZ's proprietary rights.

Without the marking, XYZ could not have stopped ABC, and that is exactly my whole point.


By Vern Edwards on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 02:34 pm:

FARA:

You are right, I missed the fact that you were talking about data delivered with unlimited rights. However, I still think that "XYZ Proprietary" is an unauthorized marking, especially since the government has unlimited rights.

There are four ways to protect intellectual property: trade secret, copyright, trademark, and patent. On what basis is the contractor seeking to protect the data from others? Trade secret, copyright, or patent? Trademark doesn't seem appropriate in this case. Trade secret protection seems problematic once the government has unlimited rights "to use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose technical data in whole or in part, in any manner, and for any purpose whatsoever, and to have or authorize others to do so." What kind of secret can it be if somebody else can disclose it to anybody for any reason whatsoever, and give anybody else the right to do so as well?

So perhaps copyright or patent is the appropriate protection, in which case marking is not the issue, since copyright protection exists whether the data is marked or not and patent protection requires government approval.

Any thoughts?


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 03:50 pm:

FARA,

You don't like my "attitude"? That attitude is absolutely proper from the perspective of government in a discussion with a contractor required to deliver unlimited rights who then wants to quibble and wiggle out of a contractual obligation.

As I said earlier, bring up any reservations before acceptance of the unlimited requirement. If you come to me wanting to challenge a government decision to release data to anyone, even your fiercest competitor, after you have accepted the obligation to deliver unlimited rights I would say "Just what is it you do not understand in the word 'unlimited'?" The clause's wording makes it clear I have contractual rights to decide its distribution and even grant that decision to others you may not even know about. You are compliant with that contract or you are not.

In any case, your XYZ/ABC scenario appears flawed and illogical. If "ABC company was found making the parts" that is, or should be, a patent violation. You need to use the full suite of intellectual property protections, not base your case on a single pillar and then contract that away. I can only say you are absolutely mad to rely on a "secret" sold under that clause's wording!

That said, I do understand your need. I suspect you have failed to recognize why your proposal should, and I hope would, be met by a flat "No!" from any agency. Government people do have an obligation to protect proprietary information. There are penalties for disclosure. Contracting people are especially sensitive to the word. Its use, as mentioned earlier, sends a confused message. Government officials may treat data to which they have "unlimited" rights as actually restricted. There are direct, sometimes large, costs to the taxpayer as a result of such confusion. The government is protecting itself from such confusion by restricting the markings to an unambiguous wording.

Vern, you pose an interesting question in one specific respect that comes immediately to mind. I'd have to come up to speed on something you seem to have at hand. I'm not sure the data could not be marked "Copyright XYZ" with the unlimited clause wording in the copyright notice. For example, many organizations post information on the web (look at genealogy data as an example) marked copyright with an unlimited non commercial use grant. In fact, I believe quite a lot of "freeware" does so and the concept has been upheld in courts.

Could a company be in compliance with the marking requirements while using a copyright notice incorporating the government clause? That would clarify things mightily with respect to another company getting the information in accord with government policy who tries to sell someone else's data.


By Vern Edwards on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 04:53 pm:

Here is what the clause at DFARS § 252.227-7013 says, in part, about "markings":

"(f) Marking Requirements. The Contractor, and its subcontractors or suppliers, may only assert restrictions on the Government's rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data to be delivered under this contract by marking the deliverable data subject to restriction. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this clause, only the following legends are authorized under this contract: the government purpose rights legend at paragraph (f)(2) of this clause; the limited rights legend at paragraph (f)(3) of this clause; or the special license rights legend at paragraph (f)(4) of this clause; and/or a notice of copyright as prescribed under 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402.

* * *

"(h)... (2) Nonconforming technical data markings. A nonconforming marking is a marking placed on technical data delivered or otherwise furnished to the Government under this contract that is not in the format authorized by this contract. Correction of nonconforming markings is not subject to the Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data clause of this contract. If the Contracting Officer notifies the Contractor of a nonconforming marking and the Contractor fails to remove or correct such marking within sixty (60) days, the Government may ignore or, at the Contractor's expense, remove or correct any nonconforming marking."

Neither the clause nor the relevant passages in DFARS Part 227 explain the term "marking" in any further detail, and I have been unable to find any case law that defines "marking" more specifically.

It seems to me that the only reason for placing "XYZ Proprietary" or "Copyright XYZ" on data delivered to the government would be to assert some unspecified restriction on the use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of data. I therefore believe that "XYZ Proprietary" and "Copyright XYZ" are "nonconforming markings," as that term is used in the clause.

Keep in mind that the limitations on markings apply only to the copies of the data delivered to the government. The contractor can mark other copies of the data in any way that it sees fit. The reason for the limitation on the markings that can be placed on the copies delivered to the government is to prevent confusion about the government's rights. Also keep in mind that copyright protection is not conditioned on the marking or registration of the copyrighted material. See Patent, Copyright & Trademark, 4th ed., by Stephen Elias and Richard Stim (2001), p. 74.

FARA wants to let the contractor place "XYZ Proprietary" on unlimited rights data in order to protect what he considers to be the contractor's trade secret interest in those data. It seems to me that such data cannot be a trade secret, whether the government actually discloses the data or not, and I would like to know about any professional commentary or case law to the contrary.


By FARA FASAT on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 06:34 pm:

Vern, glad to see we have narrowed the issue a bit. Now, you've asked and I'll try to deliver.
In Pacific Sky Supply Inc. v. Dep't of the Air Force, 1987 WL 18214 (D.D.C. 1987), a FOIA case, the party trying to obtain some drawings argued that the drawings were submitted with unlimited and could not be trade secrets. The court rejected this argument because the owner continued to profit from the drawings on a commercial basis. Although it was unsaid, we can assume that the Air Force had not released the drawings to others.

As you can see, and as the court above seems to agree, I see nothing contradictory in an unlimited rights license and a trade secret, as long as the government has not further disclosed the information.

Anonymous, you've missed the point in so many ways it is hard to respond. First, as I have asked before, where in any of my posts have I suggested that XYZ would not deliver the data with unlimited rights? Second, where have I ever said I was challenging a government decision to release data? Quit wasting ink on these. I understand perfectly what the word "unlimited" means; what don't you understand about the question? Third, the XYZ/ABC scenario is not flawed or illogical just because the information is not patented. There wouldn't be a body of trade secret law if it was that easy. Finally, to the extent that government employees would be confused by a "proprietary" marking, too bad. The rest of the world deals with it all the time. Recall a PIA and how you mark your data.

Vern is on the right track by asking whether information can still be a trade secret when delivered with unlimited rights. The case I cited above is some authority that it can be. The XYX/ABC example I mentionned above is further reason why a marking is necessary and in fact helped a contractor protect its drawings that the government had decided not to release. Further discussions along these lines would be very useful.


By Vern Edwards on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 11:03 pm:

FARA:

I read Pacific Sky (34 Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) ¶ 75,371). Do me a favor and read it again. I believe that you have misstated that case. The decision does not say what you said it says. The plaintiff in that case did not argue that the drawings were not trade secrets because the government had unlimited rights and the court made no decision in that regard. Furthermore, the court held that the drawings were not trade secrets.

The district court's decision was a denial of cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff had argued that the drawings were not protected by the trade secret exemption of FOIA because the Air Force did not prove that they were the end product of innovation or substantial effort. The district court agreed with the plaintiff in that regard and held that the drawings were not trade secrets for that reason.

In reaching that holding, the court posed four tests for establishing whether the drawings were trade secrets:

(1) that they were secret;

(2) that they were commercially valuable;

(3) that they were used to make, prepare, compound, or process trade commodities; and

(4) that they were the end product of either innovation or substantial effort.

The court did not reach any holding about the secrecy of drawings delivered with unlimited rights. The plaintiff apparently did not make any argument about that and the court was silent on that matter. The court did hold that the drawings were commercially valuable and that they were used to make or prepare trade commodities. But it also held that the Air Force did not prove that they were the product of either innovation or substantial effort and said: "Therefore, the drawings are not exempt from disclosure on the basis that they constitute trade secrets."

In the end, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. As far as I can tell, there was never a decision on the merits. The case cannot be cited as authority for the proposition that information delivered with unlimited rights can be a trade secret.

Do you have another case?

Vern


By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 08:15 am:

FARA:

When you get a chance, read Conax Florida Corporation v. U.S., 824 F.2d 1124, 34 Cont.Cas.FEd. (CCH) ¶ 75,337 (D.C. Circuit, 1987).

In that case, Conax sought to stop the Navy from disclosing drawings marked with a limited rights legend. The Navy claimed that it had unlimited rights to the drawings. Conax argued in a district court that the drawings were trade secrets and that the Navy's action would violate the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905. The district court held for the government. Conax then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The circuit court affirmed the decision of the district court, holding that the Navy did, indeed, have unlimited rights and that the drawings were not trade secrets for that reason.

In writing its decision, the circuit court's focus was on whether or not the Navy was properly entitled to unlimited rights. But it begins its discussion of the issues with the following explanation:

"Conax gained jurisdiction in the district court by alleging that the Navy's disclosure of the data Conax submitted would violate the Trade Secrets Act. Thus, the agency action that we are called upon to review is the Navy's decision to disclose drawings of SEAWARS. See Megaplus, 672 F.2d at 966. Such a decision would be unlawful under the Trade Secrets Act, and therefore remediable under the APA [Administrative Procedures Act], only if the limited rights provision applies to the drawings in question; if the drawings belong to the government without limitation, Conax has no trade secrets to be protected. Following the dispute resolution mechanism provided in their contract, the parties litigated this threshold question before the Navy's contracting officer, who determined that the government had unlimited rights in the data because Conax had failed to produce clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Unless we have cause to reverse that finding, Conax's Trade Secrets Act claim must fail."

Italics added.

The circuit court did not reverse that finding and found instead for the government.

Now, I do not want to place too much reliance on this decision. Most trade secrets law is state law, rather than federal law, and I can't say how any given state court would rule if a contractor accused a private firm of misappropriation of a trade secret concerning data to which the federal government had unlimited rights, but which the government had not released to the private firm. Also, this case, like the one you cited yesterday, is based on the data rights clauses of the mid-1980s, which were different than the ones of today (in ways that I do not recall). I'm not sure what bearing, if any, those differences might have on the trade secrets-unlimited rights issue.

All the same, I think you will have to admit that the D.C. Circuit's decision is interesting in this regard, and more to the point than the case you cited.

Vern


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 12:20 pm:

Vern, the paragraph you quoted appears to allow a reasonable alternative:

"(f) Marking Requirements. The Contractor, and its subcontractors or suppliers, may only assert restrictions on the Government's rights . . . or the special license rights legend at paragraph (f)(4) of this clause; and/or a notice of copyright as prescribed under 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402.

[emphasis added]

Personally, I'd be supportive of a company marking unlimited rights deliverables with something along the lines of:

Copyright © 2002 by XYZ Corporation

Unlimited rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose this information in whole or in part, in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever, and to have or authorize others to do so are vested in the U.S. Government under Contract #.

This is purely an example and, in absence of approved boilerplate, would require more thought and review. Such use avoids the potential confusion with the otherwise loaded "proprietary" while making clear that XYZ holds the copyright and clearly stating the scope of the government's unlimited discretion in distribution. It appears to be within the bounds of the quoted paragraph.

I tend to agree it is unlikely anything could retain "trade secret" status after the government has obtained unlimited rights of the degree noted in these clauses. That appears to be a logical impossibility and legal improbability.

A smart company will first carefully consider what it needs to protect and which of the available protection methods apply to each. It will then work data rights issues before accepting a particular release obligation. I suspect part of the problem is a tendency not to parse the problem and apply the correct protection scheme. One example would be applying trade secret (usually the process and not the item itself) concepts to what should more properly be patented. I've known few technical or contracting people who would not consider reasoned arguments and work with the company to protect intellectual property.

In my opinion FARA's comment "to the extent that government employees would be confused by a 'proprietary' marking, too bad" expresses an attitude that would tell any sensible agency they should not do repeat business with a company having such disregard for costly customer impacts. The behavior should be prominently noted in past performance evaluations.

Agencies generally have adequate defenses against such attitudes, this one in particular. Remember, "If the Contracting Officer notifies the Contractor of a nonconforming marking and the Contractor fails to remove or correct such marking within sixty (60) days, the Government may ignore or, at the Contractor's expense, remove or correct any nonconforming marking" is the proper action. Whatever FARA thinks, I believe government contracting people have a duty to take a hard line here. There should be no uncertainty that if these markings appear and are not promptly removed this policy will be enforced with consequences for noncooperation. I will not argue that issue further.


By Vern Edwards on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 01:26 pm:

Anonymous:

You are quite right--the clause authorizes the use of a copyright mark. I read that differently at first, because of something I saw in DFARS Part 227, but now I agree with you. And, in fact, I have seen copyright marks which have said that the government has a "fully paid up license" (or something like that) to copy certain materials.

Vern


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 05:53 pm:

Then the correct application of copyright, trademark, and patent seem adequate to cover the strictly commercial rights issue. I think FARA's problem is minimized by the sensible allocation of the right protection to the right data.

In general "trade secret" seems most often to deal with a process or advantage in the making of something that can be copyrighted or patented. Of course corporate financials, structural advantages and such may also be trade secrets. "How do they do that!" with respect to producing a widget faster, better and cheaper than competitors gets at the nature of a trade secret advantage. There are exceptions, such as an as yet undisclosed invention. With a few, usually negotiable, exceptions I don't see a big problem with government wanting unlimited rights to that sort of information.


By Vern Edwards on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 06:44 pm:

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act defines "trade secret" as follows:

"'Trade secret' means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not be readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and

(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

This is similar to the definition in the U.S. Code.

Many trade secrets have copyright protection, or are patentable, but not all. Although there is some overlap among trade secret, patent and copyright laws, the protections afforded by the different laws are somewhat different. It is up to the contractor to get legal advice about its intellectual property and what it must do to protect it.

If the government is entitled to unlimited rights in a contractor's intellectual property, then the contractor does not have much control over that property, since not only can the government use and disclose it as it sees fit, but it can authorize others to do so as well, even if the information is copyrighted. I think that since the government gets unlimited rights when it pays for the development of the intellectual property, the contractor doesn't have too much to cry about if the government chooses to disclose it, although I can understand why the contractor would prefer to keep the info from others.

If a contractor has valuable ideas that it doesn't want to share with others, then the best way for it to protect those ideas is to develop them at private expense, i.e., just say no to the government's money.


By FARA FASAT on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 07:16 pm:

Vern, I'm at a slight disadvantage right now because I am working from home, my copy of Pacific Sky is at work, and I don't plan to drive 26 miles just to look at it. However, I don't recall it saying what you say it did. I specifically recall the argument being made that the data could not be a trade secet because it was delivered with unlimited rights, and the court rejecting that argument. Nevertheless, this will have to wait until I get back to work.

From your excerpts from Conax, the language does not sound encouraging, but it was under the old clauses, and the context was a FOIA case. It would be interesting to see if there is a case out there similar to my XYZ/ABC example.

To Anonymous, maybe saying "too bad" was too harsh, so in the spirit of the Christmas season I will retract it. Nevertheless the point remains the same. When a company receives information under a PIA or some other nondisclosure agreement, all it has is the proprietary legend to warn it that the information has restrictions on it. The viewer needs to find out what those restrictions are. I see no reason why government employees aren't capable of playing by those same rules.

Some have also claimed that if the information is so darned valuable, why not patent it. Rather than go into the factors why a company may not choose patent protection, let me just say: Coke formula.

Final thought: why not take Anonymous' suggestion of "Copyright © 2002 by XYZ Corporation", but change it to "Proprietary, XYZ Corporation", and leave in the "Unlimited rights to use, modify,...." This still tells government employees that the government has unlimited rights, but tells the rest of the world that 1) XYZ owns it, and 2) only the government has the license.

And please don't forget that we are only talking about a case where the government does not release the data. The game is over if the government releases it, and we don't even have an issue. But when the government does not release it, then we have my XYZ/ABC example, which was a real case.


By Vern Edwards on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 01:04 am:

FARA:

I think that you are thinking about the sentences in section III of Pacific Sky in which the court says:

"Pacific Sky contends that Exemption 4 cannot apply to these drawings if the Air Force has obtained unlimited rightsd in them... . Even if the Air Force obtained unlimited rights in these drawings, Pesco, and then Sunstrand, were not divested of their rights in the drawings. The undisputed facts show that Sunstrand continues to profit from these drawings on a commercial basis."

Those sentences are not holdings in that case; they are dicta. The district court in Pacific Sky cites no precedent for its statement about the contractor's rights and does not say what kind of rights it is talking about. Commercial profitability alone is not sufficient to make intellectual property a trade secret, as the court itself explains in section IV. In section IV the court expressly rejects the argument that the drawings in question were trade secrets.

In any event, two months before Pacific Sky, in Conax, a circuit court of appeals, a higher court in the same jurisdiction (District of Columbia) as the Pacific Sky district court, said: "[I]f the drawings belong to the government without limitation, [the contractor] has no trade secrets to be protected."

Both cases were under the old clauses, but only Pacific Sky was a FOIA case. Conax was an Administrative Procedures Act case alleging an impending violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1905, the Trade Secrets Act, which makes it more to the point.

Anyway, read them when you get a chance. I don't claim to know for certain what the rule is regarding trade secrets and unlimited rights. For all I know the two concepts are not legally incompatible.

As for "Proprietary XYZ Corporation" versus "Copyright 2002 XYZ Corporation," only the latter is authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 401, and thus by the clause at DFARS § 252.227-7013. Moreover, the "copyright" is very specific in terms of the kind of rights involved, whereas "proprietary" is vague. Copyright would prohibit only copying of data; it would not prohibit the use of a process or design described in the data. It is not clear what "proprietary" means.

Your contractor needs legal advice about the kind of intellectual property it has and the best way to protect it. Trade secret protection only works for secrets. Copyright prohibits copying, but not the use of ideas. Patent and trade secret protection are incompatible.

It seems to me that once the government (the government, not just the original contracting agency) has unlimited rights in data a contractor would be foolish to rely on trade secret protection, since the government has the right to disclose the secret and to authorize others to disclose it, and doesn't need the contractor's permission before it discloses or authorizes others to disclose.

Surely, you can see the sense in what I'm saying.

Let's review:

At one time you agreed with me that "XYZ Proprietary" was an unauthorized marking. I still think that it is and, as a contracting officer, would order its removal from any data delivered to the government. I'm not sure whether you still agree or not.

You have argued that allowing the contractor to mark the data "XYZ Proprietary" would protect the contractor's trade secret interest in the data. I doubt that it would, for the following reasons: (a) such a marking, in and of itself, is not sufficient to establish the existence of a trade secret, and (b) the government's possession of unlimited rights may effectively void trade secret protection.

I don't know where to go from here. Maybe we've exhausted the discussion, or at least our resources.

Vern


By Vern Edwards on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 12:36 pm:

FARA and Anonymous:

The interesting thing about the Pacific Sky case is this: Why did the Air Force try to prevent disclosure of the drawings? The government had unlimited rights in the drawings, which means that the things depicted in the drawings (aircraft engine pumps) were developed at government expense, not at private expense. Right? Yet the Air Force claimed that the drawings were trade secrets, an argument rejected by the court.

If the nobody else had the information in the drawings, then the contractor was a sole source for certain spare parts. If the government had the drawings with unlimited rights, isn't it possible that disclosure would have produced competition?

I don't get it.


By Anonymous of Dec 19 on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 08:59 pm:

FARA, you ask why government employees can't read "proprietary" just like your corporate colleagues can. I'll try to give an idea.

First, the reaction "proprietary" triggers in a corporation simply does not apply to this category within government. In fact, the government person should not have the protective reaction when it is in the government's interest to distribute the information. Unlike the corporate person, the government person acting in their official capacity has authority to pass the information to anyone else. That extends even to authorizing those to further distribute the information. The only corresponding situation I can think of in the corporate world is one corporation handing another the data over without markings or conditions. (That is why I once asked what is you don't understand about "unlimited" in this context. Now I suspect you actually did not fully understand this peculiar government position.)

Second, there may be a "false positive" in government. The government employees who will deal with this issue will most probably be in contracting. They are required to attend "ethics" and legal briefings on their responsibilities to protect Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. Unlike contractor provided data to which the government has obtained unlimited rights, release of these data results in severe penalties. Many dire warnings are given in training.

Simply put, the word really has two different meanings in this specific context. To apply the corporate person's definition in this case would be false and possibly directly against the government's interest. That is another reason your substitution of "proprietary" for "copyright" with the rights clause does not fit. It would perhaps trigger false reactions in corporate recipients upon government distribution to them.

Vern, I have one suspicion as to why AF would pull that defense of trade secret in such a case. The AF couldn't or hadn't classified the drawings, they wished they could or had, they did not want their competitors (other air forces) to see them and one defense against FOIA is a trade secret designation. They grabbed a straw and it failed. The other possibility is just fuzzy reasoning or a blunder.


By Vern Edwards on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 11:31 am:

Anonymous:

You might be right about the USAF's reasons, but data need not be classified in order to be withheld from public release. See DOD Directive 5230.25, Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data from Public Disclosure.

Depending on the nature of the data involved in the Pacific Sky case, the USAF might have been able to cite 10 U.S.C. § 140c and FOIA exemption 3 [5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)] as the bases for nondisclosure.


By Anonymous - I suppose the only one here on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 01:05 pm:

Vern,

I've seen too many of these things develop. Sometimes I've watched it develop like an avalanche with a sense of despair and mild horror. The worst cases were those in which some charismatic amateur (technology expertise from "today's news" or last week's technology fair) rode over those dull, Cassandra like experts droning on with facts; boring everyone and being negative. There went a few more millions!

From those experiences I'd guess a combination of grasping at an obvious straw and blundering in this case. Then, there may be some entirely different background to the AF action.

We all may apply casual thinking to problems. We do it more frequently in a casual forum such as this. We tend to grab a solution we know and ignore those solutions more suited to the problem. We blunder if we carry that casualness into an issue for which we are paid to form a real solution with real consequences if we fail.

I tried not to do that and sometimes still found myself trapped by an assumption. More often I'd review the outcome of some meeting to find someone offered a poor pet solution that was accepted without any research and study to find one that would actually work.

I can almost see the bright idea of supporting trade secret claims taking hold in an AF meeting without consideration of what regulations might apply and actually work in avoiding that release. I can see it advancing with banners and trumpets until it met reality in the court. It is a costly blunder companies might make in dealing with FARA's issue.


By Vern Edwards on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 01:20 pm:

FARA and Anonymous:

With regard to the question of whether data submitted to the government with unlimited rights can be considered trade secret information, take a look at DOD 5400.7-R (September 1998), DOD Freedom of Information Act Program. Chapter 3 of that regulation provides guidance about the application of the FOIA exemptions. Paragraph C3.2.1, FOIA Exemptions, provides as follows:

"The following types of records may be withheld in whole or in part from public disclosure under the FOIA, unless otherwise prescribed by law...

"C3.2.1.4. Number 4. (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) (reference (a)). Those containing trade secrets or commercial or financial information that a DoD Component receives from a person or organization outside the Government with the understanding that the information or record will be retained on a privileged or confidential basis in accordance with customary handling of such records...

"C3.2.1.4.6. Technical or scientific data developed by a contractor or subcontractor exclusively at private expense, and technical or scientific data developed in part with Federal funds and in part at private expense, where the contractor or subcontractor has retained legitimate proprietary interests in such data in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2320-2321 (reference (r)) and DoD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Chapter 2 of 48 C.F.R., Subpart 227.71 - 227.72 (reference (s)). Technical data developed exclusively with Federal funds may be withheld under Exemption Number 3 if it meets the criteria of 10 U.S.C. 130 (reference (k)) and DoD Directive 5230.25 (reference (l)) (see subsection C3.2.1., Number 3 C3.2.1.3.5., above)."

Italics added for emphasis.

Thus, DoD policy is that FOIA exemption 4 -- the trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information exemption -- is to be used only when (1) DoD agrees to keep data confidential and (2) when the data were not developed exclusively at government expense. Those conditions ordinarily do not apply to data obtained with unlimited rights. See DFARS § 227.7103-5(a). Thus, it appears that DoD does not consider data delivered with unlimited rights to be trade secrets.

I do not consider DoD policy to be necessarily determinative of the issue, but it does seem to lend weight to the argument that data delivered with unlimited rights are not trade secrets.

What do you think?

Vern


By Anon19 on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 04:27 pm:

Here is a quick and interesting ruling from outside contracting. It is a tax ruling, Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, No. 96-161T, 1998 WL808042 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 18, 1998),
that strongly supports the incompatibility of government unlimited rights and trade secrets.

The right to control use or disclosure is not the only substantial right in connection with intellectual property. Other substantial rights include the discretion to terminate the transfer of the property, see Bell Intercontinental, 381 F.2d at 1020-22, and the right to use or disclose a trade secret or know-how, see Ofria v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 524 (1981). The Tax Court in Ofria concluded that the transfer to the government of unlimited rights to use and disclose the data constituted a transfer of all substantial rights to the data (and therefore a sale) when the contractor did not retain the right to use or disclose the data, and its ability to use the data depended on the government's public disclosure of such data. Id. at 545 n.9.

Among other interesting comments in leading up to a ruling are these:

In this case, the government's unlimited right to use and disclose plaintiff's technical data considerably diminished, if not destroyed, the commercial value of plaintiff's right to use the results of its research, a right derived from the competitive advantage to the researcher over others. . . . The potential destruction of plaintiff's competitive advantage caused by the government's exercise of its unlimited rights to technical data is demonstrated by the government's disclosure of technical data to second sources, which enabled plaintiff's competitors to compete successfully under at least two programs: the Patriot Canister and the VLS programs. . . . The undisputed facts contradict plaintiff's claim that it retained an unlimited right to use the results of its research. Rather, the parties' contracts and applicable regulations placed considerable restrictions on plaintiff's ability to use the research results, in the form of security classifications and export restrictions. Plaintiff's own representative, Mr. Van Akin, described the Department of State's approval power pursuant to ITAR regulations as "a choke hold on what technology could be exported." Jt. App. 123 (Akin Dep. at 105-06). Plaintiff's actual use of its research results is immaterial, since the parties' contracts and applicable regulations gave the government the power to completely prevent any use of such research.

For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that plaintiff retained no substantial rights in the research for which it here claims a research tax credit, that this research therefore was fully funded for purposes of I.R.C. ß 41(d)(4)(H), and thus that none of plaintiff's research expenses qualify for the credit.

I'm seeing nothing that changes my view that anyone contending something released to the government with unlimited rights is a trade secret walks on quicksand.

I'll just use Anon19 for short since I'm apparently the only remaining Anonymous.


By Vern Edwards on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 10:00 am:

Anon19:

That's an interesting case. It seems to be based on a rather common sense question: How can a company claim that information is secret when someone else has the right to tell it to anyone for any reason and without permission?

I know someone who is a bona fide expert in this field, and I'm going to ask him about this if I get a chance.


By Anon19 on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 12:07 pm:

I thought it was interesting because it viewed the issue from a different angle than those we usually find. It isn't explicitly stated, but it seems to me that the ruling pretty much says that a company does not really own the research or results from a government contract where the government funded the research and has unlimited rights to results. The company cannot claim the research as theirs and thus cannot obtain a research tax credit. The company cannot claim ownership because it has met the definition of selling any "substantial" rights it might have. Its retained rights are therefore insubstantial.

I found the discussion of "These cases, involving determinations of which rights retained by the transferor will be deemed 'substantial' so as to prevent the transfer from constituting a sale or exchange entitled to capital gains treatment, are instructive." as being quite instructive myself in clarifying thought on this topic. I also thought footnote 7 clarified the issue as to Congressional input.

ShawPittman's ALERT of April 2001 contains an article titled "DOD Guide on Intellectual Property Practices" (.pdf document). It is worth a look. It deals directly with the need to craft a contract to deal with intellectual property issues. One comment inversely supports our contention that government unlimited rights are incompatible with the concept of a trade secret:

The parties should further ensure that, to the extent that any trade secrets must be delivered, they are identified as such during the negotiation process and contain the appropriate FAR and DFARS legends to limit their disclosure. [emphasis added]

I read this to mean make sure your trade secrets do not become wrapped up in unlimited rights thus nullifying their status.

A much more general coverage is given at Due Diligence in Intellectual Property Transactions: 10 Questions where the questions and points themselves give a clue to both the complexity of the issue and hints at ways what a company might think is theirs may not be actually theirs. Those questions are a good starting point for thinking through issues before entering into a contract involving intellectual property. Number five refers to a situation somewhat applicable to this discussion.

In copyright we know the "work-for-hire" situation (I'm sure you are well aware of that!) where a company that does not explicitly cover the ownership issue with a non-employee creator. To some extent this issue has echoes of that situation. Where the government explicitly requires delivery of unlimited rights it has essentially executed a "work-for-hire or assignment agreement" with the contractor that removes the contractor's claim to intellectual property ownership. It may not be an exact duplicate, but it is certainly a parallel.

A Google search on the terms "trade secret" and "unlimited rights" turned up a number of interesting legal sites with advice. It also turned up some briefing slides that indicate industry is campaigning to weaken the taxpayer's interest in taxpayer funded work. Some points dealing with the fact that government is funding less research and intellectual property combinations are more frequent has merit. Some seems to be a campaign for "you pay, I'll profit" schemes.

In my opinion the public's representatives, whether elected, appointed or employed, are obligated to defend the public's rights here. I've always been willing to explore reasonable allocations and solutions, but always from the standpoint of what is paid for by the public purse is public property. That applies even when the public cannot have access due to security restrictions.

ABOUT  l CONTACT