Defense Contractors Versus Hobbyists

One great perk of bothering to show up at The Atlantic's offices is that there's all this free food and soda available on the third floor. Another great perk is that there are lots of copies of National Journal's insiderish publications lying around and there's always some nugget of genius in them. Today's CongressDaily AM, for example, has a story by Megan Scully dealing with the rare intersection of defense policy and intellectual property policy.

It seems that over the past decade, defense contractors have started making the companies that make models of military equipment pay royalty fees to the contractors. Now, Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) is trying to get them some relief and has "convinced House Armed Services Chairman Skelton to insert a provision in the FY08 defense authorization bill that would require the Defense Department -- not the defense industry -- to issue trademark licenses for a 'nominal' fee." The defense contractors, naturally, are fighting back, both because of the money directly involved and also because they want to fight the broader issue of principle over who owns these designs -- the US military, or the defense contractors. I don't see any good policy reason to think the contractors should own the trademarks (innovation in military hardware design is obviously going to be driven by the Pentagon, not by derivative licensing income) but defense contractors rarely lose a battle, so I wouldn't be optimistic.

Comments

That _will_ be interesting. But note that the Union Pacific Railroad, which has a very tough "image management" program, backed down when a model train manufacturer filed a lawsuit after receiving one of UP's demands for excessive licensing fees. Suddenly the UP was "working with the industry" to develop a "reasonable" program, and shortly thereafter implemented a trademark licensing program with nominal fees for model makers, etc.

If JP Harriman's Union Pacific, which realistically does have a legitimate interest in protecting its trademarks and image, backed down I suspect even the mighty defense contractors (who have vastly less ground as Matt notes) will probably have to do the same.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 8, 2007 10:14 AM

“defense contractors rarely lose a battle…”

If only their record of, say, winning the actual wars they’re being paid to help win was as successful.

Posted by the blackbird is involved | June 8, 2007 10:17 AM

"...I suspect even the mighty defense contractors (who have vastly less ground as Matt notes) will probably have to do the same."

This seems like about the most open-and-shut case imaginable. The hardware was bought and paid for by the US taxpayer, and charging subsidiary licensing fees is just bullsh*t. Except in cases where national security might be compromised, the designs of those tanks and planes should be in the public domain.

This reminds me of that creepy attempt a few years back to privatize the data collected by the National Weather Service. I mean, really, WTF?

Posted by James Gary | June 8, 2007 10:22 AM

Related to the issue of privately-held copyrights/trademarks vs. public property, there are cases in which private industry organizations are tasked with developing codes for construction. When this happens, that private group retains the copyright and charges people for a copy and then serves cease & desist notices against anyone who publishes them without authorization.

(see Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.)

Posted by Constantine | June 8, 2007 11:05 AM

> hen this happens, that private group retains
> the copyright and charges people for a copy and
> then serves cease & desist notices against anyone
> who publishes them without authorization.

Except Veeck (son of Bill Veeck) won that case.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 8, 2007 11:17 AM

Matt, you actually have to produce this blog from inside the Atlantic building? Like in a cubicle? My god. The glamor rating for this blog just took a hit.

Posted by roger | June 8, 2007 11:51 AM

Oddly enough, Matt drives to the Atlantic office, heads to the third floor, grabs cheetos and coke, heads to his basement cubicle where he jacks into 2nd Life visits the secret big media blogger island hideaway where he relaxes on the beach and types in his blog post on a steam powered computer while sipping Mai Tais. Also on the beach are Kevin Drum's avatar downing Coronas (with lime), and the gang from Swampland. Sadly Joe Klein is there too in Second Life and wearing a Speedo.

Posted by jerry | June 8, 2007 12:01 PM

(innovation in military hardware design is obviously going to be driven by the Pentagon, not by derivative licensing income)

Ain't necessarily so (Disclaimer: my employer is a defense contractor). Defense contractors do a significant amount of "blue sky" research, hoping to come up with developments that they can sell to the government. Some of this stuff is also dual use, so they hope to sell outside the government as well. Licensing income (well, probably not for models) could be part of the revenue they're expecting.

That being said, I agree with the underlying point - most of this stuff ought to be considered "works made for hire" and the rights ought to go the gov't. This is another example of so-called "intellectual property rights" run amok.

Posted by Sean Peters | June 8, 2007 12:19 PM

If only their record of, say, winning the actual wars they’re being paid to help win was as successful.

Who says it isn't?

Your record can look awfully good when you're selling weapons to all sides, whether directly or through proxies.

That said, the defense contractors can eat it. I've already paid for the design work put into these weapons with my tax money. I shouldn't have to pay them again when I want a mini for a wargame.

Posted by NonyNony | June 8, 2007 12:19 PM

Interesting.

We also build models of old Soviet tanks and helicopters for testing radar backscatter and such. Will we have to pay them royalties as well?

Posted by Njorl | June 8, 2007 2:13 PM

Matt,

I assume that the brouhaha is not over a trademark but rather over the copyright to the design of the man-toys. Legally speaking, a 'trademark' is a name or symbol that is used to identify a commercial product. Copyright is the claim of rights to an artistic or literary work.

Like this brilliant post.

Copyright 2007 by Rod Hoffman, all rights reserved.

Posted by Rod Hoffman | June 8, 2007 2:42 PM