Mar 14 1963
From The Space Library
At hearings on NASA proposed patent policy before Senate Subcommittee on Monopoly, Committee on Small Business, Senator Wayne Morse (D.-Ore.) charged NASA Administrator James E. Webb with trying to give away "basic, substantive rights" of the public in Government financed research. Mr. Webb cited Section 305 of the Space Act of 1958 authorizing the NASA Administrator to waive Government patent rights, then outlined present NASA patent policy, and explained how proposed policy would extend patent waiver. "A careful comparison of the proposed revision with the terms of the present regulations . . . will show, I believe, that the public interest in inventions which come out of NASA's research and development contracts is more clearly stated and would, in practice, be fully protected . . . . "It is evident from NASA's present waiver regulations and the proposed revision that we are convinced that the public interest is often best served by permitting a contractor or subcontractor to retain commercial rights to inventions made in the course of doing research and development work funded by NASA-provided, of course, the Government acquires a royalty-free license for use of the invention for governmental purposes, and provided, also, that the invention is actually worked. NASA's policy is intended to encourage use of inventions in two ways: first, by bringing the stimuli of the patent system into play and, second, by withholding the full benefits of waiver until public realization of the fruits of the invention have been achieved. Such a policy offers many advantages over a restrictive policy which would permit contractors to retain patent rights only in the exceptional case. The economy should not be derived of the substantial benefits of the patent system. Incentives for contractors to conceal and protect new technological developments as trade secrets rather than to disclose them as patentable inventions are not desirable in government contracting for re search and development. Historically, patent protection has been one of the rewards for full disclosure and publication . . . ." (Testimony; Wash. Post, 3/15/63)
Preliminary results from OSO I solar-observatory satellite were presented at symposium by NASA In Washington, D.C. Dr. John Lindsay and William White, of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, reported that the satellite had found tentative evidence that solar flares may be preceded by series of microflares whose sequence and pattern may be predictable. OSO I recorded at least four of these series during a year in orbit. (AP Balt, Sun 3/15/63)
Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Scientific Advisory to the President, testified before Monopoly Subcommittee of Senate Small Business Committee on the need for flexibility in Government patent policy. "The Department of Defense feels strongly among other things that the performance of its mission requires the ability to assure the contractor at the time of contracting that he will retain commercial rights to his ideas, in order to assure the unrestrained participation by the most competent elements of American industry in the defense programs . . . . The central question . . . is whether the terms of the contract will encourage the contractor to apply his full technical background and experience to the Government. These considerations also apply to contracts of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The national interest requires greater uniformity between DOD and NASA patent practices since they are drawing on the services of the same sector of industrial research and development competence. ". . . I feel that a reasonable basis for framing a government-wide patent policy can be found. It seems important for the Government to move in the direction of a more consistent policy that will eliminate the unhealthy confusion and instabilities that attend the present situation. Such a policy should provide for the Government to retain title in the range of circumstances that I listed earlier; but it is necessary to recognize that, because of the problems of the type that concern the Department of Defense and NASA, any policy, to be realistic, should enable industry to retain exclusive rights in certain circumstances . The nature of the work involved, the commercial background of the contractor, and the extent to which the contractor would be expected to work the invention in the public interest would be significant factors in permitting contractors to retain exclusive commercial rights . . " (CR, 3/21/63, 4378)
Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara visited Boeing Co. in Seattle, Wash., and NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Tex., for briefings on X-20 (Dyna Soar) and Gemini projects. In Houston, McNamara said to press: "In the last six months the Department of Defense has completed with NASA an agreement on joint planning for the NASA Gemini program. We want to see how Gemini and the X-20 can be fitted together to make the best program for both military and civilian purposes. "The Gemini program provides for two men to be placed in orbit in 1964. The X-20 program proposes to place one man in orbit at a later date. While the X-20 would be in orbit less time than proposed in the Gemini program it would provide more recoverable payload because it would use a larger booster. The two programs are therefore not entirely comparable. "But because they do have similarities and are both very costly, I believe this trip to Seattle and to Houston, Texas, to visit the Manned Spacecraft Center where the Gemini program of NASA is underway is extremely important. "We will have spent about $350 million on the X-20 by the end of this fiscal year. We are requesting Congress to authorize an additional $125 million in the next fiscal year (1964) . . . " (DOD Release 334-63; MSC Space News Roundup, 3/20/63, 1, 7; AP, Balt. Sun, 3/15/63)
NASA and FAA announced they were completing plans for joint study of supersonic transport operation, the study providing data for both (1) design and operation of a supersonic transport compatible with an evolving air traffic control system; and (2) definition of requirements for air traffic control system to handle supersonic commercial air transports. Study would be based on four different SST concepts evolved by NASA Ames and Langley Research Centers and on simulation of air traffic environments of today and of the 1970's. The research would use flight simulation facilities of Langley Research Center and air traffic simulation facilities of FAA National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center; it was scheduled to run through 1964. (NASA Release 63-53: FAA Release #28)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
