Slashdot Mirror
Australian Defense Scientists Plagiarizing Trade Secrets
An anonymous reader writes "At least five businesses have alleged senior officers in the Defence Science and Technology Organization have plagiarized intellectual property for their own research [free reg. required] and then passed it on to government business partners to develop a rival product. There are fears that IP plagiarizing could increase with the new Defence Trade Controls Act passed last year despite warnings from the universities it would drive research offshore. Once the trial period ends Australian high-tech researchers will face up to 10 years jail for sending an e-mail or making an overseas phone call without a government permit."
Yep, that's how it starts... a couple of bad eggs wind up compromising everyone's freedom to plagiarize.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Patents and other "Intellectual Property" is bad, right? Unless it's the gub'ment stealing it, in which case it's good?
Not everyone can be from the U S of A !!
Merry X-Menas !!
...that industrial espionage, not "terrorism", is the real purpose for storage capacity of the magnitude of the NSA's Utah facility.
Not that any other government that can, won't. Eventually business will be sorted into those who have "government connections", and those who don't--the former collecting the latter's innovations and work product en masse (thus, essentially, their lives), and putting them out of business.
Corporatism (alternately, fascism), with turbo boost.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Governments place themselves ABOVE IP laws when it comes to so called 'national defence'. You don't think, for instance, the Americans told the Russians to stop work on nuclear weapons, because the yanks had patented all the technology provided by the international scientists that America had accumulated from the period of WW2 and after?
Patents are civilian mechanisms- always have been and always will be. No nation will allow issues of 'defence' to be hamstrung by issues of who invented what. So why are the owners of Slashdot pushing this NON-STORY? There is always an agenda here. Let me guess, Slashdot is about to start pushing the line that Iran are 'bad guys' cos all their civilian nuclear technology was invented by Israelis, or some other such zionist garbage. Are we about to see another attempt to get the sheeple behind anti-Iranian propaganda, using this new tactic.
And yes, before the usual vile shills dribble about how THIS story is about a nation in the West, I should point out this is simply the tactic of LEGITIMISATION- first of all establish a false principle, and then use that false principle to attack your real 'enemy'.
And let me make another thing clear. IF the excuse of ignoring IP laws for defence work leads to patent abuse using to give commercial advantage in NON-defence industries, the patent holders can take action in civil courts. The route by which the infringement happened is NOT a defence against prosecution.
So, again ALL nations steal each others secrets when making war weapons, or systems that serve the same, and this is TOTALLY legal. There are, and never will be any UN conventions or treaties prohibiting such behaviour (see if you can figure out why). But, this fact does NOT protect ordinary non-defence companies in the same nations if they infringe IP laws, even if they were given the information to do so by people working in the defence fields. This is not a difficult thing to understand.
It sounds like they learned this stupidity from the USA. Remember the encryption control back in the 90s? There used to be a little web form you filled out for 128-bit encryption downloads. Silliest thing ever. All they needed was ONE guy from a bad country with an AOL account, and then they ALL had a browser with 128-bit encryption because that's the very nature of software. I used to fill out my name in the form as "Hafez the Enforcer" from "Baghdad, AL". I had to pick Alabama because there was no selection for Iraq.
A law with vague descriptions of actions that will be illegal. Perfect for use against those non-conformists when used capriciously.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
So rather than just give us a link to a site we need to register for, how about giving us more about what the article actually says than just an into paragraph that just talks about allegations?
Only it now manifests as a lack of ethics in legislation.
seems to be misplaced here. This seems a case of stolen intellectual property (OK, the zealots would say "infringed", lah de dah), trafficking in work that was supposed to be kept confidential.
"Plagiarism" means the perpetrators are publishing someone else's work under their own name, without attribution.
hahahahahahaahahahhaahahhahaahahahahaahahaha
As someone who has had close relations with parent company, I'm not in the least bit surprised.
The defence industry attracts a certain(problematic) personality, and without the psychological profiling(on the government side) that weeds out these individuals, well let’s just say that they'll eventually cause problems, and become a liability.
When groups of these people coalesce, the behaviours become the norm...
This example is just the tip of the iceberg(and is relatively benign)...
Is that it is created and published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 Australia licence. Perhaps the answer is to open source everything and just give up on trying to patent anything anymore, at least in Australia.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
At least five businesses have alleged senior officers in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation have plagiarised their intellectual property for their own research and then passed it on to business partners to develop a rival product. They also allege there is a âoerogue element within the agencyâ and a âoeculture of circling the wagons when confronted with allegations against themâ.
And there are fears that IP plagiarising could increase with the Labor government last year implementing the Defence Trade Controls Act, which seeks to limit Australian businesses or individuals supplying technology to someone outside of Australia without first revealing their IP to the Australian government.
Brendan Jones, a Brisbane-based small businessman, spent 12 years of his life developing his revolutionary Kestrel Tactical Simulator, a PC-based professional military platform that simulates air, sea, land and space operations anywhere on the planet. The program simulated various transport modes, weaponry, radars and other sensors.
âoeIt realistically simulated injuries,â Jones explained to Crikey. âoeA shot soldier would start bleeding at a rate appropriate for the wound, and would have to get medical attention, say, via a medivac before they went into shock. I spent many years studying warfare intently to make it as accurate an experience as possible.â
Jones wanted to sell the software to the Defence Department but he was told he must go through DSTO. The government organisation looked at it but eventually recommended against funding the project because it was âoeimpossible to do on a PCâ. Jones battled on.
âoeI developed the software myself from my own savings, but when I finished, DSTO tricked ADF into believing the software wouldnâ(TM)t ship for several years. They then gave my IP to scientists I had been warned were plagiarising private sector research, broke a non-disclosure agreement, and three months later they commissioned their business partner to produce a rival version known as BattleModel,â Jones said.
Crikey understands BattleModel only began as an air simulator while Jonesâ(TM) KTS was multi-domain (land, sea, air and space) and in particular had excellent maritime simulation capability that was a major attraction to the Navy. An independent investigator appointed by the ADF to investigate the theft of IP told Jones: âoeYour software and the DSTO BattleModel software were remarkably similar. When I started this case I couldnâ(TM)t see any similarities between KTS and BattleModel. Now I canâ(TM)t see anything they donâ(TM)t have in common.â
Most people Crikey spoke to were unwilling to speak on the record due to a fear of upsetting existing business contracts with the ADF. A CEO of a major defence industry organisation told Crikey the organisation was aware of three recent cases where the DSTO had plagiarised a small business and run off with its ideas. âoeIâ(TM)m the first to say there are two sides to every story, but as more instances came up and I thought this is starting to happen a bit much,â the CEO said. âoeThe first person you think, well, he might be a bad businessman and didnâ(TM)t protect his IP, but then you start hearing of other people, and now Iâ(TM)ve had three cases across my desk, and Iâ(TM)m beginning to think that there is some sort of a systemic problem within the organisation.â
One of the businesspeople considered taking legal action but decided not to fight the department as he suffered a nervous breakdown during protracted negotiations. In a confidential email to the CEO, he said:
âoeJust letting you know that I am finished now. DMO cancelled all of my contracts; DSTO awarded my last contract to xxxxx who had been given access to all of my IP and processes by DSTO so thereâ(TM)s nothing left for me to do now. All the work I developed and pushed with xxxxx will
Seems clear enough [...] that industrial espionage, not "terrorism", is the real purpose for storage capacity of the magnitude of the NSA's Utah facility.
Never mind that this is in Australia and not the USA, but I've always had a pet peeve against people who talk about the "real" reason for something like no one can ever do anything for multiple reasons, and the one that pisses you off the most is the only one that matters (since it's the only one that matters to you).
This was the actual text from Clayton Utz, the law firm acting for the Australian Department of Defence: "“The reason we believe your claim will fail is because you allege that the Commonwealth owes innovators submitting products or technology for evaluation a duty of care to ensure that the evaluations are either fair, proper and accurate or that the confidential information is respected. There is no such duty of care in Australian law.”
They are very disingenuous: The DSTO publicly solicits businesses to submit inventions to Defence under the "DSTO CTD Capability and Technology Demonstrator Program", and then screw them over behind closed doors.
Here the Defence Science Minister Warren Snowdon announced a DSTO Probity Board "to protect against conflict of interest" http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/6648/, while here he sends a letter to an independent MP in which he falsely claims the whistleblower didn't want the thefts from other companies to be investigated(!): http://victimsofdsto.com/doc/2011-02-28%20Letter%20from%20Defence%20Science%20Minister%20with%20false%20information%20to%20Independent%20MP%20(NAMES%20BLACKED%20OUT).pdf
Australia's Federal Police force, the AFP, are systemically corrupt. They ignore public service crime http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service-keeps-fraud-cases-private-20110923-1kpdr.html and terrorise whistleblowers: http://pastebin.com/tD8Vd6Vd http://victimsofdsto.com/psc/#kessing
You can't use the civil courts: Under the Model Litigant Policy the Australian government has to keep legal costs to a minimum, must offer alternate dispute resolution, etc. But the government lawyers simply ignore it, run up huge legal bills and threaten to bankrupt you with a costs order if you dare step foot into court. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/gillard-government-lashed-for-ignoring-breaches-of-model-litigant-rules/story-e6frg97x-1226325228917 Another department did actually bankrupt a guy. Not mentioned in the article, the DSTO also stole IP from some big defence companies (including an American one).
It costs about $2M to litigate the gov. I don't know of a single company who has seen litigation through: SMEs can't afford it, and the large companies said litigating their biggest customer would lose future contracts. The only law firms capable of taking on the government pro bono in Australia are all on retainer to them! Here's a very good book "Our Corrupt Legal System" by an investigative crime journalist; Page 157- describes all the dirty tricks lawyers play: http://netk.net.au/Whitton/OCLS.pdf . play.
A very big problem in Australia is that we have no right to free speech like Americans do: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx
Under the Public Figure Doctrine US journalists can report corruption in a timely manner. In Australia we have nothing like that - not even a public interest test - so journalists must sit on stories for years. The Australian media couldn't even tell the people of New South Wales that their Premier (Governor) was manifestly-corrupt until the day after he died. http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Martin_def.html http://victimsofdsto.com/online/#freespeech
The right to free speech is so limited in Australia that this public servant was fired for anonymously tweeting her own opinion on her own equipment on her own time: http://www.psnews.com.au/Featurespsn3834.html In the US the Supreme Court holds that public servants (government workers) have the right to express their own opinions. In Australia, they don't.
Australian spooks spy for commercial gain:
"Australian spy agency helped BHP negotiate trade deals"
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-spy-agency-helped-bhp-negotiate-trade-deals-20131106-2x1sw.html
"East Timor will launch a case in The Hague alleging the Australia Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) covertly recorded Timorese ministers and officials during oil and gas negotiations"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/asio-raided-lawyer-representing-east-timor-in-spying-case/5132486
They also spied on the Indonesian President's wife because, well, they could:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/spying-on-president-susilo-bambang-yudhoyonos-wife-a-step-too-far-by-asd-20131120-2xvu5.html
If you can, tell crikey offtherecord@crikey.com.au telephone (03) 8623 9900. https://www.crikey.com.au/ (Tip off!)
...Slashdot Australia.
Last week I received email from two independent Australian acquaintances wishing me a happy Thanksgiving. Both told me they were celebrating Thanksgiving in Australia, despite neither of them being American. When I questioned the logic of this -- I likened it to me celebrating their "Australia Day" here in the States -- they replied with spiels about how "Our two nations are so alike," with one going so far as to suggest that Australia would eventually become "The United States of Australia," and be official US states. No idea how that would work, or why anyone, anywhere would want it.
What is it with Australians and their desperate desire to discard their Australian-ness in favor of becoming Americans? Seriously, please explain the reasoning to me if you can, because I find it all a little intriguing, as well as a lot ridiculous.
Oh, and then there's this:
http://www.thanksgiving.org.au/
Next up: Aussies adopt Columbus Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Washington's Birthday!
Yeesh.
To Judge: Your Honor, the defendant PURPOSELY and MALICIOUSLY obtained our client's, ah-herm, music, and proceeded to produce an in-tune, harmonic, and lyrics-actually-make-sense version of her song. This Is Intolerable for the future integrity of music!
Just THINK of the embarrassment and harassment endured by our client as someone rendered a better melodic performance than her. For Lady Gaga, this corruption of her musical interpretation is outrageous and must be stopped at all costs to uphold the honor of our client.
And besides that, we're not getting a cut of anything from the new version.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
or 'Asians'? LOL.
> Simply best not to reveal it, given nobody can be trusted
Absolutely, and what one company who lost a lot due to thefts did was simply refuse the DSTO physical access to their facilities. But under the DTCA they can no longer do that; they *must* let them in, give access, office space, etc. Defence can also issue a company with an order to turn over IP. Penalties for refusing are fines and jail time.
In the US the Economic Espionage Act is actually quite strong legislation for protecting trade secrets. Again, in Australia there is no such legislation, so you must really keep your cards close to your chest. Again, under the DTCA you can no longer do that. If you want to not just sell, but even communicate about your work (e.g. communicate with a peer, brainstorm a problem, ask a supplier a question) you must get a permit, so you can no longer keep it secret. Defence don't have (for want of a better word) "Chinese Walls". As soon as a scientist finishes looking at your product - even under a non-disclosure, they are free to do research in the same area.
This paper has a good analysis of the flaws with the DTCA permit system: http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/APA-DP-2013-0801.pdf
> Criminal charges and ten years hard time for researchers who communicate with their international peers (y'know, the ones from "peer review") is hardly a non-story, friend.
... This legislation could mean a conference speech, publication of a scientific paper or sending an email to colleagues could require a Defence permit or become a serious crime. ... It would impede top scientists in developing technologies for tomorrow's high-tech manufacturing industries, new vaccines and potential cures for cancer. The Australian government worries about a brain drain in advanced technology, but is poised to pass legislation that could force our best and brightest offshore". http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tighter-defence-ties-will-bind-academics-and-stifle-innovation-20121009-27b4n.html
Exactly, and that's why the universities hate it so much: That's the way they do research; by collaborating with peers.
The University of Sydney Deputy Vice Chancellor of Research warned: "Our researchers may have lost their ability to freely conduct public-good research and communicate research results
But the government ignored the universities and rammed the laws through anyway; they wouldn't even accept amendments for basic research. The Commonwealth Chief Scientist dismissed the universities concerns: "Those boxing at shadows and guessing at what it (the laws) might mean to some unspecified but allegedly 'substantial' number of researchers can continue to do that if it makes them happy." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/chubbs-defends-researchers-prospects-under-the-defence-trade-controls-bill/story-e6frgcjx-1226508483554
Charming!