Tenderloin

C Culham, I did find it before I read your post!!!  All the help you gave me on this is most appreciated.😊

I'm mainly looking for the 1988 version of 252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software (OCT 1988).

I am really trying to find the 1988 version of the DFARS.

Thanks MV2009.  I'm really looking for versions even older than that site allows - it appears it only goes back to the 2001 timeframe.

I believe this question has been asked and answered on the WIFCON forum before but I am unable to locate it.  My question is simple, "Where does one go to find previous versions of the DFARS?"  I've looked all over Google and am unable to find anything.

An interpretation and statement of intentions from the CO? They won't be worth the paper they probably won't be written on.

Just consult a competent Government IP attorney and let him or her do your asking and writing.

The only real way to protect your data is to not give it to the government.

I agree 100%. I did advise Steveatus on my July 28th post to consult with consulting an IP attorney by stating, "...please do consult with an IP attorney - that's the best way to go with this." Just sayin'...

Steveatus,

Is the IP actually a deliverable under the contract? By this I mean, is it specifically ordered to be delivered via such types of documentation such as the SOW, CDRL? If not, then you are not required to submit it to the DOD. The DOD only has license rights to the IP if the "typical" DOD rights clauses were invoked (curious, was DFARS 252.227-7013 invoked?), but if it's not specifically ordered to be delivered via contractual documentation such as SOW/CDRL, etc., then you don't have to deliver it. On the other hand, if it is specifically ordered then you do in fact have to deliver it. The DOD data rights clauses don't actually order the data, they just set forth what the DOD can and cannot do with the IP. I'm no lawyer either, but this has been my experience. But please do consult with an IP attorney - that's the best way to go with this. Good luck.

Well yes, Joel, they are logistics questions but they're commingled with rights in data issues primarily in the aspect of data ownership overall. In the issues I've presented here, the rights in data issue is settled (the DoD has the right to modify a company's IP) but it is conflicted with configuration management/logistics policies and procedures we have in place in nearly all of our contracts with private industry when a company's IP is delivered to the DoD.

This is wonderful info, and I appreciate the input from all.

As to the CAGE code argument, for clarification purposes, all I'm trying to convey is that there will be two (maybe more) configurations of the supposedly same item in our supply system if a design responsibility transfer does not officially take place. The contractor may make a change to a part rolling the part number from a -1 to a -2 increasing the size of a drilled hole in the part from .25 inches to .50. Then, the DoD decides to roll the part number to a -2 with something completely different, like adding a nutplate on the backside of the original .25 sized hole. So, we'd have two parts out there with differing configurations all with the same CAGE code and part number.

Yes, I will listen to our IP attorneys as I should and will, but am wondering what private industry IP attorneys think about the DoD changing their company's IP / designs without them knowing about it and also how the DoD reconciles the configuration differences between the two parts. I'm still curious about this subject when the answer to it is more simple than I'm making it out to be. Sorry to all if I'm over-thinking this. Again, I'm just really curious / conflicted by it all and probably should stand down and let the chips fall where they may.

Thanks for the discussion on this issue.

Yes, Vern, I do fully understand the "modify" section of the DFARS whether it is unlimited, GPR, or limited rights data. From this thread, I'm thinking there's a conflict [maybe?] between what the DFARS states we can do with the data that is delivered to the DoD and what is stated in the contract we have delivered to us from a contractor. Sure, we can modify it, but within the contract the DoD has with that contractor, there are contractual provisions in place to preclude us from modifying their design as delivered to us without their knowledge and then having two different configurations with the same CAGE code and part number in the supply system. Normally, these provisions are found in the ASME Y14.100 provisions we have invoked in our contracts as to the real ownership of the data.

We, the DoD, do not own the delivered technical data in question - we just have a license right to it. Yes, Vern, I will listen to the IP attorneys and follow their advice, but I just wonder what a contractor delivering their technical data to the DoD and then us changing it without their knowledge. I think Jacques - his post, has what I'm thinking about on this. However, if there are any DoD contractor [private companies] IP attorney's out there, I wonder what their view is on this subject? This is interesting to me. Anyone?

Working for the DoD, I am responsible to manage technical data/intellectual property (drawings mainly) from a major defense contractor on a ACAT I program. Here's what is happening...I am receiving IP with unlimited rights and our own DoD IP attorneys are stating that we can "modify" the technical data we receive from that contractor because the DFARS states we can do so under the provisions of the DFARS 252.227.7013 clause because it states can "modify" it. I state no, we cannot take the contractor's IP and just make our own changes to the design on the drawing/design without their approval to do such. No design authority has been transferred to the DoD from that company yet our own DoD IP attorneys insist we can change a design because of the word, "modify" in the DFARS clause I just cited. We have a license right, but not ownership of stated data!!! We can "modify" the design by making our own design by taking what's depicted on their drawing and making changes to it, only we have a different CAGE code and, a different part number.

So, if this is in fact the case from the our own DoD IP attorneys, then how is configuration control maintained of the aircraft part item depicted on the drawing/IP maintained? Which is right? I've searched the Wifcon site and it came come close to my issue/question, but close is not enough in my view.

Does anyone have any insight as to what exactly constitutes a bona fide "emergency repair and overhaul" situation regarding release/use of technical data marked with limited rights under the DFARS clause [252.227-7013](a)(14)?

The definition of limited rights in the DFARS allows release or use of limited rights technical data "Necessary for emergency repair and overhaul..." at 252.227-7013(a)(14)(i)(A), but it does not define what constitutes such - no criteria is given that I can see.

The clause for the DOD is DFARS 252.227-7013.

All is well, this data is not going to be released on FBO after our legal weigh in. I knew I was right, but the KO was insistent upon it despite my advice to not do this. In case anyone was/is wondering the data was several technical data/drawings of fairly simple parts.

Thanks WIFCON forum. You all rock!!!

Thanks all. This issue is in fact going to our legal office this morning.

I'm a newbie to this website but know quite well the subject of technical data [iP] and all that entails as I've been in this field for well over 25 years as a DOD employee. My question is that we have a situation in the DOD wherein we have technical data that is clearly unlimited rights data for parts that we want to have other companies bid on to produce the equipment. My question is can this technical data be posted to the FBO website (FedBizOpps) for companies to bid on that project to do so? I think definitely not - I'm 99.999% sure of it. Our KO believes it is OK despite my warnings against it. Rights in data is really not the issue at all. It's the ITAR/Export control notice on the technical data (drawings) we have on it along with the distribution statements on that data with "D". It also has a "USML M"stamp on it...[united States Munitions List]. I just really want to confirm my position on this matter.

If anybody has any insight to add to this post, I'd appreciate it very much.