Day 2 of AFCEA International TechNet Indo-Pacom is in the books, and on behalf of technology companies new to Defense, some of the key messaging could have been... well... confusing. Let's try to clarify...
During the keynote, and repeated later during a J2 panel, Mr. Ben Needles (CTO, J2 U.S. Indo-Pacific Command) emphasized, "if you have a proprietary solution, I will not have a conversation with you," stressing that he's got to use the capabilities the J2 already has and that the solutions for advancing the command moving forward have got to remain vendor agnostic.
During the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) brief later in the day, they stressed that part of how they are achieving speed in acquisition for new companies is through, "Flexible terms and conditions (especially IP) to reduce negotiation time."
So how does a technology company new to Defense make sense of these seemingly contradictory statements?
1) When a technology company sells its tools to the government, taxpayer dollars are being used for that purchase. By virtue of making the sale, the spirit (!) of "government purpose rights" is that your tool will be used for inherently governmental functions, and therefore the government has full right to use it as it sees fit per the terms and conditions of the acquisition. If you as a technology company cannot accept this intention, then perhaps federal sales is not the market you should pursue. Additionally, if your technology is built such that it cannot be deployed with other tools across industry (i.e. "vendor agnostic"), you will exacerbate problems for #defense customers who need to make things work for the mission. I believe Mr. Ben Needles' comments were generally along these lines, but I am tagging him here to ensure I am not unfairly interpreting his statements.
2) Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) is at the forefront of helping new technology companies, especially VC-backed companies, retain IP rights necessary to scale their commercial businesses--after all, we want dual-use companies advancing #defense-- while enabling the government to achieve government purpose rights.
3) It's tricky threading this needle, and skilled professionals--especially current and former government acquisitions officers-- can help technology companies do so successfully.
4) This aspect of selling to the government can be rather challenging for in-house Legal teams with little or no experience supporting federal sales. Educating them on this reality is critical to moving sales forward.
Bottom line up front, the question of IP rights should not be a limiting factor in pursuing the #Defense sector.
I'm tagging some friends and colleagues here with legal and acquisitions experience so they can chime in!
How would you respond to the ☝ ?
Jonathan Mostowski, Jessica N. Miller, Christopher Petkas, Nick Ksiazek, Nick Miller, Kevin M., Josh Singer
#nationaldefense #executionmatters #onward
