Dec 2, 2013

Revealed: the government agency stealing ideas from businesses

A number of businesses are complaining a Defence Department organisation has stolen their intellectual property, Crikey can reveal. Chris Seage reports new legislation makes the problem worse.

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 “rogue element within the agency” and a “culture of circling the wagons when confronted with allegations against them”.


Leave a comment

7 thoughts on “Revealed: the government agency stealing ideas from businesses

  1. Andybob

    Doesn’t sound like ‘just terms’ to me. Where’s Lawrence Hammill QC when we need him ?

  2. Serenatopia

    Absolutely brilliant article Chris. Meticulously researched and presented. Brendan Jones deserves justice.

    To all impacted parties, please contact Serene Teffaha from Levitt Robinson Solicitors to explore legal recourse in these circumstances. My mobile number is 0425 754 299.

  3. graybul

    So now we truly glimpse the price of being Deputy Sheriff to a foreign power!
    The Australian Media to a large part is owned and directed by a foreign interest. The Australian Intelligence fraternity operates in their own interests and collude with foreign interests against the best interests of Australian citizens and Businesses. Australian Government(s) have descended into a functional state whereby lies, deception and non-accountability are the driving indicators and mode of exercising power. Our national values are indeed at risk.

  4. Sailor

    graybul: sadly, this is a repeat of the Howard deceit. The dreadful “anti-terrorist” [ie, anyone who reckons the Gov’t fosters thugs is telling the truth & must be punished] laws are biting. Alexander Downer is rightly in the frame for deceit, but Reith is unscathed. Odd that.

    And as for John Hubris………gawdhelpme, he’s abysmal. So is his spawn Abbott.

  5. Brendan Jones

    Very true, @Sailor! The universities fought the DTCA furiously:

    Sydney University’s Deputy Vice Chancellor of Research warned: “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”

    But the Commonwealth Chief Scientist was dismissive of their 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.”

    Labor rammed it through, just before a visit by US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Although ostensibly to allow a US Free Trade Pact, an Australian-based American physicist warned: “Not even the Americans have this”

    The DTCA got very little media coverage. Even a lot of academics have never heard of it, and Australia’s high-tech business community completely missed it; I am yet to speak to a single entrepreneur who has heard of it. When the first one of them is hauled off to jail, maybe then they’ll pay attention; With the surveillance regime it will be very easy for the APS to detect businesses communicating without permits.

    There’s also a compliance burden on business. To communicate with anyone overseas (e.g. even for advice) you need to apply for a permit from Defence, so that already slows you down. You also need to hire lawyers to implement it ($230-$500 per hour), allocate time for audits and administration (up to 25% of researcher time). Here is a good paper raising the problems with the permit system (including commercial interference), and how the DTCA will harm Australian business:

    The DTCA doesn’t just apply to Defence, but an absurdly broad dual-use list 380 pages long: e.g. computers, IT, telecommunications, electronics or medicine (and that’s nothing to say of the restrictions University researchers face).

    I don’t even work in Defence any more, but you’d be a fool to start a high-tech business in Australia under the DTCA:

    I’ve put an information page on the DTCA here:

  6. su ba

    What trash “journalism”. Too many “sources” that are unnamed, actually all the sources are anon. Who the hell is “CEO”? Who is “one of the businesspeople”? Who is “the small business managing director?” Who are these “five businesses”? If these allegations have any basis then the anons need to speak up! Wild allegations you aren’t required to even own is NOT journalism. If this has any truth to it, go get facts not very vague allegations. You know what you can do with your subscription.

  7. Brendan Jones

    “su ba”, your post is disingenuous:

    The article explains “Most people Crikey spoke to were unwilling to speak on the record due to a fear of upsetting existing business contracts with the ADF.”

    It also explains how another person who complained had his contracts taken away.

    And of the five businesses, I’m named. Your disingenuous post makes no mention of that.

    As for your subscription, Google couldn’t find any other instances of you posting on Crikey. For all I know you don’t have a subscription, and created a freebie account today. I’m not even sure if “su ba” your real name; It would be hypocritical of someone posting anonymously to accuse others of not. Confirm that “su ba” is your real name, post your details and we’ll talk.

    Otherwise for all we know you might be one of the corrupt public servants trying to cover your tracks.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details