I just saw a job ad looking for programmers who have at least five years' experience of being replaced by AI.

Contracts, or portions of contracts that license existing IP for government use do not typically gain any rights whatsoever to the products beyond those normally granted by law or license. The case you reference has little, if anything, to do with the typical weapon system acquisition process.

I work in this area. It would help you if you actually read the FAR that you're citing, since it says the exact opposite of what you claim.

The standard license rights that a licensor grants to the Government are unlimited rights, government purpose rights, or limited rights. Those rights are defined in the clause at 252.227-7013 , Rights in Technical Dataâ"Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services. In unusual situations, the standard rights may not satisfy the Government's needs or the Government may be willing to accept lesser rights in data in return for other consideration. In those cases, a special license may be negotiated. However, the licensor is not obligated to provide the Government greater rights and the contracting officer is not required to accept lesser rights than the rights provided in the standard grant of license. The situations under which a particular grant of license applies are enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.

A license is a right to exploit (make, have made, sell, offer to sell, import, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, publicly display and/or perform, and/or generally use, depending upon the IP and the transaction).

What it is not is an assignment of ownership of the IP. The private entity developing the IP retains ownership of the IP and can exploit it itself for commercial purposes, excepting ITAR issues and other technology restrictions that would apply to similar technologies generally.

The original claim was "the government owns most it (sic) not all of its IP in its supply chain." That's false. It has a license to it, and rarely anything more.

Most CEOs add very little value over a replacement CEO. And as part of this equation, most boards overestimate their ability to pick a candidate who will delivery value over replacement and they wildly overpay in their attempt. They would be better off paying some amible middle manager just 10 times the average programmer's salary to network and sift though the proposals generated by AI.

You know the government owns most it not all of its IP in its supply chain, right? It's all work for hire.

You know that you're just making up bullshit and then typing it into a comment, right?

There is no "work for hire" for most IP. Patents are owned by their inventors absent a contract assigning it to others (typically their employer, not the Federal government). Copyrightable works made for hire are limited to "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." Otherwise, the copyright is owned by the author (which might be an employer, but definitely is not the Federal government, which cannot create works protected by copyright) absent a contract assigning it to others.

Show me the government contracts that assign rights to the government. Show me all the Microsoft and Oracle and Amazon and Google software that has had ownership assigned to the government. Deny that cases like Bitmanagement Software GMBH v. United States appear routinely on the Court of Federal Claims' docket, and explain away 28 USC 1498.

You're not just a little bit wrong, you're basically entirely wrong. Federal procurement contracts do not routinely include assignments of IP to the government. Nobody making dual use technology would bother doing business with the government if it did. The government doesn't fund the development of things that it uses, it buys it after the fact, even in the defense space.

Fixing this can be the new Y2K. Full employment if you're good with the cyber!

Couldn't Trump's legal department just subpoena your ISP? And wouldn't spam filters block your emails if your servers are behind seven proxies (to avoid having your IP exposed)?

He doesn't care about that, he's just happy to present a scenario in which our fascist killbot-wanting regime isn't as abhorrent or alarming.

This is a simple rule to live by - if you see advertising, start by assuming you don't need it. If it's for a brand, assume that brand is overcharging you. If you see product placements or informal/influencer content, assume that's a paid advertisement. Think very carefully about what you need, make a shopping list and monitor the prices, so you know when to buy (and give yourself a cooldown to avoid impulse buying - if you haven't needed it while waiting for a special, maybe you don't need it at all). Even for groceries, know the prices of items, and adjust your weekly purchases to target specials.

Using ad blockers online on the other hand is just a good idea...

When your only tool is a laser, every problem looks like a large balloon.

Greetings! The good news is that your time machine has successfully transported you to the year 2026. The bad news is that it's 2026.

The saddest thing about your post is that it was likely paid for by American taxpayers.

Also, AOL keyword ReamMe

What an idiot. AI is going to accelerate global warming, which is going to drive millions to migrate...

I was going to ask this very question.

But it was a genius move, since nobody noticed his demanding a cut off the profits of ... whatever--as the AC would have us believe he believes. Nobody who can use a web browser is as dumb as they pretend to be while justifying the malfeasance du jure.