principles involved in Davida's device "might be detrimental to the national security." Davida and everyone else who knew about the device were ordered to say nothing or risk penalties as great as two years in prison and $10,000 fine. Part of the Secrecy Order permitted Davida to discuss his invention with agents of the United States government and no one else. The Secrecy Order did not say why the national security was involved, state how long the order would be in effect, or explain any method of appeal. Upon investigation of the 1952 law upon which the Secrecy Order was based, it became apparent that the Patent and Trademark Office has not itself determined to issue the order. Rather, they had acted on behalf of an unnamed defense agency. Davida never knew the criteria that were applied in deciding whether or not national security was actually involved. Professor Upon learning about Professor Davida's predicament, our Chancellor, Werner Baum, immediately wrote to Richard C. Atkinson, Director of the National Science Foundation requesting his assistance. Before Mr. Atkinson could respond, news of the Secrecy Order was printed in the Milwaukee Sentinel and picked up by the New York Times. Within days the story was carried throughout the United States and attracted journalistic interest in Canada and Great Britain. On June 15 a one paragraph document titled "Rescinding Order" was received by Professor Davida from the Patent and Trademark Office. This order repealed the Secrecy Order but did not explain why the national security was no longer involved. At this point we at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee are relieved that Professor Davida has now had his rights as a citizen restored and can continue his research. However, disturbing questions remain. Should the Executive Branch of government be able to prevent a citizen from speaking or publishing without some involvement by the courts? Should the Executive Branch of government be able to invoke the claim of "national security" without demonstrating that our national security was genuinely threatened? Should defense or intelligence agencies be able to interfere with or inhibit academic research through the patent process? Is censorship an appropriate function of the Patent and Trademark Office? Who will prevent abuses of the Secrecy Order concept that could frighten professors and stifle research in areas someone in a defense or intelligence agency opposes? I do not know if any or all of these questions pertain to the work of the subcommittee. not heard the last of these Secrecy Orders. Unless someone does something, we can anticipate that other professors and universities will face the same challenge to their academic integrity. The Secrecy Order under Title 35, United States Code (1952) Sections 181-188 dated with permit in the above-identified application is hereby acknowledged. Signature George T. Davida Date Return only the upper portion to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks 21 APR 19/8 TO THE APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED OR HIS HEIRS, AND ANY AND ALL ASSIGNEES AND ATTORNEYS OR AGENTS. Enclosed is your copy of a Secrecy Order under Title 35, United States Code (1952), Sections 181-188. In order that the record of service of this Order may be completed as soon as possible, you are- respectfully requested to fill out and personally sign the receipt above and promptly return it to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. Please advise of any change of address. L.M. Drazdowsky Licensing and Review 32-634 O - 78 - 50 NOTICE: To the applicant above named, his heirs, and any and all his assignees, attor neys sand agents, hereinafter designated principals, You are hereby notified that your application as above identified has been found to con tain subject matter, the unauthorized disclosure of which might be detrimental to the national security, and you are ordered in nowise to publish or disclose the invention or any material information with respect thereto, including hitherto unpublished details of the subject matter of said application, in any way to any person not cognizant of the invention prior to the date of the order, including any employee of the principals, but to keep the same secret except by written consent first obtained of the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, under the penalties of 35 U.S.C. (1952) 182, 186. Any other application already filed or hereafter filed which contains any significant part of the subject matter of the above identitied application falls within the scope of this order. If such other application does not stand under a secrecy order, it and the common subject matter should be brought to the attention of the Security Group, Licensing and Review, Patent and Trademark Office. If, prior to the issuance of the secrecy order, any significant part of the subject matter Commissioner. This order should not be construed in any way to mean that the Government has adopted or contemplates adoption of the alleged invention disclosed in this application; nor is it any indication of the value of such invention. Original Signed by Benjumis R. Fade t Director. Special Laws Administration Group An order of secrecy having been issued in the above-entitled application (a) Any officer or employee of any department, independent The principals under the secrecy order are further authorized to disclose the subject matter of this application to the minimum necessary number of persons of known loyalty and discretion, employed by or working with the principals or their licensees and whose duties involve cooperation in the development, manufacture or use of the subject matter by or for the Government of the United States, provided such persons are advised of the issuance of the secrecy order. The provisions of this permit do not in any way lessen responsibility for the security of the subject matter as imposed by any Government contract or the provisions of the existing laws relating to espionage and national security. Original Signed by Benjamim R. Parkett |