> It doesn't seem intuitively like the federal government
> ought to need a special financial incentive to disclose its research.
> But maybe I'm missing something.
This is probably what's called a defensive patent. It's common practice
to patent something so that nobody else can lock you out, or so that you
have something to trade. Previously the semantic stuff was probably of
limited interest or could be squashed or was "born secret." But it's a
different world now, so the government has to be concerned about
lock-out. Or perhaps it's a form of advertising, not uncommon among
(applied :) research labs.
Here's a slightly-related example (physical security) of what is
probably a defensive patent:
Method of maintaining security in a common output means and system for
maintaining security
Inventors: Nezu; Mitsumasa (Kawasaki, JP).
Assignee: Fujitsu Limited (Kanagawa, JP).
Appl. No.: 789,964
Filed: Jan. 31, 1997
Abstract
A common output unit such as a print server maintains security when an
output request unit, serving as a client, sends a job to be processed to
the output unit. The output unit accepts and puts the job in queue. The
output unit then creates a collation key that is sent back to the output
request unit, which stores the collation key in a storage medium. The
output unit searches the storage medium for the collation key and
processes the queued job corresponding to the collation key. The print
server includes a locked stacker and an ordinary stacker to minimize the
output waiting time of the print job.
