It is incredible the amount of pushback against the UAP legislations on retrieved crafts that we haven’t even formally acknowledged to the public.
Is the pushback really just about the intellectual copyright of some of these aerospace-companies? Any legally-based comments will be appreciated.
do the retrieved crafts belong to them? So if the companies paid money for the reverse engineering, do they also have a ownership over the crafts? That would seem absurd. It would be like claiming ownership over a public park or a fallen asteroid that contains insights about the universe (eg. RNA-fragments in 162173 Ryugu – Wikipedia asteroid). Even if private companies seized them, wasn’t it done under the authorization of the US military? Is there any US-law that allows the government to seize property that belongs to public science? Or is a private company legally-allowed to basically seize ,say, an asteroid and then sell it to universities? Is there an “eminent domain- law for the seizure of asteroids?
Or is the legal claim only over their discoveries? That I can understand better. But does the UAP-act really go against them holding on to their intellectual-property?
Did the companies receive public money? If they received public money, doesn’t the public have part ownership of those crafts and those discoveries? Or is that money seen as just a government-grand/fund with no part-ownership stipulation?
Is this a power-play over other aerospace companies? Well, don’t we have anti-trust laws for that? I.e. closing market-access to other companies? I understand that we live in a competitive capitalistic world, but by shutting down competition we are actually hurting the overall industry and economy. These companies already have an edge over the rest of the competition.
submitted by /u/2DTurbulence
[link] [comments]