Skip to Highlights
Highlights

MALOUF: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 12. YOU FURTHER INQUIRE WHETHER YOU SHOULD FILE SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR WHETHER YOU CAN HAVE A HEARING ON THE MATTER. IT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN INDICATED THAT THE SO-CALLED "PIRATING" IS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION BY PRECISION AGAINST MARTIN-MARIETTA. YOU HAVE NOT ADVISED THAT THE LITIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PRECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED. IT IS NOT THE PRACTICE OF OUR OFFICE TO PROVIDE ADVICE ON HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS. WHETHER YOU SHOULD FILE A SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS.

View Decision

B-158125, AUG. 26, 1966

TO MR. WALDENSE D. MALOUF:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 12, 1966, HAVING FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM THAT MARTIN-MARIETTA WRONGFULLY OBTAINED CERTAIN PROPRIETARY DATA BELONGING TO PRECISION PLATING AND METAL FINISHING, INCORPORATED, AND FURNISHED IT TO THE GOVERNMENT.

YOU ASK THAT OUR OFFICE ASSUME THAT MARTIN-MARIETTA DID "PIRATE" A PRECISION PROCESS, AND INQUIRE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IN THAT CASE CAN USE THE PROCESS OR ACCEPT COMPETITIVE BIDS ON IT FROM THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT PAYING ROYALTIES TO PRECISION FOR USE OF IT. YOU FURTHER INQUIRE WHETHER YOU SHOULD FILE SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR WHETHER YOU CAN HAVE A HEARING ON THE MATTER.

IT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN INDICATED THAT THE SO-CALLED "PIRATING" IS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION BY PRECISION AGAINST MARTIN-MARIETTA. YOU HAVE NOT ADVISED THAT THE LITIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PRECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED. THEREFORE, YOUR INQUIRY APPEARS TO BE HYPOTHETICAL IN NATURE, AND IT IS NOT THE PRACTICE OF OUR OFFICE TO PROVIDE ADVICE ON HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS. MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE PENDING LITIGATION, A HEARING ON THE MATTER AT THIS TIME WOULD BE PREMATURE. WHETHER YOU SHOULD FILE A SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS, OF COURSE, A MATTER WHICH YOU MUST DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

GAO Contacts