679 



The lEA agceenents specify the lead organization, and the countries 

 involved in the reports provide a basis for overall management of the 

 projects. The whole organization has fewer than 100 people, and it 

 draws about one third of it support from the United States. lEA has 

 been in operation for a number of years and has a good research and 

 develojMDent record. However, the unfortunate experience with the 

 Synthetic Refined Coal-2 project (commonly known as SHC-2) seriously 

 hurt the image of the United States as a reliable partner in lEA work. 



International Industrial Cooperation 



There are a number of private companies operating internationally with 

 experience that may be relevant as industry becomes more involved in 

 fusion and as fusion ultimately approaches commercialization. 

 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) is such a company, 

 and some of its policies were explained. IBM has manufacturing 

 facilities and laboratories in 18 countries; each foreign laboratory 

 is under the control of a counterpart U.S. laboratory. The 

 corporation markets and services equipment in most countries of the 

 world and tries to manufacture equipment in the region where it is 

 used. IBM owns patents and leases the rights to these patents to the 

 subsidiary laboratory (for instance, IBM-Japan). The firm also 

 licenses patents to others under certain restricted circumstances. 

 The corporation shares technology at the laboratory level and through 

 publications, but it takes the necessary steps to protect its 

 intellectual property rights. The corporation uses marketing agents 

 (both governmental and nongovernmental) in foreign countries but it 

 retains control of the technology. IBM will withdraw from any country 

 that demands equity in a subsidiary or access to technology as a 

 condition for operation. 



Policy Considerations 



There was a general acknowledgment that international cooperation in 

 the development of magnetic fusion is certainly desirable and probably 

 necessary. This view arose from a balancing of the probable gains and 

 losses related to the policy considerations brought out in the 

 workshop. However, there was a wide dispersion of views as to how 

 extensive cooperation should be and to what extent it should influence 

 U.S. programs as well as policies. This divergence clearly reflected 

 different evaluations of the balance of gains and losses. For 

 example, one person argued for international cooperation on the 

 smaller steps, although reserving U.S. leadership for TFCX. Another 

 argued that the United States should concentrate on only U.S. -funded 

 projects until a decision point around 1990, when international 

 projects would again be considered. The experts should do more 

 homework and conduct more discussion on specific alternative research 



