As the CEO, Founder of MYDENTALWIG, a new semiconductor manufacturing company, who applied for the former CHIPS & SCIENCE ACT, I was curious to learn more about the deal between Intel and the Federal Government. In 2024, when I was applying to the CHIPS PROGRAM, I suggested to the government to consider the option of funding in exchange of equity. Unfortunately, it was offering grant or business loan. As a startup, I picked the grant.
ChatGPT said:
Here’s a clearer breakdown of what’s happening:
Summary of the Policy Move
The Trump administration has escalated its efforts to assert governmental control over patents arising from federally funded research—particularly at Harvard University. The Commerce Department, led by Secretary Howard Lutnick, has initiated a comprehensive review and has invoked the Bayh–Dole Act, a 1980 law granting the government “march-in” rights to reclaim or license such patents under certain conditions. Harvard must provide a detailed list of all federally sponsored patents and demonstrate compliance with the law by September 5, 2025.> Harvard holds over 5,800 patents and more than 900 licensing agreements—so this is no small matter.
Key Points:
. Legal Framework: The Bayh–Dole Act encourages institutions to own and commercialize inventions funded by the government, while ensuring public benefit. It grants the government the ability to “march in” and take ownership or grant licenses if contractual or regulatory obligations aren’t met.
- Unprecedented Action: Experts, including legal scholars, say this is an unusually aggressive use of march‑in rights—unprecedented in the law’s four-decade history.
- Part of Broader Tension: This action follows broader disputes between the administration and universities over alleged civil rights violations and funding freezing, with institutions like Columbia and Brown already settling with the government.
Broader Legal Context: Secrecy vs. Ownership
Your interest might extend beyond ownership into how the government can restrict or seize inventions for security or public purposes.
- Bayh–Dole Act – Addressed above. It empowers the government to reclaim or license patents developed with federal funding if the university fails to meet certain obligations.
- Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 – A separate legal mechanism that allows the government to block the disclosure of certain patents for national security reasons. This act can place secrecy orders on applications, restricting publication or export—even halting the issuance of a patent.
Although both laws deal with government control over inventions, they serve different purposes:
- Bayh–Dole ensures taxpayer-funded innovations serve public interest and can be commercialized.
- Invention Secrecy Act silences inventions that are potentially dangerous or sensitive politically or militarily.
What’s The Take?
- Are you more intrigued by the legal framework and its implications for innovation, academic freedom, and government authority?
- Or are you particularly focused on the Harvard case and its broader impact on universities and federally funded research?
Either way, I’m keen to dive deeper—whether into legal scholarship, historical examples, or the implications for research ecosystems.
You said:
Well, it’s fair that institutions such as universities that receive federal grants for research, if they own patents, the federal government must get its ROI. Grants are investments. The recent government ownership of 10% of Intel says something.
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely, your point is well-taken: when universities—or any institutions—benefit from federal grants, there’s a reasonable expectation that taxpayers should see a return on that investment. But what’s unfolding with Intel represents a much more direct and unprecedented form of “return”: the U.S. government has converted its granted funds into actual equity, effectively becoming a partial owner of the company.
Here’s what’s going on:
What Just Happened with Intel—and Why It Matters
- The Government Acquired a ~10% Stake
- The U.S. government took a 9.9% to 10% passive equity stake in Intel by converting previously awarded—but not yet disbursed—grants under the CHIPS and Science Act, along with funds from the Defense Department’s Secure Enclave program.
- This amounts to roughly 433.3 million shares purchased at $20.47 per share, which was below the then-current market price.
- No Board Seat, but a Strategic Stake
- The agreement includes no board representation or direct governance rights, but there’s a five-year warrant allowing the government to acquire an additional 5% stake if Intel loses majority ownership of its foundry business.
- Why This Is Significant
- This is a rare intervention by the U.S. federal government in private enterprise—especially outside of crisis scenarios. It marks a dramatic shift toward industrial policy, with the government becoming a strategic investor in a major tech company.
- Mixed Reactions
- Optimists see this as a bullish signal: Intel now carries the implicit endorsement of national security priorities, which could reassure investors and clients.
- Critics, however, warn of politicizing corporate strategy, potential backlash from international clients, and concerns that such government entanglements may suppress innovation or distort markets.
Is It Fair?
In theory, yes—especially if the government’s investment helps preserve and advance a critical industry like semiconductor manufacturing. The government is not simply handing over grants with no strings attached; it’s now a stakeholder, sharing in both risk and reward.
However, unlike universities—which mostly commercialize tech through licensing and patents, not government ownership—this is much more direct. By converting a grant into equity, the U.S. is shifting from being a supporter to becoming a partner in the enterprise itself.
Broader Context
- This Intel deal is part of a larger pattern under the Trump administration that includes:
- A “golden share” in U.S. Steel,
- Revenue-sharing arrangements for Nvidia and AMD’s exports to China, and
- Efforts toward creating a sovereign wealth fund to invest in strategic industries.
- The move echoes models seen in France, Taiwan, Norway, and others, where governments maintain ownership in key sectors for strategic reasons.
TL; DR
- Yes, institutions receiving federal research funding being held accountable is fair.
- But the Intel case represents something more: converting grant money into equity gives the government real ownership, a level of involvement far beyond traditional grants.
- The long-term consequences—on corporate independence, global competition, and innovation—remain to be seen.
Let me know if you’d like to drill into any of these angles further—such as legal comparisons with Bayh–Dole, how this might affect global competitors like TSMC, or what it means for future federal funding in tech.
You said:
This is fantastic. When MYDENTALWIG last year in 2024 applied for the CHIPS ACT Grant, its CEO Lydie Livolsi suggested to the federal government to either grant it with the $650 Million or use it as investment in MYDENTALWIG in exchange of equity. For her, it was WIN/WIN. She is actually finalizing her $200 Billin PPM to be sent to President Trump (after his recognition of her creativity etc). She really wants to get the funding as an investment of the federal government in MYDENTALWIG