. . . REE 

DISPOSITION FORM 

I SUBJECT 

Release or Hagelin U.S. Patent A lication 188 546 

FILE NO. 

ro Chief of Starr OOA 

THRU Chier, Office of 

Operations (02) 

FROM Chief' Office Of Commun!- DATlft,,, u I\ D 1QI;:;:') COMMENT NO. 1 

cation Security (04) ~ 'Rll\~h'ait/6(1372/mt 

l. The inclosure recommends the rescission of the secrecy order on Mr. Boris 

HAGELIN's patent application. 

2. The position or the Office of Communication Security was not set forth 

orally by Dr. SHAW as stated in paragraph 6 of the inclosure, but occurred in a 

Disposition Form CoD1111ent No. 3, dated 30 November 1951 and signed by Lt. Col. 

G. v. JOHNSON. This DF~represented that no decision had been made as to whether 

the new principles would be incorporated in any U.S. military devices whatever • 

• 3. The Chief, Office or Communication Security, is contemplating no further 

develo:pnents in the M-209 direction other than the AFSAM 36 and the DEM 21, neither 

of which includes the principles described in the application. He therefore is no 

longer concerned with maintaining a secrecy order on th.at application, and witfa.ws 

his request that the order be continued. The Chief, Office of Operations has 

the primary interest in this development. 

4. It appears, however, that the whole subject of the relationship of Mr. 

HAGELIN to the Government of the United States in general, and to the Armed Forces• 

Security Agency in particular, should now be reviewed. Paragraph 8d(2) of the 

inclosure implies that the United States must defend itself against incurring 

Mr. HAGELIN's enmity in order to avoid cutting otf a source of useful information. 

It is considered that the amount of useful information to be derived from Mr. HAGELIN 

should be reconsidered in the light of the damage to national prestige and to 

contractual relationships with other inventors which arises from the general knowledge that the United States is, or has been, Mr. HAGELIN's patron. 

5. Consideration or the negotiating position of Mr. HAGELIN leads to the 

following conclusions: 

• 

a. Mr. HAGELIN can market all his future developn.ents commercially. In this 

event the United States can pu~chase copies or any of his machines in which 

they may be interested. 

b. Mr. HAGELIN can enter into private agreements with western nations. 'lb.e 

result of this could conceivably be an improvement in the communication 

security of nations with whom the United States is associated in a common 

defense effort. (There is some indication that this situation already 

exists: the so-called "French modification" of the M-209, submitted by the 

Government of France as a proposed system for second- and third-level NATO 

use, is covered in the patent application in question; Mr. HAGELIN's son is 

well known as having been intimately concerned with the doings of the Paris 

Declassified and approved for release bv NSA on 06-10-2014 pursuant to E.O. 13529 

* U. I GOVRNllENT PRINTING O'FFICE 
• 

SUBJECT Release or Hagelin U.S. Patent Application 

188,546 

TO Chier of Starr (OOA) 

THRU Chier, Ortice of 

Operations (02) 

FROM Chief, Office of Communicaiiion Security (04) 

DATE27 MAR195~T NO. l 

R. H.Shaw/60372/mt 

office of the Hagelin comt>&D.Y.) 

c. Mr. HAGELIN can eniier into private agreements with the Soviet bloc. It 

would seem, however, that the Soviets woUld be exceedingly cautious in 

dealing with an or anization so well known as an Ame · Moreover 

6. In short, the Chie:f", Office of Communication Security, withdraws his 

request that the secrecy order be continued, and requests that the relationship 

between the U. s. and Mr. HAGELIN be reexamined. 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

Inclosures - 2 

1 - Memo tor Chief of Starr from 

Mr. Friedll!an, 19 Mar 52 

2 - OCSigO ltr dated 7 March 52 

w/l Incl. 

2 

~ ( SON-,,..,,~~ Lt. I , Sig. Corps, 

Assis nt Chief, Office of 

Communication Security 

TOP SEGREP .JUEDF 
r 

TOP SICRi:.l' 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF: 

SUBJECT: Release of Hagelin U.S.Patent Application 188,546 

1. The subject application was filed in the U .s .Patent Office on 

5 October 1950. 

2. Almost a year after that date the application was placed under 

Secrecy Order (14 September 1951) at the request of AFSA; permission to 

file a cognate application in Sweden was refused at the same time. 

3. In the meantime, however, appli9ations were filed by Hagelin in 1-tJ 

ten other countries (Switzerland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Denmark, a:t"sl 

Holland, Belgium, Austria, and Japan,, trom.26 October 1951).) •. Mr. Hagelin G 

did not know, of course,, until after 14 September 1951,(possibly not until 

after 5 October 1951) anything about the u.s. Secrecy Order. 

4. In a postscript to a letter dated 6 October 1951 Hagelin wrote me 

as follows: 

"P.S. I just got a secrecy order from the Patent Office in 

Washington re my application 188,546. 

I just dont know what to do about it, as I had already- filed OGA 

applications in a number of countries prior to the secrecy 

date Sept. 14. 11 

5. Upon receipt of Mr. Hagelin1s letter with the foregoing postscript, 

I took up the matter with interested offices in .AFSA ard requested their 

Views as to recommending to the Commissioner of Patents that he release 

Hagelin's u.s. application from the secrecy order. In my opinion such a 

release was warranted (a) in view of the U .s. hav:Lng been dilatory in 

placing the secrecy order, and (b) because in reality the "cat was out ot 

the bag" the moment applications not umer secrecy had been filed abroad. 

6. However, AFSA-02 am AFSA-04 disagreed with my Views. Mr. Rowlett, 

representing .AFSA-02 stated: 

And Mr. Shaw, representing AFSA-04~ gave me orally his view that since there 

was a possibility that the U.S. might want to incorporate the features of 

Hagelin's application in-its own M-209 ma.chines~ the application should be 

retained umer the Secrecy Order. 

TOP 

·. \ 
... 

• REF ID:A66665 

e·1--u1 • st:: 

7. I can hardly concur in either of the .foregoing views of the matter,, 

because they appear to me to be completely unrealistic 1100.er the circ'Wllstances set forth above. 

8. I recommend lifting the Secrecy Order because: 

a. Non-secret applications have been .f'ile:i by Hagelin in ten 

countries; there.fore there is no longer any real secrecy concerning the 

features of the Hagelin application; · 

b. Machines embodying the new features covered in the application 

are now being built by Hagelin am will be ready for market in the beginning 

of 1953,, according to a recent letter (30 January 195.2) from Hagelin; 

c. Even if the u.s. should decide later to incorporate Hagelin•s 

ideas in the M-209 or an improved version of that machine,, the idea of 

keeping secret the details of construction of a machine issued for forwardarea usage in the tens of thousands seems to me to be highly tmrealis tic 

:tr not absurd. 

d. If the U.S. should insist on keeping the Secrecy Order in 

effect,, this could have two consequences: 

(l) Either Hagelin will be led to observe the u.s. Secrecy Order,, 

in which case he must abandon his non-U .s. applications and 

the u.s. will theii"Oecome liable to suit in the u.s. Court 

of 1.laims um.er the proVisions of Public Law No. 256 effective 1 February 1952 (the recently amended and strengthened. 

old Public Law No. 700),, a situation which could lead to 

claims running into millions of dollars; or 

(2) Hagelin will abandon the U.S. application,, losing all his 

potential rights in the u.s.,, in which case the u.s. gains 

nothing - neither secrecy nor delay in Hagelin•s marketing 

his new machine. The u.s. would gain only Hagelin1 s 

emn:i.ty,, thus cutting off a source of useful. information 

to us~ am all to no good purpose. 

qJ,,J'o. (WJi:I:I'.AM ~~~~ F. FRIEDMAN 

Consultant 

'1'9P SKSR:g'l' :ENF9RHA'l'I0N SEIOURI'i'Y