Slashdot Log In
NASA Patents To Be Auctioned
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 15, 2008 04:02 PM
from the free-pair-of-scissors-for-the-red-tape dept.
from the free-pair-of-scissors-for-the-red-tape dept.
Presto Vivace writes to tell us that as a continuing push to commercialize NASA-funded technology a group of 25 NASA patents will be auctioned off this coming October. "The sale, which will include rights to signal processing, GPS for spacecraft and sensor technologies, is the first auction under a partnership announced earlier this month between Goddard's Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) and Ocean Tomo Federal Services LLC. Ocean Tomo provides a marketplace for intellectual property, which NASA wants to leverage in commercializing its technology."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
The HHT technology is a highly efficient, adaptive and user-friendly set of algorithms for analyzing time-varying processes, designed specifically for nonlinear and nonstationary signals.
Finally a version that can be used in the home! I'll see if my grandma needs this.
Auctioned off? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those patents belong to the American people!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, since when can government agencies patent anything? Anything they create is instantly entered into the public domain. Who would buy a patent that anybody's allowed to infringe upon without repercussions?
I had the same reaction (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
We own NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Your cut is a wealthier NASA.
Parent
Re:We own NASA (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. NASA is not run as a profit center, so this doesn't add a nickel to its budget. If you want to know where the money is going, you've got to look at the budget busters for current spending: the Iraq war, federal highway spending, flood insurance, that sort of thing.
This is just a kind of LBO style ideological stunt. When the constituent assets of a company are seen as more valuable than the company, you start selling them off.
What is worse, by selling the patent, the government in effect competes with other inventors. If the government beats an private inventor to the punch, he is not only deprived of the patent, he is unable to use the invention, unless the government chooses to license the patent as widely as possible. In that case, any work he does around that invention is not only usable, it may result in new inventions. So government inventions benefit everybody working in the field, until they are sold. At that point they benefit the highest bidder exclusively. And that's what this is about: turning public property to somebody's private benefit. The money is a minor side effect.
We can see the same attitude in attempts to hinder public access to public data like weather forecasts, except through a third party vendor who ponies up considerable dough. It's not the income that matters, it's the exclusivity. Like clean air, information has no market value until you are forced to pay for it.
The inability to see a common good in something like technological spinoffs from space exploration means that the whole activity is seen as worth less than the sum of its assets. This is not about enriching NASA, it's about liquidating any value it might have.
Parent
Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:5, Insightful)
The results of taxpayer-funded research need to be made freely available, not sold to the highest bidder.
Re:Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:5, Funny)
Free Tang for everyone!
Parent
Only you can prevent orbital bombardment. (Score:5, Funny)
The only way they could possibly pay me back is to go back to the moon and deliver several thousand payloads of rock to DC. That should cover any debt they owe me nicely.
Parent
Re:Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to be the first to suggest a class action lawsuit against both the government and the highest bidder. I wish not to recoup any money but, as previously mentioned, I would like these breakthroughs (made possible by tax-funded research) to be freely available to any citizen of the United States. I think it's time we, the taxpayers, set a precedence for publicly funded research to be publicly available.
Parent
Re:Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the meantime, NASA doesn't get to recover the costs that they spent (our tax dollars) and therefore has to beg Congress for more money. Congress, on the other hand, has things they would rather spend money on: wars, pork barrel spending, things that buy votes from joe sixpack who doesn't give a rat's ass about space - space science is one of those "elitist" pursuits, bridges to no-where, tax breaks to big oil, tax breaks to big corps who've lobbied for them, their own increasing salaries and perks, etc....
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound bitter.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. ALL American companies get these patents, freely. None can use them to monopolize a sector of the market and gain unhealthy advantage - they all compete and they all produce better, smarter equipment while competition keeps the prices down.
Imagine Velcro still being in hands of one manufacturer selling it for $50/inch^2.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they gave them away you think that the products would be cheaper?
What do you think would be better?
Re:Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:5, Insightful)
But the reality is that it means that I get to pay for them again.
Suppose instead that you were the sole owner of the patents, but for some reason (you choose) you didn't want to spend money to develop and market products based upon the patents, even though you might personally be interested in buying whatever products are ultimately produced using the patents. Would you not be happy with a cash settlement from the sale of your patents? Presumably you could still purchase whatever products came out of the patents and enjoy them while paying a small share of what the patent buyer paid you (in the form of a higher product price) in exchange for a product that you want. How is this not a good deal?
Now, in theory it would be better if all of us taxpayers saw some "return" on our investment in the form of lower taxes going forward based upon the proceeds of a successful sale of patents generated from publicly funded research. However, in practice any proceeds will probably go to NASA and not be returned to the US Treasury so in that sense the US taxpayer is getting a bit of the shaft. On the other hand, maybe some useful products, which wouldn't otherwise be available to the public, will come of this so it may not all be bad.
If the patents were made freely available then other countries and foreign companies could free-ride and enjoy the fruits of our research efforts without reimbursing us for any of the costs that we have already paid for the research. How would that make you feel? Perhaps you prefer that nobody earns any profit, even though your tax dollars are already a sunk cost either way, just to spite the winning bidders? Either way you still paid for the research and got no direct return.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How reasonable. What are you doing on Slashdot?
The other choice would be to grant none exclusive rights to companies. Maybe on a per product basis? That would then open up problems with auditing and do we want NASA doing that?
My choice would be to offer the patents free to any US company that builds their product in the US. But that would be a mess to monitor.
Frankly this seems like a reasonable way to deal with these patents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. Except the analogy is wrong. In this case, I (NASA) was paid by someone. That someone is the US taxpayer. As it seems that the patents were work for hire (as evidenced by the fact that they belong to NASA, and not the inventor), they belong to whoever paid the money. I.e., me (the US taxpayer).
I could accept the alternative of lower taxes because NASA wouldn't require so much funding, but alas, I'm pretty sure DC will find some other uses for my taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me just add: nothing is being sold. Each of the lots is "an exclusive license" and not an actual assignment. Presumably, the exclusive license will have development and commercialization requirements--just like any other federally funded patent license agreement. Typically, the point is to bring the technology to market. Obviously, NASA doesn't think it's doing a good job of that right now.
Also, you have a very messed up idea of how government works. Things that happen with your tax monies aren't freely available to you. If a pig farmer gets a subsidy, you can't go take a pig.
Parent
Re:Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your example with the pig is exactly why the government shouldn't be giving out subsidies. I am unable to identify which of the Powers of Congress enumerated in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution includes the power to grant subsidies to private entities.
Parent
Re:Great, we get to pay for them again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This assumes that I own part of NASA or that NASA pays me something out of its profits. All of which is false.
GP was right. I funded the research with my tax dollars, I own part of it. Either I get some of the cash that the auction netted, or this is nothing but corporate welfare. To anyone who's arguing that the corporation is still paying for it: there's a world of difference between paying for research and stumbling on something that makes money, and paying for a patent on something that makes money. In
This can't be good. (Score:2)
So NASA gets a couple of pennies while anyone who wants to use the technology gets their pocketbooks pillaged?
Am I understanding that right?
Re: (Score:2)
The patents are being auctioned, not given away for "a couple of pennies."
Re: (Score:2)
If I ran China or Russia, I'd auction a t-bill and bid a couple pennies more.
Hell No! (Score:4, Insightful)
If my tax dollars paid for the research and development that has lead to a patent, then that patent should remain in the hands of the government, not sold to the highest bidder.
If these patents are so valuable that someone is willing to buy them (and theoretically license them), then NASA should be licensing the patents themselves. Sounds like a better long-term supplemental funding solution to me. Several other agencies have fee and license structures (FCC, FDA) that helps supplement their annual Congressional appropriations. Why not NASA as well?
Re:Hell No! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not NASA as well?
Easy answer with a question: Why would they set up a licensing setup (with all the overhead and fun as their investment) when the government can instead get the big boost from the initial sale and then tax both the sale itself, the revenue of the company, and the sales of the consumer? This would then shunt any overhead of profiting off the patent to the winning bidder as well.
Granted, the answer only makes sense when it goes with the assumption that it can be spun such that your objection doesn't become the 51%+ demographic as you're exactly right that this is complete bull.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
This is like selling your state's tollway [motherjones.com] because you can't balance the budget.
Yes, you get to feel like you solved the budget crisis this year. Too bad you can only do it once.
Re: (Score:2)
They did the same thing here in Ontario - Highway 407 was built with public money. Then the conservative government came into power leased it for 99 years to a foreign company (407 ETR). I'm sure after 99 years is up, if we're even using roads then, the government will have to pick up the cost of it, as well.
Something as public as a road (or water, hydro, etc) shouldn't be privatized - it just leads to gouging as there can't be competition in these spaces.
Short term gain for long term pain.
Re: (Score:2)
"Socialize losses, privatize gains" variation? (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA didn't really get into detail, but does this mean:
1. Taxpayers fund research,
2. Government patents results,
3. Government sells patents to private concern,
4. Taxpayer gets to pay for research again via the consumer channel,
5. Private concern profits?
Seems like another form of corporate welfare to me. Is this the case?
Re: (Score:2)
"Seems like another form of corporate welfare to me. Is this the case?"
In the US, welfare is a dirty word unless linked to "personal" or "corporate", then it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Re: (Score:2)
The patents are being auctioned. This means these corporations are paying your government (thus you, indirectly) cash money. It's not corporate welfare, but it is effectively a one-time tax (you paid taxes to fund the research that went into these patents, and the money resulting from their sale is going to the government, not back to you).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government spent tax dollars for NASA. NASA did research that resulted in patents. The value of those patents is all that matters at this point. The rest is a sunk cost [wikipedia.org]. An auction swaps two things of equal value: here, a patent license, and cash. NASA will be able to do more with the cash than they will with a patent. The company owner will be able to do more with a patent license than they can with the cash. For taxpayers, it's a zero sum, except now we have products coming to market that we wo
Strange disparity between patents and copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
For copyrightable material, "Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation." [wikipedia.org]
But here, for patentable material, it's clear that that is not the case. The theory goes that since the taxpayer paid for it, the taxpayer should get the rights to it. It's essentially always the case that the inventors will "assign" the work to the organization... but should NASA really be able to hold a competitive IP position when we're all forced to pay for its work?
Think of the private spaceflight organizations, for example, who might want to enter similar fields. They're already being forced to pay for NASA's research (via taxes), but they're being excluded from the result, while the opposite (NASA forced to pay for private company XYZ's research without a return of IP) is not happening.
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
The Public Owns That Stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bad enough that NASA patents its inventions at all. But perhaps it's occasionally necessary, to prevent dangerous tech from getting into private hands. And maybe if the patents were awarded to American holders strategically to "promote progress in science and the useful arts", which is the only basis patents have, from the Constitution, they might be worth their infringements on free communication and further innovation.
But those inventions were paid for by the entire American public, as directed under the government elected by the public to serve the entire public. Simply turning them over to private corps for a little money doesn't justify the public investment.
It's just another subsidy forced on the entire public on some special preference for some private corporation. I thought Republicans hated that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that by patenting an invention, it allows the US government to ensure that only US companies (taxpayers) can exploit that patent. Making something the equivalent of public domain would seem to allow companies in other countries to profit from this research. It also seems plausible to me that the WTO might have a few things to say about the US government preferentially licensing patents to US companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea of the US government requiring all patents it registers to be licensed or sold to only US companies, or else revert back to the US government.
But I see no sign that such a policy is in effect.
As for the WTO, if someone wants to sue the US government for preferring to subsidize US people, I'd like to see such an argument make a lot of noise, enough to get the US out of the WTO - or any other international trade regime that requires a "suicide pact".
Re: (Score:2)
It's just another subsidy forced on the entire public on some special preference for some private corporation.
It is not a subsidy because it is being sold at auction which means that if the patent is valuable then it will very quickly be bid up to its fair market value (or perhaps even higher) by competing interested parties. Some of them might want to use the patent to produce products while others might want to acquire the patent and use it to sue other firms that are infringing the patent. Either way, the auction is the best format to sell these patents because they are not generally sold as everyday items and n
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not talking about a death ray or anything. I'm talking about new tech that doesn't yet have any laws protecting the public from some danger posed by a new invention, but which patent laws could stop from distribution. Stuff that would make its possessor laugh in the face of patent laws or any other laws, because they've got more power, shouldn't be disclosed, and typically isn't, as a matter of national security. But violating a patent to make, say, some new radio jammer or eavesdropper is going t
"The public owns it" (Score:2)
No. No one can own a patent, not a person, not the public, not a corporation, not the government, not NASA. An invention is not property, it cannot be owned. Replicating a process does not infringe on property rights.
The Best Way? (Score:5, Insightful)
They claim they want to sell the patents so that the technology is available for American businesses? Wouldn't the best way to do that be to not patent them at all in the first place? Or at least liscense the patents cheaply to any and all interested American businesses?
We already paid for the research once, now we'll end up paying for it again when some company begins gouging prices because they hold the patent and no one else can compete.
The same Ocean Tomo ... (Score:2)
Great.
Couldn't they make a ton more money (Score:3, Insightful)
What is NASA anyway ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pardon my unamerican ignorance, but what is NASA exactly ? If they are a government operation, shouldn't these patents be delivered to the public domain ? After all, they are the fruits of tax dollars.
Maybe I have a weird, overly accurate definition of democracy, but it seems as though government property should be considered public property... but hey, don't mind me and my commonwealth mindset. I'm just a cocky Canadian after all.
I Smell A Rat (Score:4, Interesting)
Question: HOW does it come to pass that the contractor was awarded this?
James E. Malackowski (CEO of the auction firm) is very well connected in government. He sits on the board of the non-profit running invent.org, whose main sponsor is the USPTO.
His campaign contribution record is decidedly democratic, but the contribution to Henry Hyde's reelection campaign is interesting.
Is this the proverbial "Smoking Gun?" No. But probably a case of paying into the system to stay inside the beltway on these issues and pick up a contract along the way.
What I didn't do was see if this was your average "no-bid" private contract for cronies and whether the dollar amount would qualify the matter as a violation in the contracting process. Please contribute!
Donations Link (Score:3, Informative)
Mr. Malackowski's donation record: http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=60657&last=Malackowski&first=James [newsmeat.com]
Like the others, NASA should license the patent and collect revenues. Selling it outright is simply giving it away.