Satellite Abandoned Due To Orbital Patent 366
EreIamJH brings news about a commercial geostationary satellite that was launched last month. Due to a launch failure, the satellite did not reach the orbit required to perform its function. The satellite's owner, SES Americom, looked for a way to salvage the satellite, but ran into an unexpected hurdle; a Boeing patent on the lunar flyby process that would be used to correct the satellite's orbit. If another company doesn't purchase the satellite, it is likely to become another piece of space junk. The European Space Agency has posted a gallery of the maps they have put together for man-made debris in orbit around the earth.
They can patent that? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They can patent that? (Score:5, Funny)
You MORONS. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Limit your profits, why don't you?
Re:You MORONS. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They can patent that? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:method patent (Score:5, Informative)
Time to again draw attention to us patent 6368227: "A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_patent_number:6368227
A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy? Einstein
CC.
Re:method patent (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't. Here's the USPTO page. OMG...
Patent Granted: Tarzan Swinging [uspto.gov]
Re:method patent (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He then went public and said that the system was so broken he patented the wheel.
Yay to the patent examiners.
Re:They can patent that? (Score:5, Insightful)
And since patented ideas cannot be reused or expanded on, patents reduce the sharing and reuse of knowledge, they do not promote it. Overall, patents are very harmful for technological progress. This is why, e.g. oil companies collect patents on solar power, and telecoms firms collect patents on VoIP.
The real purpose of patents is to make money for patent holders, patent experts, and patent lawyers. Anyone who says differently is lying or ignorant. Period.
Re:They can patent that? (Score:4, Interesting)
In India, near where I live , there is a village doctor who can completely cure jaundice (at least the ones caused by Viral hepatitis) with a medicine his grandfather invented long long back.
It is an amazing medicine - he has cured people with bilurubin count as high as 12 - that too with just two portions of this medicine.
He keeps it a secret - just as his grandfather and his father has done.
Since he is not known outside, only a few people get the benefit of the medicine.
Also, if he dies before he can tell his children about the medicine, this information is lost forever.
That is where patents can help. If he can just patent it, and sell the patent to medicine companies, he would become richer than he can now even dream of. The companies can then sell the medicine all over the world and people all over gets the benefit.
This is the reason patents are there. And it makes a whole lot of sense too.
p.s -> he does not believe any one, so he doesnt believe in patents also. but that is a completely different matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They can patent that? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a very, very limited set of cases where patents are a good thing, and medicine is about as far as you can get from those cases. Telling people that they cannot make the medicine they need because you have a patent on it and it wouldn't be profitable to sell it in a poor region is a disgrace.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it - he or his son or his grandchild dies before that information is transferred. This would mean that this information is lost forever.
Actually, medical researchers have lamented such losses on many occasions. There is ongoing funding of investigation of "folk" medicines, and such studies regularly turn up useful new drugs. But in some cases, the medicines are lost before the investigators can learn about them.
One of the main complaints of th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, if anything goes wrong, the knowledge would be lost forever. This happened with a specific process used to make artificial gemstones(I think rubies). The inventor died without passing it on, and while we've found alternate methods, we've never found [i]his[/i]. The process is unique.
By allowing patents, we get people like him to divulge his or her information in exchange for protection of their patent, allowing them to make money of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By allowing patents, we get people like him to divulge his or her information in exchange for protection of their patent, allowing them to make money off from it in a non-secretive fashion, helping society as a whole.
Perhaps in theory. In practice, he divulges his information in exchange for being told that Merck already patented something that is written ambiguously enough to preclude him from selling his medicine. Or, he sells his rights to someone for $5,000, who then makes billions marketing it to the world. Meanwhile, the medicine now costs $300 and the villagers can no longer afford it.
What incentive does a patent offer some village shaman? Do you think he's going to setup a pharmaceutical lab in his home an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Developing an onnovative new drug costs a LOT of money.
Uhm, developing any product at all costs a lot of money. That does not mean patents promote innovation. Good lord, developing software is extraordinarily costly. Still, I invest in it because people will then give me even more money. Asprin, not patented, makes a lot of money.
Also, that village doctor story... well, he says it works, but how can anyone test it? It's a very flimsy proof that we need a patent system. There are millions of village doctors who have "secret" recipes, and the usual thing i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be silly. You can get human brains anywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be silly. You can get human brains anywhere.
I was going to make a comment about human brains being scarce, but then I realized quite the opposite.
Not only are human brains plentiful, but most will be in new, un-used condition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the formula he uses to cure jaundice is a trade secret. Of course, the implication is that it is not co
Dear Sir, (Score:3, Insightful)
I fail to see where an expired patent makes money for its inventor, licensees or any patent agents. When the invention is no longer monopolised by the patent proprietor, what is its purpose? Its purpose is that anyone can use the invention. Can you please show me how I'm ignorant or where I'm lying?
Re:They can patent that? (Score:5, Informative)
And that, my liege, is why patents were not meant to apply to ideas but to actual inventions.
Having the idea that some elastic stuff would come really handy, but that's just an idea that anyone can come up with. But, on the other hand, the process of vulcanization is an entirely different beast: it can be kept a secret rather effectively and it really takes some hard work (or huge luck) to come up with that.
Re:They can patent that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They can patent that? (Score:5, Insightful)
But currently you can't improve the technology basing on patents they hold, so you can't create competition worth speaking of.
Patents have a relatively short lifespan. But it's not 'I can't produce X because it's patented' that hurts worst. It's 'I can't design, produce and manufacture a far superior Y of which X is a part'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is saying that oil itself is evil (yet), but rather, that the tactics employed by oil companies are designed to stall the use of new energy source for as long as possible.
Evil is a human emotion. Do you really think corporations have human feelings? Bottom lines are what matters.
There's another, less Machiavellian reason: it's good business sense from a strategic point of view. The supermajors are beginning to try and turn themselves around to become "energy companies" instead of "oil companies". See BP's partly-successful greenwashing attempts such as changing their tagline to "Beyond Petroleum".
The writing is on the wall, and they see it. Patents such as these, as well as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Evil is not an emotion. Evil is a social judgment on ones actions, in accords with a value system. Evil, also, can be determined either by motive or effect (depending on what ethical system we are looking at). Thus you setting out to murder a family, but actually curing cancer, can still be evil. Or, you accidentally killing a family while on your way to cure cancer, can be evil.
Though we can, ar
What a ridiculous waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, from TFA:
Industry sources have told SpaceDaily that the patent is regarded as legal "trite", as basic physics has been rebranded as a "process", and that the patent wouldn't stand up to any significant level of court scrutiny and was only registered at the time as "the patent office was incompetent when it came to space matters".
So, it's a moot point. We can't really be sure why SES Americom isn't pursuing this. For all we know, they're confident they'd win---but it might screw their chances for a reasonable settlement on their other suit against Boeing.
Or, maybe, the satellite would have crashed into the sea by the time they got a resolution.
Hopes of Insurance Payout (Score:5, Insightful)
Why operate a satellite for years at diminishing returns when you can get an immediate big payoff? And as a side benefit the blame goes to a competitor whom your are engaged in a lawsuit with. Immoral? Not to them. Just businesses screwing each other. The Insurance company will pass the loss down the chain. Somewhere down the chain I figure I'm going to end up paying in a tax . Especially since the Fed and Congress are into the business of bailing out companies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Surly Boeing doesn't have the ability to track someone else's satellite where ever it is, they could sneak it round, do the flyby, and get it in the right orbit when Boeing aren't looking. What are Boeing going to do, sue them for some shit that happened in space that they can't prove?
Tho given the US legal stsyem, that's still not 100% certain. T totaly avoid any attempt to sue them, they could just start a small holding company in some c
validity Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:2)
In the place where any insurance payout will take place. Very valid probably.
If you read the article you see that SES at this point want the insurance payout and does (pretent) not care for anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Jurisdiction was the first thought that popped into my head
IANALSIIPT(I am not a lawyer specialising in international patent treaties), but it seems to me that they need to source a company prepared to perform the manouvre from a country that does not respect US patents in all their absurtity.
Said company, perhaps owned and operated by a toothless fish monger with excellent business accumen and ability to hire the right people from around the world, and existing for the sole purpose of moving one space veh
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This requires more testing. Send lawyers and rockets, now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not really about patents, but two companies having a scrap and using whatever tools come to hand. However, it does give some insights into the wonderful and wacky world of US patent law.
The internaltional patent treaties require symmetrical rights across internaltional boundaries for the signatories, even though the patent laws of the signatories may not be the same. If a patent can cover something in country A, and cannot in country B, then within country B there is no infringement of that which cannot be patented.
In Europe, for example, we cannot patent business practices, and software patents are being challenged. We canot patent either of these, which also means we cannot apply for a US patent even though the US patent would be valid.
Consequently, an infringement of a US patent has to be found on US soil. Once a case has been found, then the lawysers can ask for (and get) damages that include losses of sales abroad. But without an infringement on US soil, the game doesn't start.
If the Boeing patent was properly worded, then infringement would cover building a craft that could do the patented process, or issuing instructions for the patented process. As the craft was not designed to do this, then SES Americom might get around this by having someone in Europe issue the signals.
Unfortunately, in such cases, neither side in a patent case is likely to get their costs back, so it is often easier to roll over then fight, particularly when one company is smaller than another.
This is what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is what happens... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, SES Americom has the option of selling the satellite to someone who might be able to get the license from Boeing. However, they have chosen to "splash" the satellite and collect their insurance money.
Dirty tricks all around by SES Americom, but less so by Boeing.
Re:This is what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Perfectly good satellite that can be saved or sold, but being dumped for insurance?
Makes no sense.
Abandon patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Satellite to Earth: (Score:5, Funny)
Why doesn't Boeing make it a service (Score:2, Interesting)
While launching a satellite might cost less than the rescue mission, I would think that figuring building another of the doomed satellite into the cost of launching another would make a rescue mission more attractive...
BTW: don't take it too much to heart, I'm only an armchair astronaut...
Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:4, Interesting)
How much did the satellite cost to build and launch? Presumably nowhere near $50m, and the sunk design cost can be reused.
Someone should tell the insurance company that the satellite is savable.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I understood space to be a legal no-man's land
Kind of, but not really. The laws of space are so unclear that a lot of people assume that you can do anything you want there, and no one can stop you because it simply isn't Earth. Alas, this isn't the case. SES Americom is an American and, indeed, Earth-based company, and as such is bound by both American and international law, including those regarding patents.
If I were Boeing's lawyers, I'd argue it this way: Boeing has the patent in America. SES (presumably) operates its satellites from America.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
patent's are only national (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not yours. Go home and cry about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
So this amounts to a patent on moving in a given direction? April first passed by almost two weeks ago. C'mon, guys, bad joke?
Unbelievable. We don't need patent reform, we need an angry mob to storm the USPTO and burn the place to dust, then sift through the dust and re-burn anything left, then haul the entire mess to a live volcano. You just can't have a monopoly on basic physics, Boeing, whether or not the rules allow it. Seriously, grow the fuck up and go back to competing with Airbus on technical merits rather than endless pissing contests with the WTO/WIPO.
Please read whole story before writing summary (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Please read whole story before writing summary (Score:5, Funny)
That's a euphemism for having sex with a pregnant woman. Well, it is now.
Re:Please read whole story before writing summary (Score:4, Funny)
'Splashing the satellite' is having wild and poorly aimed sex with a woman, while her uglier and less popular sister is in an uncomfortably close orbit.
Lunar flyby to fix geostationary orbit problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh?
The moon is about 400,000 km away. If they can perform a flyby, doesn't that mean they've got enough remaining delta-V to slightly increase the radius of their current orbit? Or is it a problem with the orientation of the plane of the orbit?
Re:Lunar flyby to fix geostationary orbit problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lunar flyby to fix geostationary orbit problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory..... (Score:2)
Patent Number..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"A method is provided for using a lunar flyby maneuver to transfer a satellite from a quasi-geosynchronous transfer orbit having a high inclination to a final geosynchronous orbit having a low inclination. The invention may be used to take the inclination of a final geosynchronous orbit of a satellite to zero, resulting in a geostationary orbit, provided that the satellite is launched in March or September."
Alternatively, it might be 6,149,103 which does not have the M
I wonder if the satellite is faulty... (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
a) Industry sources say the patent is basically worthless
b) Americom wants to collect it's insurance
c) Third party goes to insurer, says "We'll buy the satellite and recover it ourselves"
d) Insurer says "No one told us you could recover satellites" so we haven't taken possession of the satellite (if we did, we'd have to worry about getting rid of it, you see). BTW, good risk evaluation & mitigation, guys. I've got a sandcastle I'd like to insure for $50M vs. water damage. Interested?
e) Third party goes to Americom, says "We'll buy the satellite and recover it ourselves"
f) Americom ignores them, meanwhile tries real hard to de-orbit the satellite really quick.
Now, if this were a movie/book, sticking in "QA finds a problem in the satellite before launch, PHB's decide to launch it anyway, have an unfortunate, totally unforeseen and obviously accidental problem, ditch the unit and collect from insurance" somewhere would fit in naturally.
Hollywood is just a French movie's way of reproducing.Well at least they can license (Score:2)
which is much cheaper.
Who else didn't know about this? (Score:3)
Another indication of how broken it all is (Score:2)
Companies now hold more of an interest [wikipedia.org] in the inner [ornl.gov] workings [100777.com] of your own body than you do, and have laid successful claim [patentstorm.us] to elements of orbital mechanics [braeunig.us].
What's next? Patents being issued on the revitalizing and energizing properties of sunshine? The hydrating effects of water?
What are 1000 patent lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Only allow patents on processes not things
2) Only allow patents on processes people can prove they invented (not as now that no-one has yet proved they didn't)
3) Force people to licence patents (i.e. anyone can use it for a fee) and restrict the fee charged so they cannot bury it or skew the market
What are 1000 patent lawyers... (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of kak (Score:2)
This is total and utter nonsense - just friggin move the satelite and prove for once and for all that patents such as these are dumb crap.
There. Said it.
here's the lunar flyby trajectory (Score:5, Informative)
I had that trajectory plot (done with AGI's STK [wikipedia.org], I think) as the desktop image on my computer for 3 years.
Here is what the trajectory looked like [google.com]. The big tradeoff of this method is that you burn most of the satellite's fuel, fuel that was intended to be used over the 15-year life of the sat for stationkeeping. So you end up with a sat in GEO orbit but with much less lifetime. Better than nothing! Well, except for an insurance payout, I guess.
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Want to buy new tag... (Score:2)
Doesn't add up (Score:5, Interesting)
The company is already in court, suing Boeing on an unrelated issue.
But they won't risk violating this terrible patent, why? Clearly they're more than willing to risk a lawsuit from Boeing.
If the patent is so obviously invalid, it won't take much effort to fight and have it invalidated. And on the off chance they fail, they can argue the issue to a judge, who will decide the value of the infringement, as opposed to Boeing, who refuses to budge.
And time on a satellite is very, very expensive, so they will easily be making tens of millions of dollars on the deal, worst case.
This whole story makes no sense. Sounds like something even shadier is going on under the table, and they'd prefer to use this as cover.
"the patent office was incompetent when it came to (Score:3, Insightful)
To "space matters." ??
Some corporate bozo just found out the incompetence of the USTPO isn't just in software patents, it's stupidity crosses ALL boundaries and affects every activity, personal or otherwise.
Giant corporations and multinationals have purchased the USTPO lock, stock and barrel. It's snuggled up in their pockets right next to the USDept Of Justice, our Congress, and those Judges who are given expensive trips to re-educate them in ways they can help corporations circumvent the Sherman-Clayton Anti-Trust Act, and other laws.
Flamebait article (Score:3, Informative)
US patent 6999860 (Score:2)
Why is insurance paying? (Score:4, Interesting)
How this is done with pretty pictures... (Score:4, Interesting)
A CNN article about the procedure and how it was done back when they first tried it.
Re:why don't they just (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Can they really contractually obligate themselves to drop and not refile a lawsuit, though?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why don't they just (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why don't they just (Score:5, Interesting)
No - dumping the satellite and collecting the insurance is the smart thing to do. The satellite was supposed to have a 15 year lifespan. With the reduced fuel after the "patented application", it only has 4 years - so they're only going to get about 1/4 the revenue, and still have to launch another one. In other words, their satellite had already lost 3/4 of its' value no matter what.
Since this is slashdot, let's use a car analogy.
You buy a car, and you expect it to last 15 years (okay, you buy a JAPANESE car, and expect it to last 15 years), for $30k. However, just after you take it off the dealer's lot, it gets pretty much totalled. The insurance company will pay to fix it, but it will never be the same, and they've told you that after 4 years, you'll have to scrap it because the repairs will not last beyond that time. In other words, even after everything is "fixed", you'll have to fork out for another car within 4 years ...
You will have spent $60k for 2 cars, for 19 years of combined service, or more than $3k/year.
Or you can take the insurance payout for the full value and buy another new car that will last 15 years. The new car is, essentially, free, so you $30k investment for 15 years brings your cost down to $2k/year.
Scale up the numbers, and they hold true for the satellite company. Keeping the old one will saddle them with additional capital costs of almost 60%.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An orbit calculation is just (fairly) basic math involving position, velocity and time. Centuries-old math. Basically they patented a specific set of input values to the equations. I call bullshit.
=Smidge=
0|-| 1e|-| |\|03z, the monies. (Score:2)
Then we wouldn't have patents on fly by procedures or other silly things, well a lot more cement blocks. Is that such a bad thing.
Back to reality, what did SES think Boeing was going to do? Just ignore existing litigation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant to say x = sqrt(y^2 + z^2)