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.
Re:why don't they just (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why don't they just (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is what happens... (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.
method patent (Score:1, Informative)
You might do better with ski jump instructions or methods of arranging sails for maneuver on the high seas. A maneuver in space is still just a maneuver and a patent on that looks silly when you take it out of the heavens and put it into situations most of us are familiar with.
Please read whole story before writing summary (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lunar flyby to fix geostationary orbit problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Lunar flyby to fix geostationary orbit problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:2, Informative)
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. All the work being done in order to use the patent is being done in America (i.e. reading the procedure, making the calculations, sending directions to the satellite). Ergo, the patent is being used in America, even if the end result of the patent (the 'lunar flyby process') is in space.
What one has to remember is that space is actually pretty tightly bound by national laws. Because no one can say who it belongs to, the Americans just treat it like it's part of America, and the Russians like it's part of Russia. Out of convenience, American companies operating in space are subject to American law, and those of their home states. This is the de facto position, of course, and de jure there really are no laws. Your activities in space are, for legal purposes, domestic activities because you rarely actually act in space; you send orders to objects that tell them to take actions. Even if you were to somehow act illegally in space, if you returned to America you'd be subject to American law, under federal jurisdiction.
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.
Re:method patent (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't. Here's the USPTO page. OMG...
Patent Granted: Tarzan Swinging [uspto.gov]
Flamebait article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lunar flyby to fix geostationary orbit problem? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
pharma wants no cure - it wants subscription (Score:2, Informative)
The FDA will side with pharma companies, as it has been doing for decades.
Re:They can patent that? (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 off from it in a non-secretive fashion, helping society as a whole. Beyond that, setting terms and time limits is 'tweaking' the formula to try to gain maximum benefit.
Re:Soylent Green is People... (Score:1, Informative)