NASA To Auction Automated Code Generation Patents 134
coondoggie writes "NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center said it is set to auction an exclusive license to five patents it holds for automated software development on November 11, 2010. NASA said the technology was originally developed to handle coding of control code for spacecraft swarms, but it is applicable to any commercial application where rule-based systems development is used."
i'm sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
i was kind of thinking that since, you know, WE payed NASA to invent stuff.. the public already owned it.
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the public does own that.
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, back on topic, I'm the biggest NASA nerd there is, but software patents are evil, I don't care who owns them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Doh! Missed a chance at a patent. (Score:5, Insightful)
The port for sending commands to a robot was physically missing. The RS232 port was reserved for the terminal. So we connected a serial cable up to the robot controller and a pc. Then we wrote a program that would send the keystrokes to open a file for editing, edit it, save the program, and execute it. So when the pc would get a signal, it would calculate a trajectory for the robot, open the file on the controller, write the program, close it, then run it. Around 10 times a second.
So instead of enhancing everyone's software... (Score:5, Insightful)
.... One company for $250,000 can prohibit the application of this idea to systems that do not pay up.
This is what is wrong with this deal, off the top of my head:
1) NASA would have developed this technology anyway, one must assume, as they haven't auctioned patents in the past (at least, not that I know of). In any case, how could the patent have been a motivator to do the work? Wouldn't it have been the problem they needed to solve? And who believes 250K is enough of a motivator for NASA anyway?
2) Now that we have the innovation done, all the patent is going to do is prevent its application for 20 years
3) Many companies have been generating test cases from Rules for years. Isn't there a prior art issue here?
4) Why should we fund government research only to tie it up with IP on a restrictive basis for only 250K? How is this a good deal for the Tax Payer? (It would be different if the income to government was big enough to offset the Taxes we pay, but this doesn't do that)
5) Software Patents! Evil! They are most certainly a mechanism to patent ideas rather than implementations, as there are far too many ways to implement an algorithm in software to restrict the patent to an actual invention.
Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA hurts it's own reputation horribly by auctioning software patents rather than holding them for the public trust and acknowledging the obvious: software patents are incompatible with a software industry.
They then compound the insult by taking advantage of some suckers paying cash for something that is legally questionable in light of Bilksi and that may soon have explicitly no value at all.
It's an obvious fact. [endsoftpatents.org] The sooner we stop denying it and explicitly repudiate software patents as a matter of policy (as most every advanced nation already does), the sooner the damage to our economy stops.
Re:I should probably rtfa (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks more like they are patenting "nothing much at all." As in, "here are some use cases, here is a state machine that implements them, run our program, find questionable state transitions, ask users to decide what happens in those cases. Repeat until you have a complete formal spec."
This looks more like a case of a small group of people trying to justify their continued employment by pointing to their patents/minor revenue generated as evidence that they are doing something useful and so should not be laid off.
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't. It would be better to put the code, or any patent, into public domain for US citizens. That way I, or anyone, can use ti as a foundation for innovation and new business; which in turn generate more tax dollars.
The US gets a huge ROI from NASA.
Don't like it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Email your rep. I did. Be clear and stay on this specific issues. Do not drift into a patents are evil rant. save that for a different email. Explain why you feel the patents should be made public and not auctioned.
It just so happens that my rep is on the Committee for science and technology. But let them know.
Re:A little homework... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that means you, or I, could use the software as the foundation for a new company. we could compete in the market, and yes, maybe make billions. But then that would generate more taxes.
Right now, someone is going to buy those patents and make money. All funded by you and me.
More people will start more business and generate more tax revenue. NASA selling patents is only going to give the people that want NASA cut an incentive to disproportional cut it's budget.
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you hadn't noticed, the government was purchased by a consortium of corporations when Reagan got elected.
Nothing new to see here. Move along folks. Move along....
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you make $100 million you pay a higher number of dollars but a smaller portion relative to your income.
No don't quote tax rates at me. There are a million and one tax tricks and shelters the wealthy utilize to shrink their income on paper to almost nothing. If there is anyone reporting $100 million who didn't make at least a couple billion then I'm the pope.
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is the top 1% used to pay 60% so their share of the taxes has been cut in half. The fact is that the top 10% have over 95% of the wealth so they SHOULD be paying 95% of all taxes.
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Ok, so I see this a lot but what never seem to be mentioned is what percentage of total income is make by the people in those upper brackets. "
That is because it is difficult to generate those numbers. The best you can do is find what they reported. What is called tax evasion for you and I is called tax planning for them. There isn't anyone in the top 1% who is paying taxes on even 1% of the money they make.
Instead you look at total wealth and they hold well over 95% of the wealth in this nation.
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
Both sides like to slant that information to their own perspective, usually by mixing percentages and hard numbers inappropriately -- making the data say whatever they want. The same information could just as easily say that the richest Americans pay tax at only 10% (or whatever) -- by ignoring the actual dollar contributions, they paint "The Rich" as getting off easy.
The slant on that blog post is a bit misleading in the other direction in saying the bottom 50% pay almost no taxes though -- 2-3% of the national tax bill isn't the same as saying 2-3% income tax rate; if you're paying 15% of 40k a year, that's not "almost nothing" to you.
Re:i'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is the top 1% used to pay 60% so their share of the taxes has been cut in half.
Citation? Remember we're talking about total tax dollars received here, not income tax
The fact is that the top 10% have over 95% of the wealth so they SHOULD be paying 95% of all taxes.
This has little to do with tax on annual income. Further: you're saying that mere act of having a lot of "wealth" should be punishable by giving it to the government? For that matter, who gets to define "a lot" and what the threshold is?
It's a sad state of affairs when there's a need to defend somebody wanting to keep substantially more of his own income than he gives to the government.
this is why WE should own the researcher's IP (Score:3, Insightful)
"WE" paid for the research, so WE should own the intellectual property. We paid for it. If the Universities want to own it outright, don't take public money!