Slashdot Mirror
NASA Patents To Be Auctioned
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."
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.
Those patents belong to the American people!
The results of taxpayer-funded research need to be made freely available, not sold to the highest bidder.
Why not release into the public domain?
So NASA gets a couple of pennies while anyone who wants to use the technology gets their pocketbooks pillaged?
Am I understanding that right?
Wait a second. Wasn't it my taxes that paid for the research that led to those patents? They should release the patents to the public that paid for them. I can understand wanting to raise funds, but not if it means that the patents will end up being abused by some random patent troll to stifle innovation.
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?
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
NASA is a government agency, it is funded by taxpayers money. All research by NASA and patents they own should be in the public domain, it belong to the people.
They cant just auction them away. The work was made by a government agency, so it belongs to the people!
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?
For copyrightable material, "Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation."
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.
Gee, we paid for these patents. The end result of this will be higher prices when consumers end up using the results of this technology.
If they wanted to promote technology, they should put these in the public domain; but instead they've opted to make some more money by screwing the people who provided the funding in the first place.
This is also what Universities have been doing with public money and the patents they come up there, over the last 20 years. Which has lead, IMO, to less innovation (and a few richer professors). So, while NASA isn't alone here, the entire US government has plunged headfirst into doing their best to stifle innovation, and worsening the common good, all in the name of a few quick bucks.
If today's stock market action is any indication, this whole steaming mess is about to come crashing down. But with NASA and the Universities approach, it will stay down for quite a while.
When will they get it that the economy is better off by increasing innovation, rather than hindering it?
Thank G*d we still have OSS left.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
\u262D = \u5350
Item is of fantastic quality! The packaging was notably fine. Swift to send. A+++
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 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.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
... that was part of the SCO scam?
Great.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
by liscencing them?
Correct me if im wrong but since when did NASA fund its own research instead of receiving enormous sums of money from the taxpayers? From where i stand this does look like NASA wants to cash in twice. US taxpayers have already paid for the patents once.
These patents should be free to use for Americans but by all means use them competitively against the rest of us.
HTTP/1.1 400
I don't suppose anyone knows when those patents were granted and how many years before they expire. If Engulf-And-Devour, Inc. wants to pay for a patent that's got three years left on the clock, that doesn't seem quite as bad as EAD, Inc. snapping up a patent on a technology or process that has 15 years left on it.
... put 'em in the public domain and ask for donations? They've already been paid for by the tax payers... our band usually makes more money at gigs where we ask for donations than at those where we charge for admission. Just a thought.
If NASA patents to be auctioned, does it mean that my parents will have to pay NASA if they want to auction me?
'Government' makes it sound like you're talking about something somehow different or greater then yourself.
I mean, the people did the research, which was funded by...the people and now a small group of people want to sell it to private interests. Sometimes people need to remind people who and what their government is for. Sometimes we even need to remind ourselves.
Quack, quack.
Patents, schmatents.
I want to bid for the Aliens that NASA secretly captured!
Well, some Alien technology would be cool, too.
Does the US Patent Office have jurisdiction over Alien Intellectual Property?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
this is our property.
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.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Experience has shown us that the correct way to make money off unexploited patents is to sue people in the Eastern District of Texas.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Shotgun velcro!!!
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
What if patent trolls buy them and wait for someone to use a similar technology then sue? This would be HUGELY counter productive, I hope they prevent this from happening.
Farnsworth: "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in... get the hell off my property!"
Free Waterfall Junior: "You can't own property, man."
Farnsworth: "I can. But that's because I'm not a penniless hippie."
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Mr. Malackowski's donation record: http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=60657&last=Malackowski&first=James
Like the others, NASA should license the patent and collect revenues. Selling it outright is simply giving it away.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
"Maybe NASA is planning on paying us back?"
Free Tang for everyone!
Oh no. I'm not falling for that again. Still paying for the last "Free Tang" I was offered.
If a pig farmer gets a subsidy, you can't go take a pig.
Of course not. Because there isn't one. Because they paid them to NOT raise pigs...
Sheesh, come on people, don't you know how pig farmer subsidies work?!
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Actually this could be quite sensible and in the interests of the public.
Licensing patents means doing it as a business. Public sector bodies are notoriously bad at business. Much more efficient to make one effort to get a good value from trading the tech.
The proceeds of the sale will go back to NASA but then the government cuts their budget. One way or another the funds get back to the taxpayer. Yes, you may pay for the technology 'again' by means of consumer product, but by then you've already had an indirect refund from the first time you paid.
As would ordinarily be expected in a commercial transaction, NASA would sell the patent but retain royalty free usage rights. Alternatively they could set the royalty rate but of course only if the increased value of the trade exceeds the cost of the royalties.
Assuming NASA complete the process correctly, the consideration is whether society benefits more from open and free use of the technology, or from the sale proceeds. Discussion here has argued the former, without citing any basis for either the specifics or the principle.
In some situations, free use tech allows a free innovation with it. In others, the zero barrier to entry could make any further investment in the technology very risky. The temporary monopoly aspect of patents is required because when a competitor follows, they do not repeat your expensive mistakes. Having a few patents does not mean everything else will follow perfectly.
I'm not trying to argue the auction is a good thing, but that the numerous arguments posted stating it can only be a bad thing are utterly flawed. There's not nearly enough information to decide either way.
If it is full rights, then NASA will start getting sued for infringing on the patents when they build a space craft.
Does anyone have a list of the patents numbers?
Some of the space based GPS stuff already has prior art and I expect all 6 of them can be broken before the auction.
US Government research belongs to the citizens of the US. If they want to license these patents internationally, great but they need to go to great lengths to ensure that US citizens don't pay twice.
Maybe the EFF should see if they can get this reconsidered.
Your cut is a wealthier NASA.
Patents exist to promote scientific advance.
The science has already been advanced. Dedicate the patents to the public, and let them work toward future advances based on those patents. If someone wants to try and sell you a system based on those patents, they deserve the benefit of competition.
They are going to need to sell a lot more of these to fulfill their goal of putting George Bush on Mars by 2020.
Squirrel!
Is that like how the FCC auctioning off the public airwaves to the same telco cartel makes us a wealthier FCC?
Why are you surprised???
Since when would this matter to Bush and his greedy cronies? Some of Bush's buddies will make a lot of money and McCain will be able to say "I know nothing, nothing..." while dressed as Sgt. Schultz.
Not the first time. A number of years ago George Bush approved the conversion of a generic prescription drug (five manufacturers) on the market for over 40 years [that I'm dependent on] to one of his 'pals'. It became an over-the-counter product with only one manufacturer at only .25 and .50 the dose. This item went from $5 for a 90 day supply to $30 for a two week supply; I'll leave the rest of the math to you. Oh yes, no longer available in bulk at all.
"Healthcare Reform"
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
The only news here is the Ocean Tomo partnership. NASA has had an office specifically to sell its patents for decades. I used to subscribe to their magazine.
As for the comics, isn't this just a spiffy bit of journalistic disinegnuity? After figuring it out, I still hit speed bumps when reading it: "...which NASA wants to leverage in commercializing its technology." Yeah, well, "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
A relative of mine was one of two scientists on a NASA patent a while back, I believe in this field.
Wasn't NASA funded using US tax dollars when these patents were granted ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
It looks like the headline is a bit misleading, according to this release at NASA they are licensing and not selling the patents. Still, as inventions created with public money they should be available to all.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/ocean_tomo.html
If you've got concerns here are the people to contact:
Darryl Mitchell at 301-286-5169 or Darryl.R.Mitchell@nasa.gov or Connie Chang at 240-482-8204 or cchang@oceantomo.com
Fearing Election Loss, Republicans Dump Govt Property while there's time.
Just imagine giving the rights of ownership of these patents to the patent trolls. They will be suing the entire industry until the expiry date of these patents.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Let's take a look.$75K min bid: 6,211,822; 6,278,404; 6,593,879; 6,594,582; 6,760,664; 6,844,856.
Right in the first patent listed (and I suspect, the rest):
The invention described herein was made by employees of the United States Government, and may be manufactured and used by or for the Government for governmental purposes without the payment of any royalties thereon or therefor.
-- so, if "the taxpayer" wants to use the invention for the benefit of "the taxpayer" (e.g. on some future spacecraft).. there's no fees due.
OTOH, a private company will have to license it (just as they would now, without the auction)
I want more.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
What, you think "The People" should benefit or something?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
As somebody who is a contractor for NASA you should see all the shady stuff the lawyers come up with to get around their "public domain problem".
A common tactic is to hire a contractor (like me), have the company they are working for claim copyright, then have that company transfer the claim to NASA. This is to use a loophole that takes advantage of the fact that government agencies can own copyright, but not create it.
The new one they've come up with how is to copyright things as "Copyright by United States Government as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (You'll see this one on WorldWind). I'm not sure about the legalese of it, but I'm assuming it's some loophole due to the NASA administrator being a political appointee that would allow them to assign copyright to him.
They used public monies to develop those patents, they should release the pattented material to the public domain! -D
What a righteous and beautiful thought, man. Took me back to the olden days of my youth. Thank-you.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I'm guessing that the fraction of a percent which is the profits on our investment will have many zeros between the decimal point and the significant digits.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Wikipedia
The government always sells the patents for the cheap, and then the company forces us to pay crazy prices for the product. In this case, the patent started with the implementation of the drug into a treatment. It was patented for 41 years after discovery, instead of 17.
D:
One of the big success stories from the agriculture department (I think) decades back was the development of the low temperature processing of orange juice to make concentrate. It spawned a whole industry benefitting the whole country (and world). No patents or royalties, we the people just got to enjoy orange juice year round.
I have moral problems with the government getting patents in the first place, sort of a conflict of interest there...
Should be public domain, publish it to make it public domain.
...on Teflon... that could be lucrative... Okay, I'm going to drool over MAVEN
This useless space for sale, inquire at front desk.
1) Bid on NASA-funded technology patents.
2) Sue NASA for patent infringement.
3) Profit.
The proceeds need to go back into the social security system, the government needs to start paying back what they borrowed for the war.
Robber Barrons.
This is more of the SAME THEFT under the religion of "free market." I bet you that most americans think most discovery comes from the "market" -- after all, the establishment has been advertising the superiority of their belief system for a few generations.
Those who do not UNDERSTAND history are doomed to repeat it. Next up: The Fall of the Roman Empire or Fall of British Empire?
Against the war= you hate the troops ...
Against corrupt officials= you hate the country
Against greedy banks= you hate the economy
Against deregulation= you hate the Capitalism/America (they conflate them)
Against anarchist healthcare= you hate the insured
Against Sara Palin= you are sexist
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
...but it would seem logical that the same would apply to patents.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
is that whenever we need to defend the need of an expensive space agency, we always use the argument "well, look at all the great stuff that has been invented in the process of doing this". Unfortunately, it would seem that this argument might not be very convincing to others eager to cut our space and science budgets in the future if we start hording and privatizing these inventions and not giving them back to the public.
Ballistic is 2000fps or so. I think if it's from the moon it's somewhat faster but the math escapes me. So how much energy would say 20 payloads of 2,000lbs each deliver to the earth if nudged barely enough to get there from the moon's orbit? We'll assume that the Mike the supercomputer is doing the nudging.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Wouldn't it be better to collect Licensing Fees on those Patents? Selling them off is not such a good idea in the long run. Seeing as how industries like to inflate costs based on holding patent rights, I find this a bad idea. It's akin to Privitizing Social Security. By the way how's all that, "Let that Market regulate itself", talk working out for you?
-Eric