SpaceX Challenges Blue Origin Patents Over Sea-Landing Rocket Tech

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Challenges Blue Origin Patents Over Sea-Landing Rocket Tech

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 2, 2014 @06:45AM from the system-and-method-for-not-quite-slipping-the-surly-bonds-of-earth dept.

speedplane writes: Last week, Elon Musk's SpaceX fired two challenges (PDFs) at Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin over U.S. Patent 8,678,321, entitled "Sea landing of space launch vehicles and associated systems and methods." The patent appears to cover a method of landing a rocket on a floating platform at sea. In their papers, SpaceX says that "by 2009, the earliest possibly priority date listed on the face of the patent, the basic concepts of 'rocket science' were well known and widely understood. The "rocket science" claimed in the '321 patent was, at best, 'old hat[.]'" Blue Origin has approximately three months to file a preliminary response to the challenge. You can review the litigation documents here and here. (Disclosure: I run the website hosting several of the above documents.)

19 of 75 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Would it really be worse without patents? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-02 06:48 · Score: 2

I mean, I understand the idea of rewarding people for inventing useful things, but is it really worth all the nonsense actual inventors have to suffer these days?
1. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by alvinrod · 2014-09-02 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Probably not, but the typical counter argument is that if there's no protections at all the little guys can be immediately squashed by the existing industry titans who can use their existing infrastructure advantages to crush any new-comers who lack any legal protection for their inventions.
  
  Of course the counter-counter argument is that the patent laws are so bad that this is happening anyway because trolls can threaten anyone with millions of dollars in legal expenses over a patent that's not terribly good (or possibly even relevant to the case at all) which ends up crushing the new-comers anyways.
  
  There's probably a happy middle-ground, but most people are too firmly in one camp or another to ever try to compromise and the government in general cares so little about the issue that they won't bother to develop a fix, and even if there's a perfectly good system that someone conceives and then proves (by some rigorous method) to be an ideal solution, there will still be someone who complains because the current system suits them better and they can probably buy a Congress critter or three, so good luck there.
  
  However, the unwritten rule seems to be that the litigation will drag on for so long, that you may as well just knowingly infringe, even if it's a perfectly good and reasonable patent, simply because the opportunity to gain industry position and reach the point where you can throw your own weight around is worth far more than the actual costs your company will actually incur once the legal dust settles. For example, Apple and Samsung are still fighting over phones that have in some cases been off the market for years at this point and it could be several years before each side has exhausted all of their appeals, countersuits, motions to complain (or whatever the actual legal term might be), etc.
2. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by rahvin112 · 2014-09-02 07:33 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It costs about 3 million dollars to take a patent case to court. No small business with a patent that's being violated can sue the big boys over patents because they can't afford the legal expenses. My uncle ran a business that sold a patented item to the mining business. Because the business was small they contracted with a larger company to produce the product using the small business input materials. The bigger business would routinely produce the patented item using the small business materials and was selling them in direct competition to the small business.
  No matter how loud or how threatening my Uncle could be would intimidate the larger business because the lawsuit would bankrupt the smaller business and they'd just buy them out cheaper than their value (they told him as much when he was trying to stop them). There was literally nothing he could do because the value of the goods though a lot of money to the small business wasn't anywhere near the cost of the suit. The larger business made a point of producing just a small enough number of items for themselves that it would never be enough money to draw a lawyer in on contingency. Because they were pretty much the only company in the US that could produce the items he was screwed either way.
  Like much of the legal system in this country it's become too expensive and too complicated for small businesses to go after larger ones. This applies especially to patents. Patents are not being used by small inventors.
3. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by wiredlogic · 2014-09-02 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  Patents are still useful for small businesses because it provides protection against someone else coming along and patenting your product after the fact. This is more important than ever now that the US has abandoned the first-to-invent principle to determine patent validity.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
4. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-09-02 08:51 · Score: 2
  
  Patents are supposed to be for inventions, not just "useful things".
  
  The problems we have been experiencing have not been due to the idea of patents, they are due to deliberate abuse of the patent system, and the relative incompetence of patent examiners today.
  
  ANY system I am aware of can be abused. That doesn't mean the concept of the system is invalid.
  
  Just like corporations today have abused their corporate money to lobby Congress and form virtual monopolies and oligopolies. That doesn't mean the concept of capitalism is flawed. It's a pretty good analogy. Actual capitalism requires antitrust laws, and requires them to be enforced. Lack of enforcement doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the idea of capitalism, it just means the politicians are corrupt bastards. Two different things.
  
  In the same way, giving patents to shysters isn't attributable to the concept of patents. It just means the system isn't functioning the way it was designed to function. It functioned just fine for a very long time.
5. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by TheDarkMaster · 2014-09-02 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  You completely ignored the crux of the problem: For the small inventor file lawsuits against patent infringement, he must pay. And need to pay a lot, probably more than he will see in life being a small inventor.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
6. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by drinkypoo · 2014-09-02 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Patents are still useful for small businesses because it provides protection against someone else coming along and patenting your product after the fact.
  Not really. They grant patents which conflict with existing patents all the time, and you still need to be able to take a suit to court to prove that the subsequent patent should not have been granted, which means you still need millions of dollars in your legal fund.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by Ksevio · 2014-09-02 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  You're saying patents are useful because they prevent people from patents? I think I can see a solution that could fix this issue - better patent it right away!
8. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by queazocotal · 2014-09-02 11:36 · Score: 2
  
  'Patents are supposed to be for inventions, not just "useful things".'
  Quite.
  Patents were originally meant to be a trade - you got protection in exchange for showing how your device worked that may take months or years to reinvent.
  You should never, ever be able to get a patent for being the first to come up with a problem, and doing the obvious solution.
  This is especially the case if that solution took you less time than a full and proper patent search to see if that solution was already patented.
  If that is the case, the patent system is _completely_broken_.
  I can see the argument for patents that have some extreme and brilliant novelty to them.
  But patents that are basically obvious restatements of the problem that the designer was facing - followed by the obvious solution - should result in the applicant getting set on fire.
9. Re:Would it really be worse without patents? by currently_awake · 2014-09-02 13:50 · Score: 2
  
  We should replace the patent system with a mandatory royalty system. You invent something, everyone can use your discovery but they must pay royalties to you for a fixed time period.
Bezos? Patent troll? by MAXOMENOS · 2014-09-02 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whodathunk?

--
Finding God in a Dog
Learn from History, Please by Tokolosh · 2014-09-02 07:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
1. Re:Learn from History, Please by TheDarkMaster · 2014-09-02 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  Is the "american way". Stealing ideas, patent them and then force everyone to pay to use their "innovations".
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
2. Re:Learn from History, Please by Solandri · 2014-09-02 08:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The USPTO really needs to insist that patents be for an implementation of an idea, not the general concept. That was the problem with the Wright Brothers' patent - it basically covered the concept of moving surfaces as flight controls, even though the Wright Brothers' implementation via wing warping was something nobody else did nor does today. It hindered U.S. development of aircraft enough that by the time WWI came about, the U.S. was technologically behind the rest of the world partly because of the patent.
  
  Likewise, if Bezos wants to patent an implementation of landing a rocket at sea, by all means he should be free to do so. But he should not be able to patent the concept of landing a rocket at sea.
Even if the patent is thrown out . . . by DickBreath · 2014-09-02 07:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Even if the patent is thrown out, another way that SpaceX can be harmed is by states forcing SpaceX to sell through dealers.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Bob Truax did it by TheCarp · 2014-09-02 08:06 · Score: 2

The proper term for something that you want to sell at an extraordinary price because it is meant to be used "at sea" is "Marine", it works similarly to the word "Bridal" in that adding it to a product instantly increases its salable value.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:A true Clash of the Douchebags by Talderas · 2014-09-02 08:33 · Score: 2

Musk is pursuing technologies that will, arguably, make our world better.
Bezos is a profit hound seeking to maximize revenue by driving further consumerism.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Interesting problem with water landing -- wind by Thagg · 2014-09-02 08:42 · Score: 2

A big challenge for water landing will be wind during the descent of the rocket. If the wind is blowing 100 miles an hour for a minute as the rocket is falling, then it's going to be dragged a mile from the ballistic landing point. (When things move quickly through the air, the lift generated by wind is extremely high; bullets move with the wind.) I don't believe that the booster will have the capacity to fly horizontally too far, and it won't be firing at all for the bulk of the descent.
If the wind could be predicted accurately, it would be easy enough to steer the rocket to the right place -- or move the landing platform to the right place.
If you're landing back at the launch pad; there will have been a rocket that could have sampled the wind speed just a few minutes previously, so you could have very precise wind speed vs. altitude data.

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Oh...fuck...you...Bezos. by Rick+in+China · 2014-09-02 18:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

If human expansion into space is thwarted by broad patents, I have nothing more than a big fuck you on behalf of humanity for those who sit on given patents.
Why oh why isn't the patent system getting a massive overhaul: the world has changed ffs.