Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Accused of Stealing Balloon Network Tech Behind Project Loon (thestack.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the stolen-trade-secrets dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Google's parent company Alphabet has found itself faced with a lawsuit, which claims that the tech giant stole the idea behind its Wi-Fi-emitting balloon network, Project Loon. The Space Data Corporation of Chandler, Arizona, filed the suit and is arguing that it currently holds patents for a balloon-based system which carries broadband antennae to create a wireless network to deliver data services to U.S. armed forces and across remote areas of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. The organization is seeking damages for two counts of patent infringement, as well as two counts of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of written contract. Space Data says in their complaint that they had med with as many as 10 Google representatives, including Larry Page and Sergey Brin, in 2007 and 2008 to discuss potential partnerships. They say Google did not agree with the collaboration, and chose to steal trade secrets and start developing their own balloon network in 2011 instead. "Project Loon improperly and unlawfully utilizes Space Data's confidential information and trade secrets which Space Delta disclosed to Defendant Google pursuant to a 2007 Mutual Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement," the complain states.

33 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. And now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...Google will just lawyer up until the plaintiff company shrivels from legal expenses (see: Rambus VS. Samsung, Micron, Hynix). Then we'll know why they changed their "Do No Evil" motto.

    1. Re:And now... by Immerman · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'd love to know what "trade secrets" they're claiming were violated. I mean the idea itself wasn't exactly secret, and it seems like there'd be a very limited and fairly obvious number of ways to provide navigation and power, establish a mesh network between balloons, etc.

      Of course, presumably they're using trade secret protection because it's not something that could be patented, so probably it's not a technological aspect... which makes me even more curious. I mean you're floating balloons across the country, landing them to drive them back upwind, and repeating the process. Or did they do station-keeping, I forget. Either way it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of room for industry-defended secret techniques.

      Of course, if *I* knew then it wouldn't be a trade secret, and they probably wouldn't have a case worth bringing.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:And now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd love to know what "trade secrets" they're claiming were violated. I mean the idea itself wasn't exactly secret, and it seems like there'd be a very limited and fairly obvious number of ways to provide navigation and power, establish a mesh network between balloons, etc.

      I'm no fan of Google, but "a balloon-based system which carries broadband antennae" is just not an invention deserving of a patent. This is just another stupid patent that never should have been approved.

    3. Re:And now... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Certain ideas seem obvious that perhaps are only obvious in hindsight because we think they should be obvious, but in reality, no one had seriously considered the idea until someone actually took the time to think it out and maybe test it.

      It depends very much on how much work they did on this. Balloon wireless may not be a hard idea to think up, but the engineering needed to make it feasible may be at least a little challenging. If it's just a crayon drawing of Linksys router attached to a party balloon floating around the sky, then yeah, not really a big deal.

    4. Re:And now... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I read a science fiction story a couple decades ago that had network and phone communications being sent by a floating station. So the basic idea had been considered and thought out by at least one popular author, and all the people who read his works.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re: And now... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      So their motto used to be Do No Evil and now it's "Do No Evil"?

      now it's "No, Do Evil"...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re:And now... by EEPROMS · · Score: 4, Informative
      It has, various military forces have been using balloons for communications since 1916. A balloon is an easy way of broadcasting over the horizon/hills.

      The direction-finding system, which relied on very sensitive receivers, was developed by Captain Henry Joseph 'HJ' Round (1881-1966) of British Military Intelligence, on secondment from the Marconi Company, where he had worked since 1902. Round – later also an IEE member – was a pioneer of the use of electronics. By 1916 he had developed a wireless set weighing 57lb, which was light enough for observation balloons on the Western Front for intelligence gathering

    7. Re: And now... by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      So their motto used to be Do No Evil and now it's "Do No Evil"?

      now it's "No, Do Evil"...

      Put the word "good" in front of it, and then pretend you're The Character Formerly Known as Durkon.

      "Good; do no evil" becomes
      "Good? Do no. Evil."

    8. Re:And now... by eionmac · · Score: 1

      Chinese used a man on a kite long before balloon technology, call it an early tethered air powered device broadcasting info was limited to recovery of a live body or "real broadcasting' by voice (slogan / shouting)

      --
      Regards Eion MacDonald
  2. Up in the air by bongey · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is up in the air to who will win this lawsuit.

    1. Re:Up in the air by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      We should go back to classic resolution of disagreements. Pellet guns at 50 meters. The first balloon down loses.

      You`ll put your eye out with that, kid.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  3. because so special transmitting above the surface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Special snow flakes were the specialest firstest people to think to put signals up high. Firstest all must pay. Pay the precious. Bad hobbitses hobbitses only put base station underground. Never think of baloon or tree. All must pay. Satellites just copying baloons. Special snow flakes precious IPR. Kill the hobbits. Kill Kill kill.

  4. Such a patent, I'm sure by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of "x...but on the Internet", it's probably just "x...but with balloons".

    1. Re:Such a patent, I'm sure by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Actually, when Google's endeavor was announced, I was surprised how similar it was to someone else who had been in the market for since around 2005. I think I actually read about them on /., although this company name doesn't ring any bells.

      Google (and all large companies) operate this way all the time; vendor comes in thinking they have hit the jackpot, but company just co-opts the information and technology if their lawyers say they can get away with it.

  5. modus operandi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...or something... (posting AC because I don't feel like going through pw recovery)

    I worked for a company that was approached by google with an interest in our VOIP technology... We were all giddy because it seemed like the big "G" was in talks to buy us and our technology. There were NDA's signed, and access to our source tree was enthusiastically granted and Google engineers poured over our source code for a week.... Shortly thereafter, they declared they were not interested in purchasing us.. Lo-behold, not long after "Google Voice" was born with technology similar to our own...

    We all felt duped but I'm sure it was all on the up-n-up...

    1. Re: modus operandi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, they were working on their own technology internally 'similar' to yours and mined your implementation to be sure no viable threat existed before ratcheting up funding? In this case signing an NDA is a *fantastic* price to pay for full access to the internal workings of a competing product (worthy or not).

      I'm just playing Devils Advocate but I do know this situation occurs far more often than most would believe.

    2. Re:modus operandi by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lo-behold, not long after "Google Voice" was born with technology similar to our own...

      Google Voice was a rebranding of a company Google purchased, Grand Central.

      https://techcrunch.com/2009/03/11/grand-central-to-finally-launch-as-google-voice-its-very-very-good/

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:modus operandi by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      Actually they didn't... I interviewed for a position at a company that handles all of the backend VoIP for Google... they may have been talking / looking at more than 1 company at the same time. (Didn't get the job darnit... )

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    4. Re: modus operandi by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I would think the opposite situation is more dangerous, you review something under NDA but the features/quality/price isn't right then a few years later you want to make something in the same ballpark and you get sued. If developing it in-house still is an option I wouldn't do it, only if you were trying to pick which third party to buy. Then you have a plausible excuse that yes, we bought your competitor and of course their technology is fairly similar to yours but nothing illegal happened here. Even though I'm sure someone took notes on what features they were missing that could be added to the company they did buy.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:modus operandi by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Did you have the NDAs signed with "representatives of Google Corp", or individually and personally signed by each person to who you gave access to your source code, with dire warnings of personal liability etc. Or did you get NDAs signed by both groups?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. New motto by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Google's new motto: "Don't get caught"

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:New motto by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Google's new motto: "Don't get caught"

      Sadly, you couldn't be more wrong here.

      This is the problem with mega-corporations. They now simply don't give a shit if they get caught stealing IP, because they already know the little guy doesn't have the endless funds to feed a legal battle (for years if necessary).

      And even if they are ultimately found liable, the "punishments" are a pathetic joke that management pays with pocket change.

      TL; DR - Google's new motto: "Fuck You Very Much and Have a Nice Day"

  7. 99 luftballons by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    prior art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  8. Re: because so special transmitting above the surf by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    Wow. Googles shills have really gone downhill since they relocated their HQ to Mordor.

    True, but the view from the top of the new HQ building is smokin'...
    http://www.dylancolestudio.com/Matte/ROTK/images/555p5_6_MP_4k_v01.jpg
    * Smokin' view only available to Boss

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  9. Re:Ad quality Slashdot! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Did she get married?

  10. Re:Ad quality Slashdot! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Maybe if you stopped Googling her, she would stop appearing in targeted advertising.

  11. Considering it's a step back from 1929 by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Considering it's less advanced than an airship from 1929 what is the big deal here?

    1. Re:Considering it's a step back from 1929 by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Arguably it was innovative at the time it was developed-- a low-cost network that can be easily hoisted in different locations as weather patterns dictate. The competing ideas were much more along the line of high endurance drones with 25-72 hours loiter above an area. The ballon solutions were not only more elegant, they provided a robust and economically viable strategy.

    2. Re:Considering it's a step back from 1929 by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Until a storm front comes through.
      Then it's back to the drawing board and playing catchup with something from 1929.

    3. Re:Considering it's a step back from 1929 by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Actually, the weather prediction handles that; loss of one ballon resulted in degredation of service. Balloons weren't that expensive in the first place.

    4. Re:Considering it's a step back from 1929 by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Hence the words "storm front" wiping out a lot over several states and not a storm wiping out a few in a small area. Current balloons are very fragile, even more so than Italian technology of the 1920s let alone rigid stuff.

  12. History sure has is merit by recharged95 · · Score: 2

    Flashback to 1997, I recall working in a startup where we were partnered w/Orbital (in VA/Chandler Az) on a high altitude system using airships (balloons) as an alternative to Orbcomm and Iridium back in the day. The transceivers were to handle IP traffic. OSC was to supply the electronics, and we teamed with Gore Industries for the airships (to be flown at 120000ft) since Gore was the main vendor for materials on those high alt balloon experiments. The effort of course, collapsed with the space industry at the time. Looking at the people involve, Space Data has merit in the idea, but NDAs w/Google is another investigation that will determined this lawsuit's outcome.

    Those were fun days, the Internet was just ramping up from dial up, Iridium was driving great ideas in the space communications industry and mobile phones were taking off.

    Funny thing was back then, our balloon competitor was Alexander Haig and his odd partner-- and tackling regulations to get their balloon system off the ground via gov't permission instead of focusing on tech.

    Fun days I sure miss...

  13. and it's over... by t8z5h3 · · Score: 1

    buyout in 3...2...1... google jest put out the press release.