5 ms·

Maybe I'm just disregarding a lot of patent law, but wouldn't it be a better plan to just have all NASA patents open to anyone? Sort of like the Tesla model wi

Maybe I'm just disregarding a lot of patent law, but wouldn't it be a better plan to just have all NASA patents open to anyone? Sort of like the Tesla model with patents. i.e. Let's build a docking mechanism that all private companies will use as well because engineers have poured many hours into it and let's not re-invent the wheel. This provides a better outcome for both the governmental agency and private companies. In the end, NASA's money is the public's money, sure it doesn't come directly from a private company all the time, but it will come from the individuals who make up that private company. This will keep NASA innovating things that may have no commercial value, but also allow for more partnerships among private companies and NASA.

kirk21 11y ago
You can ask the same question about universities. They are also quite aggressive when it comes to patenting. Some even bully researchers that want to start their own company to sign licensing deals.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
I completely agree with you. There should be zero licensing cost for patents created by a public agency. I don't know why it's the way it is and I'm going to assume it's just another way for them to make money and fund other stuff which I kinda understand but that can also stagnate things. I've worked with public agencies before and multiple times we were mandated by freaking congress to open source our work for anyone to use and we were contractors working for a public agency. Charging licensing fees to a public agency seems insane to me.
jonwachob91 11y ago
From my limited understanding: NASA doesn't make any revenue on the licensing agreements; all earnings go to the Dept. of Treasury. I imagine it would take a legislative / executive vote to open the patents for free to use. That being said, it'd be an interesting economic impact study if all patents were free to use, as long as used by US registered companies and manufactured in the US.
- speby 11y ago
  Of course, if outside entities got ahold of any of them, what actually stops them from using it?
  - jonwachob91 11y ago
    The patent cooperation treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty But just for fun... Having a patent doesn't protect how my invention works, just how my invention is used. If someone lives in Pineland and wants to use a patent I filed for nothing is really stopping him. Regardless if my patent is free to use or not.
millisecond 11y ago
I wonder if they're protected large existing revenue streams that would be reduced to 0 if they opened up all patents to anyone.
- ddispaltro 11y ago
  They could even implement a policy even going forward if it would mess with their budget too much.
Kalium 11y ago
> Maybe I'm just disregarding a lot of patent law, but wouldn't it be a better plan to just have all NASA patents open to anyone? I think they're learning from university tech transfer programs. A number of universities tried the exact approach you describe. What they found is that companies weren't interested in the ideas because of the substantial risk of someone out-developing them. A risk significantly increased by a lack of exclusivity. By patenting them and offering transfer of the patent, they got much better uptake. So this is a case of ideals trading off against reality and results.
- hmahncke 11y ago
  I agree with your line of thought; however the NASA program described in the link only applies to non-exclusive patents. They state at the end that if you want an exclusive patent, to contact them.
- sitkack 11y ago
  Most university tech transfer programs don't make money. Typical power law, a handful of ideas (patents) generate the most revenue. I think having the ideas open and make consulting agreements to get them to work would a better model. The same thing that "productized" research also got DARPA out of pure research. The Mansfield Amendment of 1973 and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act of 1980.
forrestthewoods 11y ago
You mean a tax break for 1% business owners who stand to freely profit off research paid for by American tax payers? Because that's how it'll be framed.
- thescriptkiddie 11y ago
  Maybe that's how it would be framed if private corporations are allowed to purchase exclusive licenses to NASA patents. But if that patents are free, than anyone can use them.
hackatroll 11y ago
U.S. taxpayers fund NASA. Shouldn’t the U.S. people have the right to use NASA’s patents first?
- RegW 11y ago
  Well, right from the top of the page: "The NASA patent portfolio is available to benefit US citizens." True, it doesn't seem explicitly say anywhere that only US companies can apply. But even if was the case, would this really target the technology benefits exclusively at US citizens? To do so might only be directing the commercial benefits to US corporations, who are only a sub-set of US taxpayers. Would it not be better to share in the hope that this brings a net benefit to the people of the US? After all, if you look outwards beyond your borders, I'm sure you will find some other non-US tech, paid for by others, available to benefit you.
  - hackatroll 11y ago
    Yes, in the since that it could increase the chance of a good idea coming out of this. That is assuming everyone is playing be the same rules and laws.
cellu_cc 11y ago
Nope. ITAR, among other reasons. The explicit purpose of the STTR and SBIR programs is to encourage domestic businesses. Not to say NASA doesn't do open-source, but patents open for all might even hurt U.S. small businesses, since a foreign company could compete.
cmsmith 11y ago
I work at a US government research agency and am in the process of applying for a couple of patents, so might be able to provide some insight. We do not patent things to make money. The most profitable patent that my organization (NIST) has makes in the low six figures of royalties per year. If we started pulling in real money, I suspect congress would shut that down. The stated mission of our tech transfer office (and the whole organization) is to make US businesses more successful and competitive. The unstated mission of researchers is to figure out interesting things and to get our ideas into practice. Fulfilling both of those missions, we might patent something for a few reasons: - So that we can license it to US companies and not German or Chinese companies. Not unreasonable, considering the US taxpayers paid for the work. - So that we can offer an exclusive license to one company in exchange for commercializing the invention. Many inventions require more investment to be commercially useful, and corporations are more likely to put up the money if they can't get copied by a competitor. - So that we can offer the invention royalty-free (or at least below market rates) to anyone who wants to use it. Sometimes this is easier and more reliable than trying to get the invention into the public domain via a journal publication. - So that we can get the lawyers to do the writing for us instead of having to write a paper.
GutenYe 11y ago
What about the Chinese?

kirk21 11y ago

You can ask the same question about universities. They are also quite aggressive when it comes to patenting. Some even bully researchers that want to start their own company to sign licensing deals.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

I completely agree with you. There should be zero licensing cost for patents created by a public agency. I don't know why it's the way it is and I'm going to assume it's just another way for them to make money and fund other stuff which I kinda understand but that can also stagnate things. I've worked with public agencies before and multiple times we were mandated by freaking congress to open source our work for anyone to use and we were contractors working for a public agency. Charging licensing fees to a public agency seems insane to me.

jonwachob91 11y ago

From my limited understanding: NASA doesn't make any revenue on the licensing agreements; all earnings go to the Dept. of Treasury. I imagine it would take a legislative / executive vote to open the patents for free to use. That being said, it'd be an interesting economic impact study if all patents were free to use, as long as used by US registered companies and manufactured in the US.

speby 11y ago
Of course, if outside entities got ahold of any of them, what actually stops them from using it?
- jonwachob91 11y ago
  The patent cooperation treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty But just for fun... Having a patent doesn't protect how my invention works, just how my invention is used. If someone lives in Pineland and wants to use a patent I filed for nothing is really stopping him. Regardless if my patent is free to use or not.

millisecond 11y ago

I wonder if they're protected large existing revenue streams that would be reduced to 0 if they opened up all patents to anyone.

ddispaltro 11y ago
They could even implement a policy even going forward if it would mess with their budget too much.

Kalium 11y ago

> Maybe I'm just disregarding a lot of patent law, but wouldn't it be a better plan to just have all NASA patents open to anyone? I think they're learning from university tech transfer programs. A number of universities tried the exact approach you describe. What they found is that companies weren't interested in the ideas because of the substantial risk of someone out-developing them. A risk significantly increased by a lack of exclusivity. By patenting them and offering transfer of the patent, they got much better uptake. So this is a case of ideals trading off against reality and results.

hmahncke 11y ago
I agree with your line of thought; however the NASA program described in the link only applies to non-exclusive patents. They state at the end that if you want an exclusive patent, to contact them.
sitkack 11y ago
Most university tech transfer programs don't make money. Typical power law, a handful of ideas (patents) generate the most revenue. I think having the ideas open and make consulting agreements to get them to work would a better model. The same thing that "productized" research also got DARPA out of pure research. The Mansfield Amendment of 1973 and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act of 1980.

forrestthewoods 11y ago

You mean a tax break for 1% business owners who stand to freely profit off research paid for by American tax payers? Because that's how it'll be framed.

thescriptkiddie 11y ago
Maybe that's how it would be framed if private corporations are allowed to purchase exclusive licenses to NASA patents. But if that patents are free, than anyone can use them.

hackatroll 11y ago

U.S. taxpayers fund NASA. Shouldn’t the U.S. people have the right to use NASA’s patents first?

RegW 11y ago
Well, right from the top of the page: "The NASA patent portfolio is available to benefit US citizens." True, it doesn't seem explicitly say anywhere that only US companies can apply. But even if was the case, would this really target the technology benefits exclusively at US citizens? To do so might only be directing the commercial benefits to US corporations, who are only a sub-set of US taxpayers. Would it not be better to share in the hope that this brings a net benefit to the people of the US? After all, if you look outwards beyond your borders, I'm sure you will find some other non-US tech, paid for by others, available to benefit you.
- hackatroll 11y ago
  Yes, in the since that it could increase the chance of a good idea coming out of this. That is assuming everyone is playing be the same rules and laws.

cellu_cc 11y ago

Nope. ITAR, among other reasons. The explicit purpose of the STTR and SBIR programs is to encourage domestic businesses. Not to say NASA doesn't do open-source, but patents open for all might even hurt U.S. small businesses, since a foreign company could compete.

cmsmith 11y ago

I work at a US government research agency and am in the process of applying for a couple of patents, so might be able to provide some insight. We do not patent things to make money. The most profitable patent that my organization (NIST) has makes in the low six figures of royalties per year. If we started pulling in real money, I suspect congress would shut that down. The stated mission of our tech transfer office (and the whole organization) is to make US businesses more successful and competitive. The unstated mission of researchers is to figure out interesting things and to get our ideas into practice. Fulfilling both of those missions, we might patent something for a few reasons: - So that we can license it to US companies and not German or Chinese companies. Not unreasonable, considering the US taxpayers paid for the work. - So that we can offer an exclusive license to one company in exchange for commercializing the invention. Many inventions require more investment to be commercially useful, and corporations are more likely to put up the money if they can't get copied by a competitor. - So that we can offer the invention royalty-free (or at least below market rates) to anyone who wants to use it. Sometimes this is easier and more reliable than trying to get the invention into the public domain via a journal publication. - So that we can get the lawyers to do the writing for us instead of having to write a paper.

GutenYe 11y ago

What about the Chinese?