9 ms·

Google accused of stealing balloon network tech behind Project Loon

98 points by ivank 10y ago

Aloha 10y ago
How the hell is this even patentable - its derivative of transmitting telephone and data from a balloon, which was done at least as early as the mid-50's.
- Steko 10y ago
  Edison's light bulbs were also derivative of many other efforts. Being derivative doesn't exclude you from being able to patent something.
  - Aloha 10y ago
    Edisons bulb was actually novel, it was novel because it was a high resistance bulb (others were low resistance, so they consumed huge amounts of power), and it had a long life, hundreds of hours instead of tens of hours.
    - Steko 10y ago
      Space Data's invention looks more novel to me from what was done with balloons in the 50's than Edison's light bulb from Swan's and others, YMMV.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  This isn't just about a patent. This is about blatant theft of a technology they were introduced to under a written agreement of confidentiality. Which they then turned around, copied, and announced as their own supposedly incredibly original development project. All the research and investment Space Data put into to even proving the idea was viable, and Google takes all the credit.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Unless it's significantly more than these two patents, google created their system by themselves through lots of hard work and that's a very unfair summary.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      They broke a written confidentiality agreement with Space Data. You don't need an agreement like that for things you have patented (and hence are public and protected).
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        If they actually copied tech, that's bad. But it matters how much they copied. And just because they decided not to license doesn't mean they copied anything. They might have made a 100% independent balloon system, and being in the news while not-first is not 'stealing credit'.
      - bitmapbrother 10y ago
        Do you have any concrete proof of the accusations you're making or are you just making things up about Google again?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I'm certainly not one to be surprised that Google could violate an NDA or trade secrets, but it's not clear to me exactly what they are alleged to have copied. Is it to you? I mean, the basic concept and viability of an ubiquitous network of balloons providing Internet access had already been presented publicly by Space Data (see [1]), so you didn't have to violate an NDA to know that. The idea that you can control direction by changing altitude is also old as rocks (Jules Verne's Five Weeks in a Balloon is based on it). And it's not clear to me that they actual alleged that Google copied the actual mechanism and/or used their trial tests data. [1] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520007226 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520007226
- tremon 10y ago
  it's also about navigating your balloons so they keep forming a connected and reliable mesh, regardless of weather conditions.
x5n1 10y ago
The damn patent system needs reform. Plain and simple. Make them short and unprofitable unless you are going to use them to do something useful.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  what about ideas that take a long time to implement? what about non-large entities who patent an idea and take a long time to implement due to resource constraints? there should be some incentive to producing novel ideas... what novel means is the hard part to define.
- icebraining 10y ago
  What do you mean? Space Data was using them, they built a bunch of balloon networks for the military. It's not clear to me that their allegations are correct, but they can hardly be accused of being an NPE.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    For civilian purposes that's basically equivalent to being a NPE. In reality it's even worse, since NPEs typically don't (indirectly) cause physical harm to people.
ivthreadp110 10y ago
With anyone who thinks there is any grounds on this any kinda lawsuit. I honestly disagree. They (google) try to employ smart people (as any company should do), they pull from creative areas- have you honestly never thought you invented something only to find out that someone else came up with the idea earlier? I swear that I invented the Jet Ski when I was like 8 years old- like motorcycle but boat... I drew up designed on graph paper etc- mine had a glass shield though, but also used thermodynamic for propulsion (initial versions used a prop). Jet skis or whatever were around years before I came up with that. I was just a kid. Still though- a stolen idea or just something that other people as smart as you might also independently come up with is a grey area. And the flaw in patent law in the US. To insist on generalizing such as shape of controller or magnets vs. the purpose of real innovation to make an arms race for getting money back on it... I all it all BS In the modern age. Just MIT open source it if you have the guts to. I am speaking to the general you. Sorry for my long winded jet-ski example. I totally invented that before it was a thing (at least to child self).
- dsl 10y ago
  I think the difference is you didn't have closed door meetings with the inventor of the jet ski and almost enter into a licensing deal to build jet skis.
- Steko 10y ago
  This isn't a patent troll and this isn't Google independently inventing something. This is Google meeting with the company, getting closed door access to their tech and then deciding to copy large parts of their product. We can argue whether that should be legal in all/many/this case(s) but it's nothing like your jet ski example.
  - endgame 10y ago
    Sounds like doublespace/stacker all over again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...
bpodgursky 10y ago
So - they met with Google in 2007, didn't form a partnership - in 2011, 4 years later, Google started Loon - in 2016, 5 years later, Google gets sued Makes me think that Space Data Corporation needs cash because they've been unable to make this take off in the 8 years in the interim. The idea of using balloons to transmit data is not reasonably patentable. Maybe there are patentable implementation details (I'm skeptical), but is it really likely that Google poached them for Loon? Or is it more likely that Google said "oh balloons transmitting data, cool", talked with a company looking into it, and it came to nothing. It's not like Loon has poached any of SDC's military contracts. If SDC realistically was going to make this mass-market, it should have happened in less than 8 years; you can't just extract cash when someone successfully implements a generic idea where you failed (in a reasonable system).
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  > The idea of using balloons to transmit data is not reasonably patentable. They're also suing for trade secrets and breach of contract in reference to the alleged meeting and NDA. If their meeting and NDA did cover this tech, I feel like they have a reasonable complaint. This isn't some company "from" east Texas that is just shooting bolts from the blue. It's not like they just held the patent and let it get dusty, like you said they've been delivering working products to some markets. > If SDC realistically was going to make this mass-market, it should have happened in less than 8 years; you can't just extract cash when someone successfully implements a generic idea where you failed (in a reasonable system). So anytime anyone has an idea of any kind (i.e. no matter how stringent your standards for patentability), someone else with more resources and hands in a lot of huge markets can just say "cool" and then take it? I definitely think the US patent system's standard are terrible to begin with, and that the lack of real administrative effort to filter out unsuitable patents (or not give them for existing technologies) makes it abysmal in practice. But I don't think an environment where meeting with another company (with an NDA, no less!) means they might do business with you or they might just take what you told them and run with it will promote innovation either.
  - themartorana 10y ago
mc32 10y ago
If true, it's disappointing that a great organization like the G would do something like this fully aware. I'm inclined to believe, at the moment, if the allegations are true, the PM for this who met with the plaintiffs decided to go rogue rather then it being from further up the chain.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
What you're experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". Feel free to look it up. Allow me to quote the article: "Space Data further adds in the complaint that as many as 10 Google representatives, including co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin" Google is rotten from the very top.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  Your posts regarding anything related to Google are rotten to the core. Your agenda is to disparage Google and your post history is indicative of this.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I criticize pretty much any tech company involved in criminal levels of mischief. I probably talk about Google a little bit more than other companies, if only because so many people give Google a free pass on their behavior.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      Then perhaps you should start providing proof of these crimes instead of posting incendiary comments to fuel your anti-Google agenda.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        Here, I responded to someone suggesting Google's top people were hopefully innocent of this issue. I provided the direct evidence, quoted from the article, that it is not the case. We can suggest that until a ruling is made, or a settlement agreed, that they may or may not have broken the law. But we can rule out the suggestion of a 'Rogue PM' quite easily. As SDC claiming Larry and Sergey were present, if they weren't, would quite quickly derail their case.
        bitmapbrother 10y ago
elif 10y ago
When the powerful engage in a mutual struggle with the poor and attempt to overcome it at great expense, it is called theft. capitalism.
- elif 10y ago
  Can one of the 5 downvotes, or someone else that agrees with them, please tell me what was wrong with my comment?
TimmySmith 10y ago
Since this case is more or less obvious I would really like to know how Googles/Alphabets decision making process works. For example: A start-up with interesting new technology and a headquarter near capital city (Government nearby/useful for lobbing) -> buy it, or a small company in the country -> "borrow" it.
rincebrain 10y ago
I don't think we can really make any informed remarks on these claims without more information. We don't know: * the NDA terms * what the "trade secrets" Google is alleged to have taken/used are * whether the patents are going to stand under scrutiny * why they couldn't come to an agreement in the first place. If I were in Google's position, I would probably have either paid them even a minorly extortionate value to come to a licensing agreement (to mitigate precisely this circumstance), or arranged a "clean room" to implement their Loon tech without anyone involved in the trade secrets having input (beyond the necessary "approve/disapprove" from some level of management above the team, since they allege the co-founders were covered by the NDA and knew trade secrets). It's not impossible that Google is acting in poor faith here, but I don't think we can draw any conclusions until more information comes out.

98 points by ivank 10y ago

Aloha 10y ago

How the hell is this even patentable - its derivative of transmitting telephone and data from a balloon, which was done at least as early as the mid-50's.

Steko 10y ago
Edison's light bulbs were also derivative of many other efforts. Being derivative doesn't exclude you from being able to patent something.
- Aloha 10y ago
  Edisons bulb was actually novel, it was novel because it was a high resistance bulb (others were low resistance, so they consumed huge amounts of power), and it had a long life, hundreds of hours instead of tens of hours.
  - Steko 10y ago
    Space Data's invention looks more novel to me from what was done with balloons in the 50's than Edison's light bulb from Swan's and others, YMMV.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
This isn't just about a patent. This is about blatant theft of a technology they were introduced to under a written agreement of confidentiality. Which they then turned around, copied, and announced as their own supposedly incredibly original development project. All the research and investment Space Data put into to even proving the idea was viable, and Google takes all the credit.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Unless it's significantly more than these two patents, google created their system by themselves through lots of hard work and that's a very unfair summary.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    They broke a written confidentiality agreement with Space Data. You don't need an agreement like that for things you have patented (and hence are public and protected).
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      If they actually copied tech, that's bad. But it matters how much they copied. And just because they decided not to license doesn't mean they copied anything. They might have made a 100% independent balloon system, and being in the news while not-first is not 'stealing credit'.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      Do you have any concrete proof of the accusations you're making or are you just making things up about Google again?
- icebraining 10y ago
  I'm certainly not one to be surprised that Google could violate an NDA or trade secrets, but it's not clear to me exactly what they are alleged to have copied. Is it to you? I mean, the basic concept and viability of an ubiquitous network of balloons providing Internet access had already been presented publicly by Space Data (see [1]), so you didn't have to violate an NDA to know that. The idea that you can control direction by changing altitude is also old as rocks (Jules Verne's Five Weeks in a Balloon is based on it). And it's not clear to me that they actual alleged that Google copied the actual mechanism and/or used their trial tests data. [1] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520007226 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520007226
tremon 10y ago
it's also about navigating your balloons so they keep forming a connected and reliable mesh, regardless of weather conditions.

x5n1 10y ago

The damn patent system needs reform. Plain and simple. Make them short and unprofitable unless you are going to use them to do something useful.

nostrebored 10y ago
what about ideas that take a long time to implement? what about non-large entities who patent an idea and take a long time to implement due to resource constraints? there should be some incentive to producing novel ideas... what novel means is the hard part to define.
icebraining 10y ago
What do you mean? Space Data was using them, they built a bunch of balloon networks for the military. It's not clear to me that their allegations are correct, but they can hardly be accused of being an NPE.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  For civilian purposes that's basically equivalent to being a NPE. In reality it's even worse, since NPEs typically don't (indirectly) cause physical harm to people.

ivthreadp110 10y ago

With anyone who thinks there is any grounds on this any kinda lawsuit. I honestly disagree. They (google) try to employ smart people (as any company should do), they pull from creative areas- have you honestly never thought you invented something only to find out that someone else came up with the idea earlier? I swear that I invented the Jet Ski when I was like 8 years old- like motorcycle but boat... I drew up designed on graph paper etc- mine had a glass shield though, but also used thermodynamic for propulsion (initial versions used a prop). Jet skis or whatever were around years before I came up with that. I was just a kid. Still though- a stolen idea or just something that other people as smart as you might also independently come up with is a grey area. And the flaw in patent law in the US. To insist on generalizing such as shape of controller or magnets vs. the purpose of real innovation to make an arms race for getting money back on it... I all it all BS In the modern age. Just MIT open source it if you have the guts to. I am speaking to the general you. Sorry for my long winded jet-ski example. I totally invented that before it was a thing (at least to child self).

dsl 10y ago
I think the difference is you didn't have closed door meetings with the inventor of the jet ski and almost enter into a licensing deal to build jet skis.
Steko 10y ago
This isn't a patent troll and this isn't Google independently inventing something. This is Google meeting with the company, getting closed door access to their tech and then deciding to copy large parts of their product. We can argue whether that should be legal in all/many/this case(s) but it's nothing like your jet ski example.
- endgame 10y ago
  Sounds like doublespace/stacker all over again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...

bpodgursky 10y ago

So - they met with Google in 2007, didn't form a partnership - in 2011, 4 years later, Google started Loon - in 2016, 5 years later, Google gets sued Makes me think that Space Data Corporation needs cash because they've been unable to make this take off in the 8 years in the interim. The idea of using balloons to transmit data is not reasonably patentable. Maybe there are patentable implementation details (I'm skeptical), but is it really likely that Google poached them for Loon? Or is it more likely that Google said "oh balloons transmitting data, cool", talked with a company looking into it, and it came to nothing. It's not like Loon has poached any of SDC's military contracts. If SDC realistically was going to make this mass-market, it should have happened in less than 8 years; you can't just extract cash when someone successfully implements a generic idea where you failed (in a reasonable system).

johncolanduoni 10y ago
> The idea of using balloons to transmit data is not reasonably patentable. They're also suing for trade secrets and breach of contract in reference to the alleged meeting and NDA. If their meeting and NDA did cover this tech, I feel like they have a reasonable complaint. This isn't some company "from" east Texas that is just shooting bolts from the blue. It's not like they just held the patent and let it get dusty, like you said they've been delivering working products to some markets. > If SDC realistically was going to make this mass-market, it should have happened in less than 8 years; you can't just extract cash when someone successfully implements a generic idea where you failed (in a reasonable system). So anytime anyone has an idea of any kind (i.e. no matter how stringent your standards for patentability), someone else with more resources and hands in a lot of huge markets can just say "cool" and then take it? I definitely think the US patent system's standard are terrible to begin with, and that the lack of real administrative effort to filter out unsuitable patents (or not give them for existing technologies) makes it abysmal in practice. But I don't think an environment where meeting with another company (with an NDA, no less!) means they might do business with you or they might just take what you told them and run with it will promote innovation either.
- themartorana 10y ago

mc32 10y ago

If true, it's disappointing that a great organization like the G would do something like this fully aware. I'm inclined to believe, at the moment, if the allegations are true, the PM for this who met with the plaintiffs decided to go rogue rather then it being from further up the chain.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

What you're experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". Feel free to look it up. Allow me to quote the article: "Space Data further adds in the complaint that as many as 10 Google representatives, including co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin" Google is rotten from the very top.

bitmapbrother 10y ago
Your posts regarding anything related to Google are rotten to the core. Your agenda is to disparage Google and your post history is indicative of this.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  I criticize pretty much any tech company involved in criminal levels of mischief. I probably talk about Google a little bit more than other companies, if only because so many people give Google a free pass on their behavior.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    Then perhaps you should start providing proof of these crimes instead of posting incendiary comments to fuel your anti-Google agenda.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      Here, I responded to someone suggesting Google's top people were hopefully innocent of this issue. I provided the direct evidence, quoted from the article, that it is not the case. We can suggest that until a ruling is made, or a settlement agreed, that they may or may not have broken the law. But we can rule out the suggestion of a 'Rogue PM' quite easily. As SDC claiming Larry and Sergey were present, if they weren't, would quite quickly derail their case.
      - bitmapbrother 10y ago

elif 10y ago

When the powerful engage in a mutual struggle with the poor and attempt to overcome it at great expense, it is called theft. capitalism.

elif 10y ago
Can one of the 5 downvotes, or someone else that agrees with them, please tell me what was wrong with my comment?

TimmySmith 10y ago

Since this case is more or less obvious I would really like to know how Googles/Alphabets decision making process works. For example: A start-up with interesting new technology and a headquarter near capital city (Government nearby/useful for lobbing) -> buy it, or a small company in the country -> "borrow" it.

rincebrain 10y ago

I don't think we can really make any informed remarks on these claims without more information. We don't know: * the NDA terms * what the "trade secrets" Google is alleged to have taken/used are * whether the patents are going to stand under scrutiny * why they couldn't come to an agreement in the first place. If I were in Google's position, I would probably have either paid them even a minorly extortionate value to come to a licensing agreement (to mitigate precisely this circumstance), or arranged a "clean room" to implement their Loon tech without anyone involved in the trade secrets having input (beyond the necessary "approve/disapprove" from some level of management above the team, since they allege the co-founders were covered by the NDA and knew trade secrets). It's not impossible that Google is acting in poor faith here, but I don't think we can draw any conclusions until more information comes out.