5 ms·

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

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
  "Airborne constellation of communications platforms and method" Satellites? GPS? Look, just because you say "here's an idea..." doesn't give you infinite protections to realize (or submarine, with exclusivity) that idea. When an idea is a mild improvement (or slight step to the left) of another, that doesn't make it patentable or protectable, either. Google didn't invent content indexing or the search engine, and yet no one (reasonable) would argue they need to defer the idea of a search engine. Besides, recovering balloons and transmitting data between airborne objects existed so long before this company, their claims are ridiculous.
  - vlozko 10y ago
    Satellites? GPS? I think you need to look up what airborne actually means.
    - themartorana 10y ago
      Look up what "non-obvious" means, and let me know if you still think objects falling towards Earth at a different altitude constitute a patentable idea. Floating communications networks are not new.
      - johncolanduoni 10y ago
        > objects falling towards Earth at a different altitude constitute a patentable idea You may also want to look up what falling means (hint: working satellites do it, working balloons do not).
        themartorana 10y ago
        Just because the gas in a ballon is lighter-than-air doesn't mean it is free from the effects of gravity.
      - vlozko 10y ago
        There's nothing obvious about floating communication networks. It takes a pretty large amount of engineering to get right. There's a massive difference between satellite vs balloon based communication that I don't know why the comparison even needs to be made. To totally reduce the two to "falling towards Earth at a different altitude" (which isn't even accurate for balloons) totally ignores just about everything that makes them different. It's like saying the idea of a car can't be patented because it's just a hunk of metal on wheels and we already have bikes that fit that description.
miket 10y ago
From the complaint: "Space Data started offering commercial wireless services in 2004 from a constellation of altitude controlled balloons which drift in the stratosphere. Since that time, it has extended the technology to service the U.S. Armed Services with deployments on four continents. " "Examples of Space Data confidential information and trade secrets include, but are not limited to, accumulation of weather data, launch methods, launch timing, balloon types, altitude regulation, business methods, business models, financial information, technology solutions, and unique knowledge and interpretation of weather data, wherein this knowledge and interpretation is not available in public, which for example includes knowledge of the winds between 60,000 and 100,000 foot altitudes. "
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > knowledge of the winds between 60,000 and 100,000 foot altitudes Haha, well I just started taking this complaint a lot less seriously.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Why? That knowledge for instance is crucial to decisions of how much fuel to take on board of intercontinental aircraft.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      The complaint is that google took some kind of confidential or trade secret knowledge about these winds. It can't be the directions and speeds, because those are constantly changing, and this was years ago. It's not methods of calculation, or they would have said so, like they said about the other points. So the only thing left under 'knowledge' is the mere fact that winds exist there. Of course winds exist there. They didn't discover that. Google's not even calculating most of the wind data, they apparently get that from NOAA.
- gabble 10y ago
  Also from the complaint something that really stood out me: "34. In a March 21, 2014 TED interview with journalist Charlie Rose regarding Project Loon, Google co-founder Larry Page claimed that Google had been thinking of the idea of launching balloons for “five years or more.” During the course of the interview, Mr. Rose asked “But are you at the mercy of the wind?” to which Mr. Page responded: “Yeah, but it turns out, that we did some weather simulations which probably hadn’t really been done before, and if you control the altitude of the balloons, which you can do by pumping air into them or other ways, you can actually control roughly where they go, and so we think we can build a worldwide mesh of these balloons over the whole planet.” 35. As set forth above, however, Space Data had reduced this theory and simulations to actual practice and had conducted over 15,000 flights and accrued over 100,000 flight hours of such constellations in order to understand the wind patterns by the time Larry Page and other individuals from Google had visited Space Data. This concept of “if you control the altitude you can actually control roughly where they go” was something Space Data demonstrated in February 2008 to Larry Page personally with over a dozen balloons in the sky which were actively flying at Space Data’s network control center." The comment from Page seems a little disingenuous if the statement from Space Data is true, of course it's a complaint so everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt but if it's true that seems pretty damning.
jdoliner 10y ago
I'm under the impression that in suits like this you have to show some sort of a material loss to claim damages. That seems tough to do when Loon doesn't make any money though. Can anyone clarify? IANAL
- willvarfar 10y ago
  Its not how much money Loon makes, but rather how much money the plaintiff doesn't? They can say they'd have Google's business if Google hadn't signed NDAs, learned their trade secrets, then decided to do it in-house.
  - jdoliner 10y ago
    > They can say they'd have Google's business if Google hadn't signed NDAs, learned their trade secrets, then decided to do it in-house. This seems like the issue to me, they can say they'd have Google's Loon business. But that's 0 actual business. I don't see how they can possibly claim they'd have Google's advertising business since it's obviously completely unrelated to what they do.
    - willvarfar 10y ago
      The money Google invested in loon can be argued to be less than Google would have paid to buy in the tech. This puts a nice lower bound number on the lost opportunity.
dave2000 10y ago
So buses transmit data. So do cars, planes, satellites, the space station. One day someone talks about doing it from a balloon and years later, when someone manages to do it they stole something and must be punished?

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
"Airborne constellation of communications platforms and method" Satellites? GPS? Look, just because you say "here's an idea..." doesn't give you infinite protections to realize (or submarine, with exclusivity) that idea. When an idea is a mild improvement (or slight step to the left) of another, that doesn't make it patentable or protectable, either. Google didn't invent content indexing or the search engine, and yet no one (reasonable) would argue they need to defer the idea of a search engine. Besides, recovering balloons and transmitting data between airborne objects existed so long before this company, their claims are ridiculous.
- vlozko 10y ago
  Satellites? GPS? I think you need to look up what airborne actually means.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    Look up what "non-obvious" means, and let me know if you still think objects falling towards Earth at a different altitude constitute a patentable idea. Floating communications networks are not new.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      > objects falling towards Earth at a different altitude constitute a patentable idea You may also want to look up what falling means (hint: working satellites do it, working balloons do not).
      - themartorana 10y ago
        Just because the gas in a ballon is lighter-than-air doesn't mean it is free from the effects of gravity.
    - vlozko 10y ago
      There's nothing obvious about floating communication networks. It takes a pretty large amount of engineering to get right. There's a massive difference between satellite vs balloon based communication that I don't know why the comparison even needs to be made. To totally reduce the two to "falling towards Earth at a different altitude" (which isn't even accurate for balloons) totally ignores just about everything that makes them different. It's like saying the idea of a car can't be patented because it's just a hunk of metal on wheels and we already have bikes that fit that description.

miket 10y ago

From the complaint: "Space Data started offering commercial wireless services in 2004 from a constellation of altitude controlled balloons which drift in the stratosphere. Since that time, it has extended the technology to service the U.S. Armed Services with deployments on four continents. " "Examples of Space Data confidential information and trade secrets include, but are not limited to, accumulation of weather data, launch methods, launch timing, balloon types, altitude regulation, business methods, business models, financial information, technology solutions, and unique knowledge and interpretation of weather data, wherein this knowledge and interpretation is not available in public, which for example includes knowledge of the winds between 60,000 and 100,000 foot altitudes. "

Dylan16807 10y ago
> knowledge of the winds between 60,000 and 100,000 foot altitudes Haha, well I just started taking this complaint a lot less seriously.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Why? That knowledge for instance is crucial to decisions of how much fuel to take on board of intercontinental aircraft.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    The complaint is that google took some kind of confidential or trade secret knowledge about these winds. It can't be the directions and speeds, because those are constantly changing, and this was years ago. It's not methods of calculation, or they would have said so, like they said about the other points. So the only thing left under 'knowledge' is the mere fact that winds exist there. Of course winds exist there. They didn't discover that. Google's not even calculating most of the wind data, they apparently get that from NOAA.
gabble 10y ago
Also from the complaint something that really stood out me: "34. In a March 21, 2014 TED interview with journalist Charlie Rose regarding Project Loon, Google co-founder Larry Page claimed that Google had been thinking of the idea of launching balloons for “five years or more.” During the course of the interview, Mr. Rose asked “But are you at the mercy of the wind?” to which Mr. Page responded: “Yeah, but it turns out, that we did some weather simulations which probably hadn’t really been done before, and if you control the altitude of the balloons, which you can do by pumping air into them or other ways, you can actually control roughly where they go, and so we think we can build a worldwide mesh of these balloons over the whole planet.” 35. As set forth above, however, Space Data had reduced this theory and simulations to actual practice and had conducted over 15,000 flights and accrued over 100,000 flight hours of such constellations in order to understand the wind patterns by the time Larry Page and other individuals from Google had visited Space Data. This concept of “if you control the altitude you can actually control roughly where they go” was something Space Data demonstrated in February 2008 to Larry Page personally with over a dozen balloons in the sky which were actively flying at Space Data’s network control center." The comment from Page seems a little disingenuous if the statement from Space Data is true, of course it's a complaint so everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt but if it's true that seems pretty damning.

jdoliner 10y ago

I'm under the impression that in suits like this you have to show some sort of a material loss to claim damages. That seems tough to do when Loon doesn't make any money though. Can anyone clarify? IANAL

willvarfar 10y ago
Its not how much money Loon makes, but rather how much money the plaintiff doesn't? They can say they'd have Google's business if Google hadn't signed NDAs, learned their trade secrets, then decided to do it in-house.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  > They can say they'd have Google's business if Google hadn't signed NDAs, learned their trade secrets, then decided to do it in-house. This seems like the issue to me, they can say they'd have Google's Loon business. But that's 0 actual business. I don't see how they can possibly claim they'd have Google's advertising business since it's obviously completely unrelated to what they do.
  - willvarfar 10y ago
    The money Google invested in loon can be argued to be less than Google would have paid to buy in the tech. This puts a nice lower bound number on the lost opportunity.

dave2000 10y ago

So buses transmit data. So do cars, planes, satellites, the space station. One day someone talks about doing it from a balloon and years later, when someone manages to do it they stole something and must be punished?