3 ms·

"Airborne constellation of communications platforms and method" Satellites? GPS? Look, just because you say "here's an idea..." doesn't give you infinite prote

"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.
    - themartorana 10y ago
      "And now the gods of destiny smiled on Henry Ford. With the three-judge federal appeals court, he finally won vindication. The case opened on November 22, 1910, and the judges handed down their decision on January 9, 1911. They ruled that the Selden patent was valid, but only for cars made to its specifications. This was a total victory for Ford, because no working automobile had ever been built to Selden’s design. Thus the appeals court actually ruled that no royalties were required of anybody." https://fee.org/articles/how-henry-ford-zapped-a-licensing-monopoly/ https://fee.org/articles/how-henry-ford-zapped-a-licensing-m... To wit: the patent on the gas engine was held to be enforceable only to that exact specification, and it changed the world more than floating balloons. Case law here is pretty clear, and broad patents like this would not hold up in the time of the rise of the car.
johncolanduoni 10y ago
> 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. You do realize the patent isn't just the title right? Did you really think that they didn't mention anything in a 73 claim patent that rules out satellites or GPS? Or did you not bother to even look at the thing before you decided, conclusively, it wasn't worth a damn? And how is developing a business to sell these to the military submarining it? Not everyone has the resources and market reach of a Google or a Microsoft. > 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. If your standard of "mild improvement" includes replacing satellites with astronomical costs to launch and operate with weather balloons that are sometimes within the monetary reach of high school physics programs, then yes, I think that's a sufficient improvement to be worthy of some protection. There are so many crappy patents out there, but from reading this one (from the standpoint of what I think is right, not necessarily what the law says on this issue) I don't think it's one. Like I said, I'd be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if you bothered to even skim it. In any case, like I said (repeatedly) in the comment you are responding to, I think the more interesting factor here is the claims surrounding a meeting with an NDA. Especially since they allege that the meeting contained detailed information, like work on how to adapt to winds at various altitudes that they say took quite a bit of study.
- themartorana 10y ago
  > You do realize the patent isn't just the title right? Did you really think that they didn't mention anything in a 73 claim patent that rules out satellites or GPS? Or did you not bother to even look at the thing before you decided, conclusively, it wasn't worth a damn? I'll admit I didn't read the entire patent claim, although I did spend a couple minutes with it. > And how is developing a business to sell these to the military submarining it? I didn't say they submarined anything. That was a genera comment about how patents hold even when the "inventor" (and not many patents these days are actual inventions) decides to not develop their invention. It's a license to lock an idea away. > If your standard of "mild improvement" includes replacing satellites with astronomical costs to launch and operate with weather balloons that are sometimes within the monetary reach of high school physics programs, then yes, I think that's a sufficient improvement to be worthy of some protection. They used weather balloons (already invented) and put a mesh network on them (already invented). To your own comment, it's not like anyone could come in and develop it from under them - it is costly, and that keeps competition at bay. But I still do not see where you think this deserves some exclusivity. > Like I said, I'd be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if you bothered to even skim it. Feeling any sympathy yet? :) > I think the more interesting factor here is the claims surrounding a meeting with an NDA NDA's almost always say things like this (from an NDA we've signed): "Limitation on Obligations. The obligations of the Recipient specified in Section 4 shall not apply, and the Recipient shall have no further obligations, with respect to any Proprietary Information to the extent that such Proprietary Information: (a) is generally known to the public at the time of disclosure or becomes generally known without the Recipient or its Representatives violating this Agreement; (b) is in the Recipient’s possession at the time of disclosure; (c) becomes known to the Recipient through disclosure by sources other than the Disclosing Party without such sources violating any confidentiality obligations to the Disclosing Party; or (d) is independently developed by the Recipient without reference to or reliance upon the Disclosing Party's Proprietary Information." So basically, if Google was already thinking about balloon grid networks, and wanted to see if they could collaborate with this company, then ballon grid networks are not covered under the NDA. Nor is anything else Google was considering prior to this meeting, that happened to be analogous. Likely if there is discovery, it will focus on this.

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.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    "And now the gods of destiny smiled on Henry Ford. With the three-judge federal appeals court, he finally won vindication. The case opened on November 22, 1910, and the judges handed down their decision on January 9, 1911. They ruled that the Selden patent was valid, but only for cars made to its specifications. This was a total victory for Ford, because no working automobile had ever been built to Selden’s design. Thus the appeals court actually ruled that no royalties were required of anybody." https://fee.org/articles/how-henry-ford-zapped-a-licensing-monopoly/ https://fee.org/articles/how-henry-ford-zapped-a-licensing-m... To wit: the patent on the gas engine was held to be enforceable only to that exact specification, and it changed the world more than floating balloons. Case law here is pretty clear, and broad patents like this would not hold up in the time of the rise of the car.

johncolanduoni 10y ago

> 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. You do realize the patent isn't just the title right? Did you really think that they didn't mention anything in a 73 claim patent that rules out satellites or GPS? Or did you not bother to even look at the thing before you decided, conclusively, it wasn't worth a damn? And how is developing a business to sell these to the military submarining it? Not everyone has the resources and market reach of a Google or a Microsoft. > 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. If your standard of "mild improvement" includes replacing satellites with astronomical costs to launch and operate with weather balloons that are sometimes within the monetary reach of high school physics programs, then yes, I think that's a sufficient improvement to be worthy of some protection. There are so many crappy patents out there, but from reading this one (from the standpoint of what I think is right, not necessarily what the law says on this issue) I don't think it's one. Like I said, I'd be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if you bothered to even skim it. In any case, like I said (repeatedly) in the comment you are responding to, I think the more interesting factor here is the claims surrounding a meeting with an NDA. Especially since they allege that the meeting contained detailed information, like work on how to adapt to winds at various altitudes that they say took quite a bit of study.

themartorana 10y ago
> You do realize the patent isn't just the title right? Did you really think that they didn't mention anything in a 73 claim patent that rules out satellites or GPS? Or did you not bother to even look at the thing before you decided, conclusively, it wasn't worth a damn? I'll admit I didn't read the entire patent claim, although I did spend a couple minutes with it. > And how is developing a business to sell these to the military submarining it? I didn't say they submarined anything. That was a genera comment about how patents hold even when the "inventor" (and not many patents these days are actual inventions) decides to not develop their invention. It's a license to lock an idea away. > If your standard of "mild improvement" includes replacing satellites with astronomical costs to launch and operate with weather balloons that are sometimes within the monetary reach of high school physics programs, then yes, I think that's a sufficient improvement to be worthy of some protection. They used weather balloons (already invented) and put a mesh network on them (already invented). To your own comment, it's not like anyone could come in and develop it from under them - it is costly, and that keeps competition at bay. But I still do not see where you think this deserves some exclusivity. > Like I said, I'd be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if you bothered to even skim it. Feeling any sympathy yet? :) > I think the more interesting factor here is the claims surrounding a meeting with an NDA NDA's almost always say things like this (from an NDA we've signed): "Limitation on Obligations. The obligations of the Recipient specified in Section 4 shall not apply, and the Recipient shall have no further obligations, with respect to any Proprietary Information to the extent that such Proprietary Information: (a) is generally known to the public at the time of disclosure or becomes generally known without the Recipient or its Representatives violating this Agreement; (b) is in the Recipient’s possession at the time of disclosure; (c) becomes known to the Recipient through disclosure by sources other than the Disclosing Party without such sources violating any confidentiality obligations to the Disclosing Party; or (d) is independently developed by the Recipient without reference to or reliance upon the Disclosing Party's Proprietary Information." So basically, if Google was already thinking about balloon grid networks, and wanted to see if they could collaborate with this company, then ballon grid networks are not covered under the NDA. Nor is anything else Google was considering prior to this meeting, that happened to be analogous. Likely if there is discovery, it will focus on this.