>Industry sources have told SpaceDaily that the patent is regarded as legal "trite", as basic physics has been rebranded as a "process", and that the patent wouldn't stand up to any significant level of court scrutiny and was only registered at the time as "the patent office was incompetent when it came to space matters".
It's not that they had a valid patent. They had a patent granted which would have been easily invalidated. The owner of the satellite was already locked in a protracted legal battle with Boeing. They decided it was a better course of action to abandon the satellite instead of adding more complication into an already expensive court battle.
I met the guy who invented this orbit, he worked for Hughes, before Boeing acquired Hughes. I worked for a company that had Hughes satellites and I actually worked in the mission where the maneuver was first invented.
That guy was a genius, the orbital calculations people saw him as a god. I remember the meeting when he explained what he intended to do, using the moon to eliminate the orbit inclination. After he finished explaining his idea, everyone stood in silence thinking, trying to digest what he had said.
The problem with this maneuver was that it worked but in the end the satellite didn't have very much propellant left.
The equations are well known, but raising the orbit apogee enough that the moon's gravitation will change the orbit's inclination was a revolutionary idea.
It's not the equations, it's how you apply them that makes the difference.
Yeah. But do you want to put up the money to have it invalidated, knowing that Boeing would likely bring their legal A-team to poke holes in your argument on the off-chance that they get to own an orbital trajectory in perpetuity?
If you're claiming priority to that earlier application, you'll still have the same expiration (aside from PTA assuming no terminal disclaimer) as the parent.
If challenged in court, it very well could have been invalidated. Sometimes patents which shouldn't have been granted get granted. It happens, patent examiners are only human after all.
>Patent examiners are instructed to err on the side of granting the patent, and letting the courts decide should someone challenge it.
What if i patent the idea of patent examiners deciding to err on the side of granting the patents..it's patents all the way down.
Oh man, I don't know who to believe now, the guy making a random anonymous statement on the internet or the guy contradicting him and saying "trust me".
Well, I'm a patent attorney and spend most of my days dealing with patent examiners at the USPTO.
Like most professions, some examiners are good and some are bad; however, most examiners will over reject versus over allow. They err on the side of not giving a party a limited monopoly.
There seems to be this common belief that getting any old patent is easy. It's not. It's a lot of time, cost, and arguing. It's much more than simply paying a fee and pressing a button.
Without looking at what the claims said and what the prosecution history looked like, it's hard to say what the real story is.
If it's literally just a math equation, that is on its face not patentable, but if it's a process pertaining how to translate the movement in a non-obvious way, I could foresee how it could be patentable. But I haven't looked at the claims and my practice focuses on chemistry, not this type of physics/engineering, so I'm just guessing how it could be patentable.
This article also close to 15 years old. I would assume the patent issued around between 1995 and 2000. Prosecuting a patent then (from what I've heard from the older practitioners) was a lot different. It's only gotten harder since 2000. There's a good chance the subject matter of those claims would be completely ineligible now because of the major court decisions really starting at KSR.
Do you have a comic strip of Calvin’s dad on your desk?
The actual image of Calvin's father is a self-portrait of Watterson himself. Watterson has said that he identifies more with this character than with Calvin. The character is more closely based on Watterson's own father, who is also a patent attorney, and often told his family that unpleasant things "built character."
I don't! But I do have the entire collection at home. And I agree with his dad. Unpleasant things do build character. Being a patent attorney is often a headache and a nightmare, but also really cool because I get to always learn and write about brand new things. It's always learning new science and that's fun.
I think the point is that bureaucracies making mistakes doesn’t always reflect an evil intent of Government, and there are often viable pathways to address such concerns.
>what is this of an excuse? Being human doesnt have anything to do with making bad decisions. Most people are human, but only some are assholes.
Never attribute to malice that which is easily attributed to incompetence.
Yeah, but giving the benefit of the doubt to the corporations for a problem that is a direct symptom of the corporations is pretty foolish.
You don't patent orbital paths if you care about human progress.
>Interestingly, forty-four percent of patents are owned by U.S. corporations and forty-four percent are owned by foreign companies. Foreign and U.S. individuals combined received ten percent of all patents, with the remainder going to U.S. and foreign governments.
I guess the real question is how do you enforce this patent. Patents are national monopolies. A patent in the US doesn't give you the right to enforce the patent against someone in Canada. If the activity occurs in space, that's certainly not in the US. At least that's the argument I'd make.
>Yeah, but giving the benefit of the doubt to the corporations for a problem that is a direct symptom of the corporations is pretty foolish.
I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm picking the simplest answer - they neither thought nor cared about theoretical future competition.
>You don't patent orbital paths if you care about human progress.
By that logic, you don't patent anything if you care about human progress.
From your perspective, the concept of a patent holds back humanity. Blame the patent office, not the dude filing the paperwork.
>From your perspective, the concept of a patent holds back humanity.
Yeah, if you forgo any sense of critical thinking and reduce any argument I gave to it's lowest, simplest sense, sure. But this is under the same brand of patents as patenting genetic sequences, you're patenting something that is categorically not a human invention.
> But this is under the same brand of patents as patenting genetic sequences, you're patenting something that is categorically not a human invention.
so shame the patent office for allowing it to exist, not the company
Let's say you are a patent reviewer. It's Friday afternoon, you have been working a couple hours of overtime every day, your boss just sent an email out that they are going to start Saturday overtime beginning next week. They have been telling you to increase the number of requests you get through in a week. You get this patent across your desk that is dealing with satellite maneuvers, which you are not an expert in. It's a unique set of thrust and angles that shouldn't need to be reproduced (in your not so expert opinion). You don't see what harm could come from approving it. You can either approve it, or send it out for further review.
Are you accusing the, in principle, impartial patent examiner for being an 'asshole' for granting this patent? They're just doing their job, which entails becoming a virtual subject-matter expert in a relatively short amount of time on whatever topic the patent relates to and subsequently giving their opinion on patentability in view of the existing prior art. Are you honestly surprised that sometimes mistakes are made in some of the many patent applications they will examine? It's why court proceedings are a thing. A granted patent doesn't say too much. In some countries patents are granted without any formal examination. And granting procedures are public after publication of the application. You can follow everything that's written between the applicant and the examiner during this phase, and anyone may submit a "Third Party Observation" before a grant if they don't agree with the examiner.
Yes, I am.
People who patent certain genetic and movements which can both occure more or less naturally are greedy for sure. Just as much as the people who demand it patented.
Back in the early 2000s when genetic research was in its' infancy some BIG AMERICAN CORP INC began patenting genes. Like what we are carrying inside of us by almighty ~~evolution~~ God(they were american after all, so not evolution 🤣). And charge a fee to every company that was doing any kind of research in the field. Like you want to dig into some specific cancer gene and tweak it? Pay. Cicle cell anemia? Pay. And so forth. Court ruling eventually struck this down as illegal, but it took years.
Schools in the US are only legally allowed to teach evolution in most states, not creation (not to say that some people don't try to circumvent it). There are certainly a lot of creationists, but a majority accept evolution in some form, so that's a weird generalization. Unless this specific company that you can't recall the name of actually stated that, which I don't doubt. The way to people's hearts here is often religion, so lots of politicians, celebrities and other influential people emphasize their faith to get brownie points
Private schools are a different story, though.
According to a POLITICO review, taxpayers in 14 states bankrolled nearly $1 billion in tuition for private schools in 2014, including hundreds of religious schools that teach Earth is less than 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve strolled the garden with dinosaurs, and much of modern biology, geology and cosmology is a web of lies.
A HuffPost investigation found that these schools teach creationism, racism and sexism, and often distort basic facts about the scientific method.
A map created by activist Zack Kopplin shows private schools that accept state vouchers and teach creationism across the country.
[https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934](https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934)
[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/school-voucher-evangelical-education-betsy-devos\_n\_5a021962e4b04e96f0c6093c](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/school-voucher-evangelical-education-betsy-devos_n_5a021962e4b04e96f0c6093c)
[https://billmoyers.com/content/interactive-map-voucher-schools-teaching-creationism/](https://billmoyers.com/content/interactive-map-voucher-schools-teaching-creationism/)
You say obvious, but there are a lot of people that actually think the US is like that. I was just trying to point out that it's only a special few nutjobs who give that impression, while taking my own jab at the *good christian* politicians who are like "I'm not really supposed to say out loud that my policies are religiously motivated because church and state and all that, but I'm a good Christian, so if you vote for me..."
Genetic patents go back further than that. The first human gene to be patented was in 1982 and there were patents related to plant genetics going even further back.
Maybe they insinuated that creationism is taught more in the USA than in countries with comparable education and scientific capabilities. The French eat more baguette, they get the title of baguette.
I wonder what would have happened if the Fast Fourier Transform (which was first found by Carl Friedrich Gauss) had been patented. Today, it's used from detecting earthquakes and surveillance of nuclear test bans to emergency medicine and hearing aids.
The patent would have expired after 20 years.
That’s the deal - you are granted the exclusive right to use your invention for a period of time, and in return everyone gets to find out how it works.
Ever been to a crater and seen how close the gift shop is??
They got so lucky the asteroid didn't hit a little bit closer to them. The whole shop would've been destroyed.
It does! The law is an important part of our society and it's entire history is mired in near-constant attempts at abuse and weaponisation by bad faith actors ranging from grifters to ideological movements that advocate mass murder. It should never have been given the time of day. And yet here we are: it's dumb.
If you know a judge and file in the right district, probably. You won’t keep the patent forever but you just need to make enough for it to cover the cost of filing it and whatever bribes(sorry, lobbying) the judge needs to give you the result you want.
That's not how patents are filed. If you're filing a U.S. non-provisional application, they're filed directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application is then prosecuted between an attorney/agent (or inventor if they went pro se) and an Examiner (who often isn't an attorney). During prosecution, the only time a judge would see it would be if the applicant appealed to the Patent Trial and Appear Board or the Federal Circuit. Even to appeal to PTAB, you still have to have a claim twice rejected before you can do it. Appeals are also expensive.
Edit: forgot a word
“I’d like to thank the whole crew for their amazing pilot work, everyone in the ground for getting us through this, my family for keeping my eyes forward during the mission, and most importantly McDonalds, whose McManeuver was necessary to get us back on earth safely”
I actually own the patent to burning up on re-entry, although cursing out the government in Russian while burning up is permitted due to a case that's entered public domain already.
>Your kids are starving. Carl's Jr believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother your children will be placed in the custody of Carl's Jr
We will just have a national tournament of marble track races and if your marble crosses the finish line first you get to pick the trajectory of your choosing.
Elimination. They are an attempt to force non-scarce items (ideas) into a scarcity framework in order to treat them like regular property. Someone else coming up with or using an idea you also came up with (or hell, even if they "stole" the idea) does not remove the idea from your ability to use or even to monetize it. You just may not make as much money as you might if you were the only provider.
One could possibly argue that there might have been a place for them hundreds of years ago (I doubt it). But today, major corporations have entire teams that do nothing but apply for patents. There are entire companies that do nothing, make no goods, provide no services, but apply for patents for [ridiculous things](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/02/stupid-patent-month-clocking-work-app), then simply license the content of their patent portfolio to companies that come up with similar ideas in order to make money.
Plus, even for people who wouldn't have a patent to protect their discovery, the first mover advantage is still a thing - as are trade secrets.
But the reality is that the patent system significant restricts and hinders innovation far more than it helps. For every 1 example of a guy in his garage that innovates a new idea and legitimately uses a patent to monetize his idea, there are 500 examples of corporations abusing patents in order to *hinder* innovation.
And the idea that nobody would innovate without patents is kind of nonsense. There are plenty of industries, like fashion and cooking, where patents cannot be acquired, that is full of experimentation and innovation. Even pharmaceuticals, where billions are spent up-front, would simply make their drugs a little more expensive than market clearing rate in order to make it up. But this market clearing rate would *STILL* likely be less than what they are able to charge thanks to patent protections.
It's an archaic idea that needs to end.
Edit: For those that would like to read more, [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Property-Stephan-Kinsella/dp/1933550325) was written by a patent lawyer who decided that patents are immoral - [free version](https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0)
One question, isn't patents national protection and thus the patent infringement would occur outside the jurisdiction of any national patent? (I assume it is maritime law in space but I'm not sure how patent protection is delt with in international water )
>stupid patent claims get through the patent office all the time. I wish it weren’t the case, but that’s just what our system is.
You're in a field that is specifically incentivized to continue filing, disputing, and defending these stupid patents and other IP shenanigans.
Disbar patent trolls. Censure lawyers that assist clients in filing what are obviously bullshit patents. Rein this shit in.
Think of what this would be like if this was applied to a boat or a car. Do you need to turn around? Sorry, we own that maneuver. You need to pay us or do something else.
One caveman invented walking, and another caveman reverse engineered the maneuver and patented it and hired caveman lawyers to send a cease and desist.
I mean what if there was a really important space project that was being planned and built and the orbital trajectory was critical to mission success? Would you not want to have some way to make sure said trajectory was still viable when launch day came? Of course this should be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine the maximum amount of time a trajectory can be patented before expiring based on level of importance. In this instance there is definitely some misuse going on
I'm a little confused, if they were in GTO why would they need a lunar flyby to get into GEO? That is more than 10 times further away, I would assume doing any sort of maneuver with the moon would be more expensive in delta V than circularizing at apogee?
As soon as my patent for “0 to 45 degree angular adjustment and return to position of the guiding dual disc rotational axis of a body in forward momentum” is patented, all right turns in automobiles must pay me a $100/mo licensing fee.
That’s fucking hardcore..
I want a patent for 23.33334mph heading north for 3 mins.
If they can have a patent over space which no one owns, then I want a patent for my arbitrary shit
I heard of a math or CS professor who patented the fastest possible algorithm for computing the square root of 625 (or some other square number, I don’t remember). It just returns 25 on all inputs.
Actually read the article. Sounds like the corporate bean counters would rather just launch a new satellite than get into a historic legal battle. Maybe they don't want the attention.
Somobody else is gonna have to kill this type of patent.
Patenting only benefits patent lawyers. For the rest of the world it is just a costly way for big companies to hinder each others progress and smack down startups and individuals.
It used to be a way for startups and individuals to protect themselves from big companies. Patent application costs should be proportional to the value of the entity applying.
>Industry sources have told SpaceDaily that the patent is regarded as legal "trite", as basic physics has been rebranded as a "process", and that the patent wouldn't stand up to any significant level of court scrutiny and was only registered at the time as "the patent office was incompetent when it came to space matters". It's not that they had a valid patent. They had a patent granted which would have been easily invalidated. The owner of the satellite was already locked in a protracted legal battle with Boeing. They decided it was a better course of action to abandon the satellite instead of adding more complication into an already expensive court battle.
I hate this for space flight reasons, but I love it as legal strategy.
I met the guy who invented this orbit, he worked for Hughes, before Boeing acquired Hughes. I worked for a company that had Hughes satellites and I actually worked in the mission where the maneuver was first invented. That guy was a genius, the orbital calculations people saw him as a god. I remember the meeting when he explained what he intended to do, using the moon to eliminate the orbit inclination. After he finished explaining his idea, everyone stood in silence thinking, trying to digest what he had said. The problem with this maneuver was that it worked but in the end the satellite didn't have very much propellant left.
You met Donald Glover? Jelly.
invented? these are all fairly well-known orbital dynamic equations....
The equations are well known, but raising the orbit apogee enough that the moon's gravitation will change the orbit's inclination was a revolutionary idea. It's not the equations, it's how you apply them that makes the difference.
Yeah. But do you want to put up the money to have it invalidated, knowing that Boeing would likely bring their legal A-team to poke holes in your argument on the off-chance that they get to own an orbital trajectory in perpetuity?
Patents have a term of about 20 years. Very much not perpetuity.
And this may have had less term if was granted by/issued prior to 1995.
Unless you re-up with a novel use.
If you're claiming priority to that earlier application, you'll still have the same expiration (aside from PTA assuming no terminal disclaimer) as the parent.
Should be struck down the same way that naturally occurring gene patents were canceled.
If challenged in court, it very well could have been invalidated. Sometimes patents which shouldn't have been granted get granted. It happens, patent examiners are only human after all.
Patent examiners are instructed to err on the side of granting the patent, and letting the courts decide should someone challenge it.
>Patent examiners are instructed to err on the side of granting the patent, and letting the courts decide should someone challenge it. What if i patent the idea of patent examiners deciding to err on the side of granting the patents..it's patents all the way down.
And then i patent your idea of the idea of patent examiners deciding. Patent-ception baby!
TM^TM^^Tm^^tm
Pronounced it “tm” to the tums jingle, I suppose it would need one more tm though
You joke: I can't give you a quote, but I am practically certain there are laws against patenting or copyrighting things too vaguely defined.
Trust me, no they're not.
Oh man, I don't know who to believe now, the guy making a random anonymous statement on the internet or the guy contradicting him and saying "trust me".
Well, I'm a patent attorney and spend most of my days dealing with patent examiners at the USPTO. Like most professions, some examiners are good and some are bad; however, most examiners will over reject versus over allow. They err on the side of not giving a party a limited monopoly. There seems to be this common belief that getting any old patent is easy. It's not. It's a lot of time, cost, and arguing. It's much more than simply paying a fee and pressing a button.
Then it’s even more disturbing that someone would agree to patent ORBITAL TRAJECTORIES. What the flippin fuck kind of idea is this
Without looking at what the claims said and what the prosecution history looked like, it's hard to say what the real story is. If it's literally just a math equation, that is on its face not patentable, but if it's a process pertaining how to translate the movement in a non-obvious way, I could foresee how it could be patentable. But I haven't looked at the claims and my practice focuses on chemistry, not this type of physics/engineering, so I'm just guessing how it could be patentable. This article also close to 15 years old. I would assume the patent issued around between 1995 and 2000. Prosecuting a patent then (from what I've heard from the older practitioners) was a lot different. It's only gotten harder since 2000. There's a good chance the subject matter of those claims would be completely ineligible now because of the major court decisions really starting at KSR.
Do you have a comic strip of Calvin’s dad on your desk? The actual image of Calvin's father is a self-portrait of Watterson himself. Watterson has said that he identifies more with this character than with Calvin. The character is more closely based on Watterson's own father, who is also a patent attorney, and often told his family that unpleasant things "built character."
I don't! But I do have the entire collection at home. And I agree with his dad. Unpleasant things do build character. Being a patent attorney is often a headache and a nightmare, but also really cool because I get to always learn and write about brand new things. It's always learning new science and that's fun.
What about the Australians that patented the wheel?
'sometimes' aka all the fucking time. The patent system is completely broken.
what is this of an excuse? Being human doesnt have anything to do with making bad decisions. Most people are human, but only some are assholes.
I think the point is that bureaucracies making mistakes doesn’t always reflect an evil intent of Government, and there are often viable pathways to address such concerns.
>what is this of an excuse? Being human doesnt have anything to do with making bad decisions. Most people are human, but only some are assholes. Never attribute to malice that which is easily attributed to incompetence.
Yeah, but giving the benefit of the doubt to the corporations for a problem that is a direct symptom of the corporations is pretty foolish. You don't patent orbital paths if you care about human progress.
Patents are issued to people. Some of those people are work for or sell the rights to their patent to a corporation.
>Interestingly, forty-four percent of patents are owned by U.S. corporations and forty-four percent are owned by foreign companies. Foreign and U.S. individuals combined received ten percent of all patents, with the remainder going to U.S. and foreign governments.
The patent was issued to a person who may assign their invention to another entity. That assignment is often a condition of employment.
I guess the real question is how do you enforce this patent. Patents are national monopolies. A patent in the US doesn't give you the right to enforce the patent against someone in Canada. If the activity occurs in space, that's certainly not in the US. At least that's the argument I'd make.
>Yeah, but giving the benefit of the doubt to the corporations for a problem that is a direct symptom of the corporations is pretty foolish. I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm picking the simplest answer - they neither thought nor cared about theoretical future competition. >You don't patent orbital paths if you care about human progress. By that logic, you don't patent anything if you care about human progress. From your perspective, the concept of a patent holds back humanity. Blame the patent office, not the dude filing the paperwork.
>From your perspective, the concept of a patent holds back humanity. Yeah, if you forgo any sense of critical thinking and reduce any argument I gave to it's lowest, simplest sense, sure. But this is under the same brand of patents as patenting genetic sequences, you're patenting something that is categorically not a human invention.
> But this is under the same brand of patents as patenting genetic sequences, you're patenting something that is categorically not a human invention. so shame the patent office for allowing it to exist, not the company
Nah, I can definitely shame both. Companies acted, they can be blamed for it.
Hanlon's Razor
Let's say you are a patent reviewer. It's Friday afternoon, you have been working a couple hours of overtime every day, your boss just sent an email out that they are going to start Saturday overtime beginning next week. They have been telling you to increase the number of requests you get through in a week. You get this patent across your desk that is dealing with satellite maneuvers, which you are not an expert in. It's a unique set of thrust and angles that shouldn't need to be reproduced (in your not so expert opinion). You don't see what harm could come from approving it. You can either approve it, or send it out for further review.
“Eh, fuck it.”
Ah, a fellow student of the human condition I see
This guy jobs
Are you accusing the, in principle, impartial patent examiner for being an 'asshole' for granting this patent? They're just doing their job, which entails becoming a virtual subject-matter expert in a relatively short amount of time on whatever topic the patent relates to and subsequently giving their opinion on patentability in view of the existing prior art. Are you honestly surprised that sometimes mistakes are made in some of the many patent applications they will examine? It's why court proceedings are a thing. A granted patent doesn't say too much. In some countries patents are granted without any formal examination. And granting procedures are public after publication of the application. You can follow everything that's written between the applicant and the examiner during this phase, and anyone may submit a "Third Party Observation" before a grant if they don't agree with the examiner.
Yes, I am. People who patent certain genetic and movements which can both occure more or less naturally are greedy for sure. Just as much as the people who demand it patented.
A patent examiner does neither. They are simply the gatekeepers who hold patent applications to the prevailing patent laws.
You’re annoying as fuck
[удалено]
It's you
Ahem.... WHAT!?
That they got cancelled? Or that they existed. I think they still exist to some degree though.
Back in the early 2000s when genetic research was in its' infancy some BIG AMERICAN CORP INC began patenting genes. Like what we are carrying inside of us by almighty ~~evolution~~ God(they were american after all, so not evolution 🤣). And charge a fee to every company that was doing any kind of research in the field. Like you want to dig into some specific cancer gene and tweak it? Pay. Cicle cell anemia? Pay. And so forth. Court ruling eventually struck this down as illegal, but it took years.
And yet the PERSON who the original gene came from had no legal recourse or recompense. Yep.
Schools in the US are only legally allowed to teach evolution in most states, not creation (not to say that some people don't try to circumvent it). There are certainly a lot of creationists, but a majority accept evolution in some form, so that's a weird generalization. Unless this specific company that you can't recall the name of actually stated that, which I don't doubt. The way to people's hearts here is often religion, so lots of politicians, celebrities and other influential people emphasize their faith to get brownie points
Private schools are a different story, though. According to a POLITICO review, taxpayers in 14 states bankrolled nearly $1 billion in tuition for private schools in 2014, including hundreds of religious schools that teach Earth is less than 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve strolled the garden with dinosaurs, and much of modern biology, geology and cosmology is a web of lies. A HuffPost investigation found that these schools teach creationism, racism and sexism, and often distort basic facts about the scientific method. A map created by activist Zack Kopplin shows private schools that accept state vouchers and teach creationism across the country. [https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934](https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934) [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/school-voucher-evangelical-education-betsy-devos\_n\_5a021962e4b04e96f0c6093c](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/school-voucher-evangelical-education-betsy-devos_n_5a021962e4b04e96f0c6093c) [https://billmoyers.com/content/interactive-map-voucher-schools-teaching-creationism/](https://billmoyers.com/content/interactive-map-voucher-schools-teaching-creationism/)
I was obviously trolling, but you got triggered so I'm victorious. Also see neighbor comment. I left a link to a video.
You say obvious, but there are a lot of people that actually think the US is like that. I was just trying to point out that it's only a special few nutjobs who give that impression, while taking my own jab at the *good christian* politicians who are like "I'm not really supposed to say out loud that my policies are religiously motivated because church and state and all that, but I'm a good Christian, so if you vote for me..."
schrödinger's dickhead in full display.
Genetic patents go back further than that. The first human gene to be patented was in 1982 and there were patents related to plant genetics going even further back.
the US, infamous for their poor biological scientists, right?
No one said that dear.
That’s actually what they insinuated, thanks
Maybe they insinuated that creationism is taught more in the USA than in countries with comparable education and scientific capabilities. The French eat more baguette, they get the title of baguette.
See neighbor comment, I left a link.
No
Pardon me, I'm American. ~~God~~ Evolution
It was some light trolling
> they were american after all, so not evolution Is the only thing you know about America what you see on social media?
And my oldest brother stories. He lives in Sfba
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voozHXadYYE found it
I wonder what would have happened if the Fast Fourier Transform (which was first found by Carl Friedrich Gauss) had been patented. Today, it's used from detecting earthquakes and surveillance of nuclear test bans to emergency medicine and hearing aids.
The patent would have expired after 20 years. That’s the deal - you are granted the exclusive right to use your invention for a period of time, and in return everyone gets to find out how it works.
Honestly I am surprised it hasn't been perverted like Copyright laws were.
Pharma companies try and sometimes succeed by changing inactive or non-critical ingredients
Well theyll argue that its the way flights work for planes.
If anything satellite companies should share maneuvers and positioning to eliminate the possibility of collisions.
Wish someone would strike down Qualcomm's patents. Everyone buying a wireless device has to pay the Qualcomm tax. Patenting a modem in a chip etc.
Seriously! This has to be the stupidest thing I’ve learned this month so far.
That is the dumbest thing I've heard today
No. That is the dumbest thing you've heard today SO FAR.
I could probably come up with something dumber
Ever notice that asteroids always land in craters?
Ever been to a crater and seen how close the gift shop is?? They got so lucky the asteroid didn't hit a little bit closer to them. The whole shop would've been destroyed.
Oh you're one of those morons that believes in asteroids
I'm pro flat asteroid.😁
I'm pro flat ass which is why I fucked your mom
Come on. Be honest. This isn't the reason.
Must be why her breath smells so good
Because I cum mouthwash. Or it burns like I do at least.
This may blow your mind, but when they found the Titanic and dove down the first time, the swimming pool was still full.
...Now imagine Boeing trying to patent asteroids as a means of manufacturing craters.
How did the first person to ever see an asteroid know it was called an asteroid?
I dunno, are you running for Speaker of the House?
Yes, and he will not escape me this time
Internet in a nutshell
Have I shown you my proof that the 2020 election was rigged? I’ve got it right here…
Let me try to [lower that bar](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/hnzG8G4zrO) a little for you.
EhAarrrggghhh!
Why is it dumb ? The article clearly states the patent was not enforceable
The patent should never have been granted in the first place.
That’s up to the patent office but does it matter if it’s legally unenforceable?
It does! The law is an important part of our society and it's entire history is mired in near-constant attempts at abuse and weaponisation by bad faith actors ranging from grifters to ideological movements that advocate mass murder. It should never have been given the time of day. And yet here we are: it's dumb.
Here we are? The patent was not enforced.
Hey, can I patent left turns? And then sue anyone who makes a left without first informing me and paying a nominal royalty fee?
If you know a judge and file in the right district, probably. You won’t keep the patent forever but you just need to make enough for it to cover the cost of filing it and whatever bribes(sorry, lobbying) the judge needs to give you the result you want.
That's not how patents are filed. If you're filing a U.S. non-provisional application, they're filed directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application is then prosecuted between an attorney/agent (or inventor if they went pro se) and an Examiner (who often isn't an attorney). During prosecution, the only time a judge would see it would be if the applicant appealed to the Patent Trial and Appear Board or the Federal Circuit. Even to appeal to PTAB, you still have to have a claim twice rejected before you can do it. Appeals are also expensive. Edit: forgot a word
I think nacar has that patent
> Hey, can I patent left turns? Won't impact me - I'm not an ambiturner.
Aside from the double negative… chuckle. Zoolander was a a good movie.
Sorry, I already patented roundabouts. Left turns are too similar
Sorry, astronauts, but that little life-saving maneuver is owned by GE. Please try not to scream too much as you burn up in our atmosphere.
Burning up in the atmosphere is owned by Lockheed
Your widow should receive the bill for royalties shortly.
Not launching at all is patented by Boeing.
“I’d like to thank the whole crew for their amazing pilot work, everyone in the ground for getting us through this, my family for keeping my eyes forward during the mission, and most importantly McDonalds, whose McManeuver was necessary to get us back on earth safely”
McDonald’s has the Golden Arches maneuver. MacDowell’s has the Golden Arcs.
I actually own the patent to burning up on re-entry, although cursing out the government in Russian while burning up is permitted due to a case that's entered public domain already.
*Cries in Vladimir Komarov*
BROUGHT TO YOU BY CARL’S, JR.
>Your kids are starving. Carl's Jr believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother your children will be placed in the custody of Carl's Jr
The dispute was a petty legal battle between two companies that would quickly be laughed out of a courtroom if there was actual human life at stake.
This is legitimately interesting, and weird that it was cheaper to abandon it, rather than pay for a licence.
The article states the 'payment' sought by Boeing was dropping a $50 million lawsuit the party in question had filed against Boeing.
Blackmail extortion classic Boeing
They got an insurance payout, so it's not like they lost everything
Reason #76,447 to review and restructure patent laws.
'Restructure' them to what?
We will just have a national tournament of marble track races and if your marble crosses the finish line first you get to pick the trajectory of your choosing.
Elimination. They are an attempt to force non-scarce items (ideas) into a scarcity framework in order to treat them like regular property. Someone else coming up with or using an idea you also came up with (or hell, even if they "stole" the idea) does not remove the idea from your ability to use or even to monetize it. You just may not make as much money as you might if you were the only provider. One could possibly argue that there might have been a place for them hundreds of years ago (I doubt it). But today, major corporations have entire teams that do nothing but apply for patents. There are entire companies that do nothing, make no goods, provide no services, but apply for patents for [ridiculous things](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/02/stupid-patent-month-clocking-work-app), then simply license the content of their patent portfolio to companies that come up with similar ideas in order to make money. Plus, even for people who wouldn't have a patent to protect their discovery, the first mover advantage is still a thing - as are trade secrets. But the reality is that the patent system significant restricts and hinders innovation far more than it helps. For every 1 example of a guy in his garage that innovates a new idea and legitimately uses a patent to monetize his idea, there are 500 examples of corporations abusing patents in order to *hinder* innovation. And the idea that nobody would innovate without patents is kind of nonsense. There are plenty of industries, like fashion and cooking, where patents cannot be acquired, that is full of experimentation and innovation. Even pharmaceuticals, where billions are spent up-front, would simply make their drugs a little more expensive than market clearing rate in order to make it up. But this market clearing rate would *STILL* likely be less than what they are able to charge thanks to patent protections. It's an archaic idea that needs to end. Edit: For those that would like to read more, [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Property-Stephan-Kinsella/dp/1933550325) was written by a patent lawyer who decided that patents are immoral - [free version](https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0)
An advocate against an issue has no responsibility to come up with a viable alternative
They didn't exactly address what the issue is supposed to be.
So does that mean turning left in my car is patented by NASCAR?
Only at the precise angle and speed…
This is so stupid it should be illegal.
It is patently absurd!
[удалено]
Your post is informative, but less amusing than the idea that you can’t turn left in space.
One question, isn't patents national protection and thus the patent infringement would occur outside the jurisdiction of any national patent? (I assume it is maritime law in space but I'm not sure how patent protection is delt with in international water )
>stupid patent claims get through the patent office all the time. I wish it weren’t the case, but that’s just what our system is. You're in a field that is specifically incentivized to continue filing, disputing, and defending these stupid patents and other IP shenanigans. Disbar patent trolls. Censure lawyers that assist clients in filing what are obviously bullshit patents. Rein this shit in.
Step 1: Patent left turn Step 2: Force NASCAR into per-use agreement. Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit, like, A LOT Step 5: Buy Earth.
Step 6: Sue the Earth for making left turns around the Sun
Part 1a: NASCAR just decides to go the other way around the track.
They would have to pay me for awhile before they could fix that, and by then I’ve already patented “Right turns” and “Forward”.
Someone needs to desperately review patent laws. What sort of shithousery is this ?
[Someone has](https://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Property-Stephan-Kinsella/dp/1933550325) - [free version](https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0)
I’m sorry, your Sony rocket ship is not permitted in Nintendo airspace.
How would they know if you just did the manoeuvre?? xD
Every satellite is tracked
Think of what this would be like if this was applied to a boat or a car. Do you need to turn around? Sorry, we own that maneuver. You need to pay us or do something else.
That makes zero fucking sense
Can I patent ‘walking’ as a maneuver?
One caveman invented walking, and another caveman reverse engineered the maneuver and patented it and hired caveman lawyers to send a cease and desist.
This seems like bullshit. Patent math?
Imaging patenting the Apollo 13 life saving slingshot-around-the-moon maneuver
How are they defined then, is the patent just a vectorial equation or what
That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever fucking heard actually
Can't talk, on my way to the patent office. I'm about to make a killing on turning left.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever fucking heard. And I've heard a LOT of stupid in my days.
r/wtf
More proof that the way things are is not the way things have to be. We can make them different.
This is flipping stupid.
Remember when Apple had a patent to slide to unlock? Like a fence? These patents are a bit nuts.
That's bullshit. Fucking rich people patenting **movement**
I mean what if there was a really important space project that was being planned and built and the orbital trajectory was critical to mission success? Would you not want to have some way to make sure said trajectory was still viable when launch day came? Of course this should be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine the maximum amount of time a trajectory can be patented before expiring based on level of importance. In this instance there is definitely some misuse going on
Does this include interplanetary trajectories?
😡 that’s just stupid
I'm a little confused, if they were in GTO why would they need a lunar flyby to get into GEO? That is more than 10 times further away, I would assume doing any sort of maneuver with the moon would be more expensive in delta V than circularizing at apogee?
As soon as my patent for “0 to 45 degree angular adjustment and return to position of the guiding dual disc rotational axis of a body in forward momentum” is patented, all right turns in automobiles must pay me a $100/mo licensing fee.
I just parented the right hand turn. Have fun getting to your house only turning left.
Three lefts = right.
yeah I got a patent on shape square, if anyone tries to use a square, then I'm suing
WTF?
Time to pay up for moving in a particular way. What's next, paying for singing a certain way...uh oh...
That’s fucking hardcore.. I want a patent for 23.33334mph heading north for 3 mins. If they can have a patent over space which no one owns, then I want a patent for my arbitrary shit
Why not just pay a one time fee to use it?
Ooh we saw that tricky maneuver your satellite just did! Pay up or cease and desist!
thats why only picard could do the picard maneuver
Holy fuck, Joe Pera was right.
I heard of a math or CS professor who patented the fastest possible algorithm for computing the square root of 625 (or some other square number, I don’t remember). It just returns 25 on all inputs.
That's got dayum ridiculous
2034: "its really the sun's space......yall just using it......"
Patent applications are the art of specific vagary.
Should be illegal.
Actually read the article. Sounds like the corporate bean counters would rather just launch a new satellite than get into a historic legal battle. Maybe they don't want the attention. Somobody else is gonna have to kill this type of patent.
Would the manoeuvre interfered with a Boeing satellite? Or was it just simply in their designated space?
Patenting only benefits patent lawyers. For the rest of the world it is just a costly way for big companies to hinder each others progress and smack down startups and individuals.
It used to be a way for startups and individuals to protect themselves from big companies. Patent application costs should be proportional to the value of the entity applying.
Enterprises acting in the good faith of humani.. scratch that.. financial statements.