Satellite to be junked because lunar flyby is patented
Link (via /.)The AMC-14 commercial geostationary satellite was launched in March by a Proton launch vehicle into space just short of its minimum geostationary transfer orbit (GTO)...
However, SpaceDaily has now learned that a plan to salvage AMC-14 was abandoned a week ago when SES gave up in the face of patent issues relating to the lunar flyby process used to bring wayward GEO birds back to GEO Earth orbit.
Sources have told SpaceDaily that it was possible to bring AMC-14 back via the moon to a stable GEO orbit where the high powered satellite would have been able to operate for at four years and probably longer.
Industry sources have told SpaceDaily that the patent is regarded as legally "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 because "the patent office was incompetent when it came to space matters".
(Image: Patents are only for the old machine, a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike licensed image from Adulau's Flickr stream)
the latest
latest episodes
So American law extends out into space now? Have the extra terrestrial races been informed of this new political development?
Boeing have patented a type of lunar fly-by? Awesome. I've just submitted a patent application to cover driving along the M25 when you want to traverse London at night.
Drinks are on me lads and ladies, I'll be a millionaire by the end of the week.
umm, so leaving aside the stupidity of the situation, has anyone asked what Boeing might want by way of a tribute/virgin sacrifice in order to make use of this patented 'fly-by' of theirs?
Cost to use patent
Wow. As someone with both a Master's degree in satcom engineering (which included a good sized lump of orbital mechanics) and most of another Master's degree in IP Law, I feel unusually qualified to comment on this.
Even by the barrel-scraping standards of the US Patent Office, this is what we English legal types refer to technically as "utter bollocks".
Where's the inventive step? Where is the idea not obvious to a skilled practitioner in the field? Whilst as a good European I object to patents on scientific and mathematical methods, I can at least concede that some of the orbit-related patents that have been granted on, say, use of weird chaotic transitions through the Lagrange points are at novel and inventive. But use of a swingby to simultaneously change the eccentricity and inclination of an orbit is out of Orbits 101; it was done in 1992 at Jupiter for the Ulysses mission, and space journalist James Oberg described how it could be done to get into geostationary orbit in an article back in 1984. There's abundant prior art to invalidate this patent, even leaving aside the matter that it should never have been patentable in the first place.
@3:
The article says "SES is currently suing Boeing for an unrelated New Skies matter in the order of $50 million dollars - and Boeing told SES that the patent was only available if SES Americom dropped the lawsuit."
Ignoring how questionable the patent itself is, SES Americom can hardly play the innocent victim.
The article even goes on to say how there have been several offers to buy the satellite and correct its orbit but SES Americom would prefer an insurance payout - without informing its insurer of the alternatives. The patent is ridiculous but the post saying the satellite "being abandoned in orbit because its position can't be corrected without violating a Boeing patent" is far from the whole story...
references dcboland?
@5: But the patent exists, and regardless of the satellite owner's other actions, this terrible patent allows Boeing to try to exercise leverage over unrelated business matters, making it a losing situation either way for the sat owner on the basis of a patent that shouldn't have been granted in the first place. That makes it an even better example of how broken the patent situation is in the US. I'm not defending the complaining company, but the issues transcend their business ploys.
the patent wouldn't stand up to any significant level of court scrutiny
Really? If that's the case, then fight the patent! Invalidity is not only a defense, but if Boeing tried to use a patent they knew was invalid, it's possible to recover damages from them. There are copyfighters and there are copywhiners; SES seems to be the latter.
I've applied for a patent for a process called gravity. I'll let you know how it turns out.
I had no idea something like this could exist. So, physics can be patented? Thank you for sharing this. I feel dirty at times knowing what kind of culture I'm part of. The corruption of our intelligence by corporate memes (supported by capitalist memes ((supported by legal system memes)), makes me understand how radical shifts in government can be stimulated. I'm voting for the crypto-communist-green party!
It looks like a Hughes patent, not a Boeing one. I couldn't find any Boeing patents that looked related to this subject.
Regardless of who did it, as Mr. Scott might have said, "Y'canna patent the laws of physics Captain!"
At least you shouldn't be able to.
So if they did it secretly anyway, who would know?
Tom (#11): Boeing owns the Hughes satellite operation now, and I'd expect that they acquired the patent as part of that.
"In 2000, the Hughes satellite organization became a welcome addition to the Boeing family."
It looks more like SES Americom is using a flimsy patent as an excuse to collect on an insurance policy.
CKD: Thanks, I didn't know that! The assignee on the patent is still listed as "Hughes Electronics Corporation", which was the reason for my belief.
Although Boeing may only own this patent by acquisition, they have other methods patents of their own that are equally egregious.
It looks more like SES Americom is using a flimsy patent as an excuse to collect on an insurance policy.
This is a money issue.
Hep Cat @14: I think you've hit the nail on the head.
If SES Americom did use the lunar swingby, then (as happened with HGS-1, the satellite this trick was used on in 1998) it will use up most of the satellite's manoeuvring fuel. The upshot of this is that it won't end up in a true geostationary orbit; instead, it will be in a not-quite-as-good geosynchronous one. This means that it will weave around in a figure-of-eight pattern in the sky instead of seeming to stay fixed, so limiting its use to customers with tracking antennas. Now, there are still plenty of those, but it does rather constraint its market; the satellite's useful life will also probably be shortened.
In other words, faced with a choice between getting half what they paid for, or claiming an insurance payout and launching a fully-functional replacement, it's not surprising they're looking for an excuse to go for the second option. This ludicrous patent is just a convenient bit of FUD to wave at the insurers.
"this is what we English legal types refer to technically as "utter bollocks"."
Doesn't matter. All that matters is can you enforce it? I'm sure they'd be able to. This is also no doubt considered part of the US military's plan for total space dominance (at least, close to Earth).
#14 & #18 seem to have it right: Think like a bean counter. What would it cost to violate the patent for a single instance? Even if you were unwilling to mount a legal defense, you would only incur triple damages and would desist (i.e., no longer use the patent). But by then, the damage would already be done, i.e., the satellite would already have been put into a (more) correct orbit and desisting would be free. They're simply looking at the bottom line of costs vs. benefits and determining what the best return is.
This is wrong because it brings patents and the law itself into disrepute. Both those things only work if people respect them.
yah, it's probably money (only because I can't think of the sex angle - you primates are so predictable).
If a law is consistently, spectacularly and very publicly stupid - pretty soon no one pays any attention to it. Why aren't the patent lawyers protecting their racket and doing all they can to shoot this down? It's as if they made money either way.
you looking over my wing case again?
I hardly think this is the only example of the US patent office making an error. or of the US trying to enforce internal laws outside it's borders. meh.
So let me get this straight....
SES put up a satellite into the wrong orbit, then they had internal discussions about how to correct the orbit so the satellite would work for a little while, then Boeing found out about the secret internal plan, then Boeing sent a transcript of the secret plan to their IP department, then the Boeing IP department sent a cease and desist letter to SES, then SES decided to let the satellite plummet to earth and collect the insurance.
Sure people, that’s how the alien spaceship fell at Roswell too. Damn you Boeing with your secret cease and desist letters.
Keep up the good fight, copy fighters!
I need to contact someone at the Ministry of Silly walks, because I saw a Boeing employee using my very own patented gait.
Actually, U.S. patent law is written to consider space, probably part of the moon program as well as lobbying by the aerospace industry. See U.S.C Title 35, Sec 105
None of this has any bearing on the validity of the patent, but if it is valid, than space counts. If they think that the patent is not valid, then they should weight the risk of a successful lawsuit against them v.s., the cost of not performing the maneuver.
I have now patented nuclear warfare, biological warfare, chemical warfare, and rude messages on the Internet.
Welcome to the new era of peace and prosperity.
Tim,
Good find with the statute. However, I'm not at all convinced that Section 105 would apply in this case.
Section 105 is limited to satellites, etc., that are "under the jurisdiction or control of the United States." Without researching the statute in detail, I'm not sure if this applies. This sounds it is limited to satellites that are owned and operated by the United States government, not owned by private entities within the United States (although I could be wrong).
This also assumes that the company that owns it is a United States company. Even it it is a United States company that was subject to Section 105, it could simply sell the satellite to another company in another country (such as a subsidiary set up for this purpose), and then let the subsidiary perform the salvage operation on its own from that country. Under such circumstances, there would be a strong argument that the rescue operation would not fall within the jurisdiction of United States patent law.
If the company hasn't considered this, then it needs better lawyers. I'm with the above comments suggesting that this "patent infringement" excuse is just a big ball of FUD, and that the company would rather just collect a payout from the insurance company.