
Startup NASA - runesoerensen
http://www.technology.nasa.gov/startup
======
Cshelton
Maybe I'm just disregarding a lot of patent law, but wouldn't it be a better
plan to just have all NASA patents open to anyone?

Sort of like the Tesla model with patents. i.e. Let's build a docking
mechanism that all private companies will use as well because engineers have
poured many hours into it and let's not re-invent the wheel. This provides a
better outcome for both the governmental agency and private companies.

In the end, NASA's money is the public's money, sure it doesn't come directly
from a private company all the time, but it will come from the individuals who
make up that private company.

This will keep NASA innovating things that may have no commercial value, but
also allow for more partnerships among private companies and NASA.

~~~
Kalium
> Maybe I'm just disregarding a lot of patent law, but wouldn't it be a better
> plan to just have all NASA patents open to anyone?

I think they're learning from university tech transfer programs. A number of
universities tried the exact approach you describe. What they found is that
companies weren't interested in the ideas because of the substantial risk of
someone out-developing them. A risk significantly increased by a lack of
exclusivity. By patenting them and offering transfer of the patent, they got
much better uptake.

So this is a case of ideals trading off against reality and results.

~~~
sitkack
Most university tech transfer programs don't make money. Typical power law, a
handful of ideas (patents) generate the most revenue. I think having the ideas
open and make consulting agreements to get them to work would a better model.

The same thing that "productized" research also got DARPA out of pure
research. The Mansfield Amendment of 1973 and the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act)
of 1980.

------
eegilbert
Yesterday, a startup incubator wants to be a research lab. Today, a government
research lab wants to be a startup incubator.

I'm confused.

~~~
infinitone
How about a startup research incubator lab?

~~~
leishulang
And stararch resetup incab lubator?

------
iraphael
If there is a separation between the knowledge creation and the
commercialization, I'm all for this model of funding science. However, the
problem starts when NASA becomes a lab that creates patents with the intent of
licensing them. In this scenario, NASA will stop focusing on advancement of
knowledge and become focused on creating the kind of knowledge that will sell.

~~~
damoncali
I would take it a step further. I used to work at NASA, and I never even
thought about a patent. Not sure if we could have even gotten them, but the
idea couldn't have been further from my mind.

To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole
point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for
science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space.

Maybe there is a role for a government organization dedicated to researching
quasi-commerical science and engineering, but I would hate for NASA to become
that agency. I want NASA focused on putting men in space.

~~~
soperj
"To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole
point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for
science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space."

There's obviously another branch of Nasa, otherwise how does James Hansen ever
work there?

~~~
mturmon
James Hansen has not worked for NASA for two years, but that's nitpicking --
your point is correct.

There are multiple NASA centers who generally see the enterprise of space
exploration differently. JSC and KSC are more focused on "putting men [sic] in
space" (as the parent commenter said). GSFC is more focused on observing Earth
and the Sun from space. JPL is more focused on robotic planetary exploration.
Those are gross generalizations, because GSFC has been heavily involved with
Hubble, and JPL does some Earth missions, etc.

------
dddrh
When I was in university one of my favorite professors encouraged his students
to browse through the tech transfer catalog every so often as a source of idea
generation. I found it helps tremendously as a mental exercise to go through
their technologies and brainstorm ways to commercialize.

One of the things about idea generation is that it is a muscle that needs
exercise.

I'm glad to see the tech transfer program starting something new(ish).

------
TeMPOraL
Weird how this stuff goes in circles. So here NASA attempts to move away from
basic research and toward startup trivialities, while just yesterday we've
been reading about YC branching off a division to go _away_ from startup
trivialities and towards basic research.

Maybe let's just switch Sam Altman with Charles F. Bolden and skip the slow
process? ;).

Also, BTW., ESA seems to be playing the same game too. Only few hours earlier
I've been watching a video on international flight where ESA described their
program of technology transfer and startup incubation...

------
nostromo
I'm confused as to why NASA has patents to begin with.

If we already paid for the research, why should we have to license it at all?

------
dta5003
From the sample licensing agreement, the "standard net royalty fee" mentioned
is 4.2%, and the minimum fee is $3000 per year after the first three years.

------
BatFastard
Why would NASA need patents? I would venture to guess that if NASA doesn't
apply for a patent for a new tech they might use. Soon after not patenting it
a commercial enterprise would, and then NASA would be required to license the
technology they developed. The concept of non enforced or open source patents
has only gained ground VERY recently, even though the idea has been around for
a long time.

~~~
imh
Doesn't it invalidate a patent if someone else was already doing it?

------
thearn4
A bit of a tangent to this post, but within the walls of NASA there are a few
projects which are trying to structure themselves around the startup tech
company model. The CAS (convergent aeronautics solutions) project is one
example.

[http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/programs-
tacp.htm](http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/programs-tacp.htm)

------
base
ESA have a similar program for a long time
[http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technolo...](http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Business_Incubation/ESA_Business_Incubation_Centres12)

------
cellu_cc
Glad someone @ NASA is finally doing this. The acceptance rate on SBIRs/STTRs
is about 70% because so few people know about it and/or apply.

The bar is very low, and there's alot of stupid work that gets funded
essentially because of how NASAs budget works.

------
tljr
NASA has patents?

------
philsof
Cool!

