
Google accused of stealing balloon network tech behind Project Loon - ivank
https://thestack.com/world/2016/06/16/google-accused-of-stealing-balloon-network-tech-behind-project-loon/
======
bpodgursky
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
> 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
"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.

~~~
johncolanduoni
> 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
> 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.

~~~
johncolanduoni
> Feeling any sympathy yet? :)

No, because if you skimmed it and then decided to say it was confusable with
the prior art of communications satellites, you've just shifted from being
lazy to plain disingenuous.

> NDA's almost always say things like this (from an NDA we've signed):

And you've read their NDA? I don't know how much more I have to couch things
with allege and supposedly. I have no idea if they're blowing smoke up
Google's ass or if they have a real claim. But you sure as hell don't have any
evidence to write them off as confidently as you have been.

~~~
themartorana
Someone wrote up on the wrong side of the judgemental bed today.

I'm sorry I didn't print out the patent, stash it away, go get a law degree,
come back, study it, get a second opinion, and then comment, but hey, neither
did anyone here, and yet HN survives.

I read enough to know I disagreed with it. I have been in business long enough
to know you don't sign an NDA that doesn't cover internal prior art. I know
you think you have a grasp on my ability to comment intelligently on patents
and NDAs, but you are mistaken.

And be careful who you call disingenuous. It's an insult of a pretty high
order, and were I a lesser person, I might have taken it personally.

------
rincebrain
I don't think we can really make any informed remarks on these claims without
more information.

We don't know:

* the NDA terms

* what the "trade secrets" Google is alleged to have taken/used are

* whether the patents are going to stand under scrutiny

* why they couldn't come to an agreement in the first place.

If I were in Google's position, I would probably have either paid them even a
minorly extortionate value to come to a licensing agreement (to mitigate
precisely this circumstance), or arranged a "clean room" to implement their
Loon tech without anyone involved in the trade secrets having input (beyond
the necessary "approve/disapprove" from some level of management above the
team, since they allege the co-founders were covered by the NDA and knew trade
secrets).

It's not impossible that Google is acting in poor faith here, but I don't
think we can draw any conclusions until more information comes out.

------
Aloha
How the hell is this even patentable - its derivative of transmitting
telephone and data from a balloon, which was done at least as early as the
mid-50's.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This isn't just about a patent. This is about blatant theft of a technology
they were introduced to under a written agreement of confidentiality. Which
they then turned around, copied, and announced as their own supposedly
incredibly original development project. All the research and investment Space
Data put into to even proving the idea was viable, and Google takes all the
credit.

~~~
icebraining
I'm certainly not one to be surprised that Google could violate an NDA or
trade secrets, but it's not clear to me exactly what they are alleged to have
copied. Is it to you?

I mean, the basic concept and viability of an ubiquitous network of balloons
providing Internet access had already been presented publicly by Space Data
(see [1]), so you didn't have to violate an NDA to know that. The idea that
you can control direction by changing altitude is also old as rocks (Jules
Verne's _Five Weeks in a Balloon_ is based on it).

And it's not clear to me that they actual alleged that Google copied the
actual mechanism and/or used their trial tests data.

[1]
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520007226](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520007226)

~~~
dboreham
An NDA deals typical with disclosing of information. E.g. you visit Google to
pitch your product and tell them you plan that launch it next year, or you
have 200 customers signed up. The NDA says Google can't tell that stuff to the
press or your competitors and possibly can't share that information with other
divisions within Google (depends on the wording obviously). It would not cover
"they'll copy our idea themselves". This is a standard, central concern with
anyone pitching to BigCo and something you talk over and strategize about
endlessly before the pitch. Everyone basically assumes it is a risk, hence the
old advice "don't pitch to Microsoft", or I guess now: Google.

If this is the basis for the case then it obviously has no merit.

------
x5n1
The damn patent system needs reform. Plain and simple. Make them short and
unprofitable unless you are going to use them to do something useful.

~~~
icebraining
What do you mean? Space Data was using them, they built a bunch of balloon
networks for the military. It's not clear to me that their allegations are
correct, but they can hardly be accused of being an NPE.

~~~
Nullabillity
For civilian purposes that's basically equivalent to being a NPE.

In reality it's even worse, since NPEs typically don't (indirectly) cause
physical harm to people.

------
TimmySmith
Since this case is more or less obvious I would really like to know how
Googles/Alphabets decision making process works.

For example: A start-up with interesting new technology and a headquarter near
capital city (Government nearby/useful for lobbing) -> buy it, or a small
company in the country -> "borrow" it.

------
elif
When the powerful engage in a mutual struggle with the poor and attempt to
overcome it at great expense, it is called theft.

capitalism.

~~~
elif
Can one of the 5 downvotes, or someone else that agrees with them, please tell
me what was wrong with my comment?

------
mc32
If true, it's disappointing that a great organization like the G would do
something like this fully aware. I'm inclined to believe, at the moment, if
the allegations are true, the PM for this who met with the plaintiffs decided
to go rogue rather then it being from further up the chain.

------
ivthreadp110
With anyone who thinks there is any grounds on this any kinda lawsuit.

I honestly disagree. They (google) try to employ smart people (as any company
should do), they pull from creative areas- have you honestly never thought you
invented something only to find out that someone else came up with the idea
earlier?

I swear that I invented the Jet Ski when I was like 8 years old- like
motorcycle but boat... I drew up designed on graph paper etc- mine had a glass
shield though, but also used thermodynamic for propulsion (initial versions
used a prop).

Jet skis or whatever were around years before I came up with that. I was just
a kid. Still though- a stolen idea or just something that other people as
smart as you might also independently come up with is a grey area. And the
flaw in patent law in the US. To insist on generalizing such as shape of
controller or magnets vs. the purpose of real innovation to make an arms race
for getting money back on it... I all it all BS In the modern age. Just MIT
open source it if you have the guts to.

I am speaking to the general you. Sorry for my long winded jet-ski example. I
totally invented that before it was a thing (at least to child self).

~~~
Steko
This isn't a patent troll and this isn't Google independently inventing
something. This is Google meeting with the company, getting closed door access
to their tech and then deciding to copy large parts of their product. We can
argue whether that should be legal in all/many/this case(s) but it's nothing
like your jet ski example.

~~~
endgame
Sounds like doublespace/stacker all over again:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit)

