
Satellite killed by trajectory patent - frabcus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC-14#Launch_anomaly
======
fleitz
The patent in this case is simply getting the blame for a failed launch, as an
excuse to collect insurance. This is like blaming a smoke detector patent on a
building being burned to the ground to collect insurance. "We couldn't afford
smoke detectors because they're patented, and we're in a lawsuit with a
manufacturer"

It has nothing to do with the patent and everything to do with collecting
insurance.

~~~
freshhawk
The fact that trajectories are being patented at all is what I took away from
this. That's astounding in it's ridiculousness. I assumed that was why this
was posted.

Your analogy makes no sense, the failed launch has nothing to do with the
patent, the patent just stopped an attempt at saving the satellite. So more
like the factory caught on fire and no firetrucks could come because a
competing factory had patented the route from the firehouse.

~~~
gaius
_That's astounding in it's ridiculousness_

Indeed, which is why it's not what happened. Repeat after me: you cannot
patent an idea, only a mechanism for implementing an idea.

~~~
regularfry
<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6116545>

------
nostromo
In case you're wondering about patents in space like I was...

35 U.S.C. 105 Inventions in outer space.

(a) Any invention made, used, or sold in outer space on a space object or
component thereof under the jurisdiction or control of the United States shall
be considered to be made, used or sold within the United States for the
purposes of this title, except with respect to any space object or component
thereof that is specifically identified and otherwise provided for by an
international agreement to which the United States is a party, or with respect
to any space object or component thereof that is carried on the registry of a
foreign state in accordance with the Convention on Registration of Objects
Launched into Outer Space.

(b) Any invention made, used, or sold in outer space on a space object or
component thereof that is carried on the registry of a foreign state in
accordance with the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer
Space, shall be considered to be made, used, or sold within the United States
for the purposes of this title if specifically so agreed in an international
agreement between the United States and the state of registry.

~~~
SquareWheel
Could somebody that speaks legalese phrase that in standard English?

~~~
einhverfr
Basically, if the US can claim jurisdiction either by virtue of launch or
nationality of components or by international jurisdiction, then the patents
are enforcible in the US.

~~~
sneak
Not _exactly_ related, but...

As more and more Americans realize that there is a life after the USA, I have
a feeling that we're going to see more and more jurisdictional straw-grasping
by the US government.

Maybe I'm searching for a pattern where there isn't one, but this comes on the
heels of them requiring tax payments of people who've expatriated, as well as
seizing .com domains registered by foreign nationals at foreign registrars...

~~~
freshhawk
I've noticed that pattern as well and took the same thing from it as you did.

It does align with my natural bias however, so gotta be careful about
confirmation bias.

------
droithomme
It's obviously invalid to patent orbital trajectories. It's also obvious it
would cost millions and take decades in court to fight it, and if you won the
satellite would long since have ceased to be relevant.

~~~
slapshot
Why?

I don't mean that sarcastically. The patent is not on the existence of a
particular trajectory, nor on a basic law of physics. It's a patent on a
process to move a spacecraft from one orbit to another by firing rockets at
precise times.

I can't think of a reason why this would be more invalid than a "composition
of matter" patent that is just a list of particular alloys of steel with
special properties: after all, it's a law of physics that 18-8 steel has
special properties, which was patented [1]. The patent was issued just on
listing a mix of iron, 18% chromium, and 8% nickel. Many other special steel
blends have been patented [2], even though their specialness is a function of
natural properties of materials.

I'm not saying it's a good thing that this is patentable, but it's very far
from "obvious" that it's not.

[1] <http://www.estainlesssteel.com/historyofstainlesssteel.shtml> [2] At
random:
[http://www.google.com/patents?id=L0YhAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=L0YhAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)

~~~
jacquesm
> It's a patent on a process to move a spacecraft from one orbit to another by
> firing rockets at precise times.

What else would you suggest?

~~~
slapshot
Well, the GSM patents [1] are a series of patents on particular ways to send
wireless signals between handsets and base stations. I'm pretty sure that
wireless radio is the only way to send signals from a cell phone, but that
hasn't invalidated patents on particular methods of doing so.

Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing that this is patentable, but it's not
"obvious" that it's not patentable if it's possible to patent (several times
over) various ways of sending wireless signals from cell phones, or particular
blends of nickel, chromium and iron.

[1] <http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=9667>

------
tzs
From the patent abstract:

    
    
       A method is provided for using a lunar flyby
       maneuver to transfer a satellite from a
       quasi-geosynchronous transfer orbit having a
       high inclination to a final geosynchronous orbit
       having a low inclination. The invention may be
       used to take the inclination of a final geosynchronous
       orbit of a satellite to zero, resulting in a
       geostationary orbit, provided that the satellite
       is launched in March or September.
    

That part about March or September is surprising to me. What is special about
those months?

Note that this patent is about a technique involving a lunar flyby for setting
up an orbit around Earth. The period of the Moon doesn't fit evenly into the
year, and so things that depend on the position of the Moon relative to the
Earth tend to occur at intervals that cause them to drift through the calendar
year.

What would be happening here that is tied to the year?

~~~
rationalbeats
Well March is the Spring Equinox, and September is the Fall Equinox and that
would be my educated guess as to why those two months are special.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Serious question: Why would day and night on earth being equal length impact
orbital mechanics?

Edit: I realized this might sound sarcastic. It isn't meant to be.

~~~
ars
It's not the day/night length.

It's the angle of the earth relative to the orbit of the moon. It's a
geosynchronous orbit, so it must match the equator, including the angle.

Presumably in other months the angle of the moon's orbit (relative to the
equator) is wrong for using this maneuver.

~~~
btilly
There are 3 bodies here, the Earth, the Moon and the Sun.

During the equinox the equator of the Earth lines up with the Sun-Earth axis.
I can see that being significant in all sorts of ways. At other times of year,
in a complicated maneuver, the Sun is going to pull the satellite off of that
plane of orbit.

------
LVB
I get the gist of the submission, but "Satellite killed..." is a bit
sensational. The AMC-14 is alive, albeit under DOD ownership:

<http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/amc-14.htm>

~~~
freehunter
I think the use of the word "killed" here doesn't mean "not alive", but rather
"no longer useful", which is a common usage. Considering it was declared a
complete loss and sold off, I'd say it was killed in the sense of "this
project has been killed".

------
CurtMonash
It is often better to ask forgiveness rather than permission. Why not move the
satellite first, litigate about the patent later?

What this really sounds like is a case of somebody taking their lawyers much,
much too seriously. Courts have the right to tell you what to do or not do.
Lawyers, however (unless they are judges) do not have that right; people
unfortunately overlook that point all the time.

~~~
Gustomaximus
Whether or not this is the case here, the sentiment you make about lawyers is
so correct in my area (marketing). I often see people looking for lawyers to
make yea/nay decisions whereas I believe business is better run when lawyers
inform you of the level of risk and possible outcomes of a decision. Then you
make the call. Otherwise it seems you will be stuck on the overly safe route.

------
grn
A link to the patent: <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6116545>

------
exDM69
If you check out the patent, US6116545 and see what citations they have, it
seems like there's a whole lot of different patents on various orbital
maneuvers.

------
waterlesscloud
I can feel the innovation stimulation happening all around us!

------
vibrunazo
> While it is expected that the patent would not stand up to legal challenge,
> SES intend to de-orbit the spacecraft in order to collect the insurance
> payout.[7] If this attempt had been successful, the extra use of fuel needed
> to correct the orbital error would have significantly reduced AMC-14's
> originally expected service life of 15 years to just four.

Am I reading this wrong, or is it saying they would have killed the satellite
anyway, even if there was no patents?

~~~
raverbashing
It's called 'An excuse'

They probably wouldn't have killed if it was in the correct orbit all along,
but they probably considered "risk of fixing" vs insurance payout

------
marcuspovey
What next, planes which can only fly south because Boeing have a patent on
North?

~~~
ilcavero
how about a a patent for parallel parking

~~~
dredmorbius
You kid. But with driverless cars emerging, I suspect we may well see just
that.

~~~
DanEdge
You can already buy a Lexus which parallel parks for you. Don't know which, if
any, elements are patented though.

~~~
dredmorbius
That thought occurred to me moments after I posted.

------
vibrunazo
I just have to ask, how did you find this?

~~~
frabcus
@leashless mentioned it on Twitter, and it shocked me! He's worth following
for quite unusual stuff.

------
ricardobeat
Uh... that's beyond stupid if it's true Maybe the patent is on
equipment/method used to calculate the trajectory?

If not, I'll patent my trajectory to work and make a few bucks on the side.

~~~
fleitz
It's not true, ideas are never patentable, they have to pass the machine-
transformation test. When the trajectory is applied to a machine it becomes
patentable.

It's the application that is patented not the idea. The trajectory alone is
not patentable as it fails to meet the machine-transformation test.

~~~
CamperBob2
I don't follow you. Of what use is it to say that "ideas are never
patentable," and then hedge the statement by pointing out that trivial
application of the idea to any given concrete object renders it, in effect,
patentable?

Why _couldn't_ the grandparent poster file for a patent on a particular
sequence of turns and braking/acceleration maneuvers needed to drive from one
place to another in the least amount of time? Under your reasoning, all he has
to do is add "with an automobile" to the abstract series of instructions, in
order to be granted ownership of those instructions with respect to their
execution with an automobile.

How in the world can anyone think this is OK?

~~~
DanBC
So GPS makers can not only have patents on how a route is created, but on the
actual routes?

~~~
fleitz
If the route is non-obvious and doesn't have prior art probably.

If you invented a warp drive that could get you from New York to London in 3
minutes you could probably file a patent for folding space in a manner that
gets you from New York to London in three minutes with out smushing the earth
into bits.

------
DennisP
Every now and then, I read a piece of news that makes me think if
extraterrestrials are watching us, they must be shaking their heads in some
combination of amusement, disgust, and despair.

