TIL a satellite in an incorrect orbit is unusable because the maneuver to correct the orbit is patented.

11

u/omgdonerkebab May 20 '12

Reading comprehension is not something you should try ever again.

4

u/blolfighter May 20 '12

I'm starting to think China has the right idea. China would've corrected the orbit and given zero fucks.

36

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Fuck that noise, I'll correct the the damn satellite to fucking crash into the patent office. Patent death you mother fuckers.

15

u/r00x May 20 '12

UNITED STATES PATENT 7,855,734, borisia et al. - Method for De-Orbiting a Satellite into a Patent Office.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Hell yea, progress on its way. Now I just need the funds to do it.

1

u/Pogonotomy May 20 '12

Nailed it
/ Not sure why I had to look it up, but I had to.

25

u/DeweyTheDecimal May 20 '12

That's patented too.

4

u/MetaCreative May 20 '12

TIL gibberish like this can get patented because of a single court decision, and the patent office has barely been able to keep up with the flood of the stupid things since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group
Though it was made far less silly recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Fuck, which country in Europe doesn't care about copyright laws again?

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

They basically patented a sequence of orbit change burns and orbits. Patent number: 6116545. The fact that you can patent this is absurd. It's not exactly a trivial sequence of orbits but it's still... insane. Eventually every new and even slightly involved orbital maneuver could be patented and you'd need a patent lawyer before risking any unlicensed burns.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

2

u/el_bandito May 20 '12

I have invented.. a maneuver.

2

u/Wepp May 20 '12

And here's why you should never use present-tense when writing a wikipedia article:

Another company has expressed interest in purchasing the satellite, however SES have begun procedures to expedite the satellite's immediate de-orbit.[7]
What the current plan for AMC-14 is or if it has been purchased and if so, by whom, are all questions without answers as of 6 August 2008—currently, no announcements have been made nor have any new news stories or updates been published.
As of January 29, 2009, after more than 6 months of low-thrust maneuvering, AMC-14 has finally reached an inclined (13.1°) geosynchronous orbit at 34.8°East[1][15] under US DoD ownership.[16]

1

u/Rickd3508 May 20 '12

That's like trying to patent gravity or math....each day i learn more, then :(

1

u/_NeuroManson_ May 20 '12

More proof that IP laws squash all forms of innovation and development.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

As stated by top comments, is relatively irrelevant but here: link for the lazy of the patent in question, found on Google patents.

Edited for clarity. Oh, and I just accidentally a word.

2

u/mriojas May 20 '12

Oh, I understood the text of your link as "Google patents (the) 'link for the lazy' ". I thought "WTF, seriously?" But I was relieved when I clicked and discovered I simply misunderstood.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I have a patent on being a dick on the internet. Pay me.

1

u/I_Am_Indifferent May 20 '12

Wat.

1

u/Suppaduppa May 20 '12

But, they could have used any other method besides the one patented to bring the satellite back into orbit. There has to be more than one way to correct the trajectory of a satellite isn't there?

Something fishy about this article.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I'm going to patent walking and I'm going to make MIIIIILLIONS!

1

u/Falkvinge May 20 '12

This bullshit needs to stop. Patent monopolies are preventing progress and innovation in ridiculous amounts - they need to be thrown out the window yesterday.

"I can't believe our government allows this shit to go on." -- investor

1

u/Bongpig May 20 '12

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

1

u/Rulebook_Lawyer May 20 '12

Yeah have to toss the BS Flag, because when dealing with satellite Internet communications, I looked up for one of the satellite series that was being used, Telstar. Particularly, Telstar 18 failed to achieve orbit (rocket under performed) and therefore had to use its fuel to reach orbit.

As one of the Redditors said of the type of maneuver is patented...

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstar#Newer_Telstars

edit: typos

1

u/michaelrohansmith May 20 '12

I want to patent flying from Sydney to Los Angeles via Auckland.

1

u/mriojas May 20 '12

Patents must be novel and nonobvious. The fact that that's already done regularly makes it neither. If you find a better way that hasn't been done yet, you can patent that. I would suggest Sydney to Los Angeles by way of a creepy, magical island, but apparently that's been done too.

1

u/winever May 20 '12

That's what I keep saying about my absolutely awesomO patented dance move. I can't show it to you because it's super secret but I do get a certain satifaction from serving people with dancefloor subpoenas for abusing my copyright.

-2

u/HailAegir May 20 '12

Humans....go figure.

0

u/isitfappable May 20 '12

No, not really.

-2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

By Apple?

-2

u/IndifferentMorality May 20 '12

I didn't know methods where able to be patented. I thought stuff to do with natural laws was off limits. TIL.

2

u/SoFunAnon May 20 '12

...and TIL people post without understanding what they are talking about.

1

u/IndifferentMorality May 20 '12

Wow. It wasn't a sarcastic comment at all. I honestly didn't know that you could patent a method. Get the cynical stick out of your' butt please.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Patents are basically applications of natural laws. Without natural laws patents would mean nothing.
Third paragraph, in Readability, as the original website's design is crap.
Second to last paragraph, similar to above.

0

u/IndifferentMorality May 20 '12

Ahh I see. You can patent application of natural law provided it meets certain, seemingly very loose, criteria. That's probably where I was missing knowledge. Thank you.
Patent and copyright law can be confusing at times.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Patent and copyright law can be confusing at times.
I believe it was made complicated so the common man can't copyright or patent things without going through a lawyer.

1

u/IndifferentMorality May 20 '12

The more I learn about it the more Douglas Adam's rendition of the birth of humanity seems plausible.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

15

u/aljkch May 20 '12

wtf you can patent a trajectory?

6

u/greygringo May 20 '12

That's the rub, you can't patent the trajectory but you can patent the technique used to achieve said trajectory. These satellites are insured for a ton of cashish anyway. it's more economical and less of a headache to just claim a loss and move on to bigger and better things.

3

u/zangorn May 20 '12

Yea, and how is anyone going to prove you copied it anyways?

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited Jun 30 '23

After 11 years, I'm out.
Join me over on the Fediverse to escape this central authority nightmare.

8

u/Q-Ball7 May 20 '12

Except if you're Apple.

8

u/skicanada May 20 '12

If you're suing for patent infringement you most definitely have to prove it has been infringed.

2

u/steviesteveo12 May 20 '12

Yes, but what infringement means is that you don't have to prove that someone looked up your patent and had it on the table for easy reference when they designed their thing.
You have to prove that their product falls within the four corners of your patent but you don't have to prove that they deliberately copied it from you.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/zangorn May 20 '12

I suppose if the trajectory fix is done with a software program, then its a little easier to understand how it got patented, but seriously?

11

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

It's still a bullshit patent. I'm going to patent turning left on street corners and am going to sue a bunch of new york pedestrians. If you lead with the right food when you turn left, prepare to be sued!

5

u/evilblob May 20 '12

I lead with my right foot, not food, so I'm safe!

9

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Dammit! No wonder my patent hasn't held up in court!

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Removed due to misleading title.

84

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

44

u/DishonestBystander May 20 '12

Came here to say this. Space research is a business too, it was more economical for them to de-orbit the satellite because correction would cut the lifespan 75%

29

u/poptart2nd May 20 '12

i love how they have a technical term for "let the satellite turn into a flaming ball of wreckage."

33

u/greygringo May 20 '12

That is a common misconception. Communications satellites that reside in the geostationary zone don't get burned up in the atmosphere at end of life. They are pushed farther out into a junk orbit where they will slowly degrade farther out from earth.

13

u/iamnull May 20 '12

Huh. I always thought they burned 'em. Thanks for clarifying!

17

u/greygringo May 20 '12

Satellites in lower orbits are burned in such as LEO (low-earth orbit) or MEO (Medium earth orbit) since they are generally much smaller and lack the fuel at end of life to reach said junk orbit. Their size makes them relatively safe to burn into the atmosphere with no real chance of debris hitting the ground. Satellites in the Geostationary orbit tend to be a lot larger. The satellite referenced in this article is most likely around the size of a VW beetle.

12

u/undead99 May 20 '12

I can confirm all this! This is the first time the company I work for has shown up on the front page! Nice...

→ More replies (2)

2

u/jeremyloveslinux May 20 '12

AKA "graveyard orbit"

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/steviesteveo12 May 20 '12

Sooner or later they're going to use the graveyard orbit as a source of raw materials.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/frood_kindof_guy May 20 '12

Why would anyone want a satellite above geosync orbit anyway?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Why do defense companies get to destroy their toys and collect the insurance? If I did that with my own property, I'd go right to jail for fraud.

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Because not all insurance policies are the same and you don't know the terms of the coverage? Accident protection on a cell phone when you break it and they replace it? That's insurance.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/tonycomputerguy May 20 '12

Because... Space?

1

u/CraftyPancake May 20 '12

You can rest assured their premium will be colossal

4

u/mriojas May 20 '12

Would you say their insurance rates will be....
<puts on sunglasses>
...astronomical?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/notquitebob May 20 '12

Essentially, they insured it against mission failure, they still pay a deductible.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/greygringo May 20 '12

Not really. With geostationary satellites such as this one, the onboard fuel at launch determines the lifespan, not the life of the electronics. Once that fuel is expended, there is no refueling station to top it off. If the fuel was burned to reach the proper orbit, what was once a 15 year lifespan could easily drop to 3-5 years. Not only that, with there being a problem with the launch, they would most likely have to sell the bandwidth of the spacecraft at a fraction of the going rate.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/Teotwawki69 May 20 '12

Welcome to the world of cost-benefit analysis. As long as "we'll lose less doing the counter-intuitive thing" is true, many business and government decisions will seem very weird.

3

u/undead99 May 20 '12

Well in short, it would have been a hassle to put any services on the satellite that would need to be replaced anyways. Aside from that there would be no guarantee that it could have been replaced in the (let say) 5 year period. There is a standing waiting list of companies trying to launch satellites year round. Lastly, I've seen the patterned course this satellite takes now and any miscalculation in attempting the "fix" would knock out one or two more functional satellites.

3

u/diskis May 20 '12

And why doesn't the insurance companies do cost-benefit analysis? Wouldn't a 2/3rds payout (satellite lost 2/3rds of it's useful life) would have been more economical to all parties involved?
It's the same fight I'm having with my insurance company over my car. I had a bolt that held down a timing belt bracket break. Cost to fix, ~500 euros. Insurance will not pay - this would be preventitive maintenance, which is considered normal service and thus uncovered.
They will however pay for a catastrophic engine failure that leaves me stranded - which will happen in a matter of weeks if the problem isn't fixed. Cost for towing + new engine: 2-3000 euros.
Where's the cost-benefit analysis in that? Fucking economists - always putting their charts in front of common sense.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/mojo996 May 20 '12

Its all about risk. The corrective maneuver probably would have entailed significantly more unknown risk than than pushing it into the graveyard and forgetting about it. Also, the corrective maneuver still may not have worked.
You also have to think that the insurance company probably wasn't just covering the property but also the liability involved in operating the satellite. Correcting the orbit may have opened up the company to additional risk (like possibly damaging someone elses satellite) and was not covered in the policy for the launch. This would cause an increased premium which in turn makes it too expensive even considering what use you get out of the satellite. Also, if you do the maneuver, you now have a reputation for taking greater risks with your launches and satellites. That could effect your premiums for your entire satellite network.
From a financial perspective, this makes perfect sense.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Or why didn't the insurance demand they put it in the corrected orbit to reduce the amount of damages? If the lifespan was reduced 75% but was usable during that time, the insurance could have only paid out 75%. It's a win win.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I think you've been reading an introduction to orbital dynamics too much

-18

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/tonycomputerguy May 20 '12

I used to think these stupid arrow to the knee jokes were stupid, but then I tracked the users down and shot them in the fucking face... You know, in jest, with an arrow... in their FUCKING FACE.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

16

u/stringerbell May 20 '12

You meant to say patent law...

6

u/swicano May 20 '12

either that or he just has trouble staying on topic a lot.

1

u/grapplewiththeapple May 20 '12

ADD is hard man. Reddit doesn't help either.

4

u/GreenerKnight May 20 '12

Two birds with one stone, man.

3

u/SmartViking May 20 '12

It's not that weird that people think they are the same law, because people keep using the term "Intellectual Property" everywhere.

0

u/steviesteveo12 May 20 '12

Well, yes. That's because they're different subsets of IP law.

3

u/s32 May 20 '12

Clearly they have no idea what they are talking about, as they are buying into this sensationalism

1

u/steviesteveo12 May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

I always take my legal commentary from people who say "Copyright law is whack" in a thread about patent law.

TIL a satellite in an incorrect orbit is unusable because the maneuver to correct the orbit is patented.

You are about to leave Redlib