Interesting reading!I especially liked this bit from the first Exhibit: "The sea-going platform can broadcast its real-time position to the booster stage so that the booster stage can compensate for errors in the position of the sea-going platform due to current drift and/or other factors. After landing, the sea-going platform can be towed by, e. g., a tug, or it can use its own propulsion system, to transport the booster stage back to the coastal launch site or other site for reconditioning and reuse." If that's what they're planning, that's pretty cool.
After looking at these diagrams, when this is all over and the Blue Origin patent is struck, Elon Musk owes Yoshiyuki Ishijima a lifetime supply of his favorite beverage.
Interesting to compare the Ishijima launch diagram from his 1998 book to the Blue Origin patent diagram filed in 2010.
I think the entire house of cards is about to fall. A handful of prior art examples have torn apart most of Blue Origin's claims, and the remainder are so weak they will fail as 'obvious to a person of ordinary skill'. The only real question remaining is how long will it take the Appeal Board to decide that all of the original claims are unpatentable.
Quote from: AJW on 09/02/2014 05:34 amI think the entire house of cards is about to fall. A handful of prior art examples have torn apart most of Blue Origin's claims, and the remainder are so weak they will fail as 'obvious to a person of ordinary skill'. The only real question remaining is how long will it take the Appeal Board to decide that all of the original claims are unpatentable.I don't think their prior art is much more significant than the prior art cited in the patent. Blue Origin's response will most likely be of the form: Ishijima = ref 3, Lane = ref 7, Mueller ‘653 = ref 4, Kindem = ref 6, etc. Then they'll spell out why what they're claiming is different.
Quote from: AJW on 09/02/2014 04:29 amInteresting to compare the Ishijima launch diagram from his 1998 book to the Blue Origin patent diagram filed in 2010.To be fair on BO, it wouldn't be the first time someone's (1) come up with a brilliant idea, (2) engaged a Patent Lawyer to check all known documentation and draft up a new application and (3) actually submitted the application for Patent - before realising that someone else had exactly the same idea a decade or more earlier but didn't take it any further, usually due to 'deficiencies in current technology' or the like.ISTM that's basically what's happened here - and hopefully all parties come to a reasonable agreement.
Discussions questioning the validity of this patent go back years, and BO would have been aware of the prior art long before this petition. The 'reasonable' thing to do would have been to withdraw the patent
Discussions questioning the validity of this patent go back years, and BO would have been aware of the prior art long before this petition. The 'reasonable' thing to do would have been to withdraw the patent, but Bezos instead forced SpaceX to expend tens of thousands in legal fees and filing fees and very likely pulled engineering and management resources away from mission critical tasks.Bezos tied up the decision on 39A for months delaying SpaceX's efforts to open a pad for HSF. He could halt or delay actual landing tests if the patent appeal board is unable to process the petition before the CRS-4 launch.
Quote from: CameronD on 09/02/2014 05:19 amQuote from: AJW on 09/02/2014 04:29 amInteresting to compare the Ishijima launch diagram from his 1998 book to the Blue Origin patent diagram filed in 2010.To be fair on BO, it wouldn't be the first time someone's (1) come up with a brilliant idea, (2) engaged a Patent Lawyer to check all known documentation and draft up a new application and (3) actually submitted the application for Patent - before realising that someone else had exactly the same idea a decade or more earlier but didn't take it any further, usually due to 'deficiencies in current technology' or the like.ISTM that's basically what's happened here - and hopefully all parties come to a reasonable agreement.Discussions questioning the validity of this patent go back years, and BO would have been aware of the prior art long before this petition. The 'reasonable' thing to do would have been to withdraw the patent, but Bezos instead forced SpaceX to expend tens of thousands in legal fees and filing fees and very likely pulled engineering and management resources away from mission critical tasks.Bezos tied up the decision on 39A for months delaying SpaceX's efforts to open a pad for HSF. He could halt or delay actual landing tests if the patent appeal board is unable to process the petition before the CRS-4 launch.Hanlon's Razor states to never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Few will accuse Bezos of being stupid.
You know, a lot of Science Fiction authors described a number of different ways, from the 1930's until about the late 1950's, to recover stages that sound a LOT like this.If anything, the basic method is in the public domain. And pushed further, DARPA developed the technique with the DC-X experimental rocket. Heck, even sea launch and recovery has been covered in Science Fiction stories.Heck, for THAT matter, there are even pictures that were made showing a single stage to orbit craft launching and landing on a specially modified aircraft carrier. (I think Convair was working on that one, if memory serves).So this landing concept has pretty much been in the public domain for decades. So, unless they get the same judge that decided that the Newspad from the movie 2001 wasn't similar enough to the Ipad to invalidate Apple's attempt at patenting the appearence of the Ipad, I think Blue Origin may be aout of luck on this one.