Will Elon open up the one patent SpaceX has? Is not patenting much working out?

[plank]

Haven't posted a topic in a long time so mods if you think this is inappropriate for this forum then feel free to move it.  last month Telsa opened up their patents to the public.  http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you.  Apparently the reason Elon gave, was in order to help innovation progress in terms of electric vehicles.  In light of this do you think he'll do the same for SpaceX?  In my opinion I think he will hold off until he gets the technology down pat. what say you Nasaspaceflight?

[majormajor42]

All our Technology are belong to ITAR

[dcporter]

(This isn't as important to your question as it sounds, but Musk is on record about not filing patents for SpaceX's stuff, relying on secrecy instead, his concern being that China will simply use the patents once published.)

[Scylla]

Besides, If I recall correctly, at least one of the reasons Elon relased the Tesla patents was because he did not believe the industry as a whole was advancing as fast as he thought it should.

I don't think that is a problem for SpaceX.


‘SpaceX Effect’ Fuels Efficiency Push in Launch Services Market

By Anne-Wainscott Sargent | July 17, 2014 | Launch, Publications, Via Satellite

http://www.satellitetoday.com/publications/2014/07/17/spacex-effect-fuels-efficiency-push-in-launch-services-market/

[Nomadd]

 A major part of the Tesla patent sharing was the charging gear. Common charging stations would help advance the entire industry. I suppose you could stretch that to payload interfaces, but other launchers really don't have much of an incentive to change theirs to match SpaceX's.

[Jim]

A major part of the Tesla patent sharing was the charging gear. Common charging stations would help advance the entire industry. I suppose you could stretch that to payload interfaces, but other launchers really don't have much of an incentive to change theirs to match SpaceX's.

Spacex doesn't have unique payload interfaces.  In fact, it has adopted the industry "standards", which commercial comsats used.

[Scylla]

I think my point has been missed.

At the time Elon released his Tesla patent, he had expected the Electric Car industry to have advanced much further than it had. He only held the patents to protct his market share because he expected the major car companies to be researching, building, and selling electic cars as fast as, well, he would.

They did not.

He threw open his patents, not to advance one small aspect, but to hopefully help stimulate the industry as a whole and bring about much better electric cars the consuming public would want to buy.

Elon has a vision of masses of electric cars on the road. Similarly he has a vision of cheaper space flight, but unlike with Tesla, SpaceX doesn't have to do anything like releasing patents or publishing secrets so far. It's very presence is forcing other providers to rethink the whole way they do buisness.

[copper8]

I don't believe that SpaceX has done much in the patent area.  I recall an interview where
Mr. Musk made statements to the effect that where he was worried about competition (China, India)
a patent wouldn't do you much good anyway and just made your thinking public.  Rather, the
emphasis is on trade secrets.

[malu5531]

Yes, but SpaceX don't do patents.

[JasonAW3]

I'm PRETTY sure that they've patented their engines, and pretty much anything the CAN patent.

[frog]

Talking about SpaceX

ELON MUSK: 'If We Published Patents, It Would Be Farcical'


http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-patents-2012-11

[MTom]

First answering the original question: I don't think.
The situation with T... is other than with SpaceX.

(ONLY for the better understanding my answer, not for conversation:) The main reason for patent sharing of T... is that Elon understands that the main competition in the world is not between the electric car makers but between the electric cars (ca. 5% market share) and the cars with internal combustion engines (95% market share). To win this competition the whole electric car industry has to be developed much faster.

P.S: Edited due to the policy about some words here on NSF... 

[Jim]

I'm PRETTY sure that they've patented their engines, and pretty much anything the CAN patent.

Like everybody has said, there are no Spacex patents.   And, there is nothing worth patenting.

[Coastal Ron]

I'm PRETTY sure that they've patented their engines, and pretty much anything the CAN patent.

...And, there is nothing worth patenting.

Per the United States Patent and Trademarking Office (USPTO):

"In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law."

Having seen what SpaceX has done and is doing, both internal process-wise and with their designs, I would disagree with your statement.

[Lar]

I found at least one patent...
https://www.google.com/patents/US7503511?dq=space+exploration+technologies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YYXIU8WoC8GPyATc14DoCA&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg

Publication number   US7503511 B2
Publication type   Grant
Application number   US 11/198,053
Publication date   Mar 17, 2009
Filing date   Aug 4, 2005
Priority date   Sep 8, 2004
Fee status   Paid
Also published as   US20090007543
Inventors   Thomas J. Mueller
Original Assignee   Space Exploration Technologies

Note how old that one is.... Looks like that may be the only one, this search finds just it. (SpaceX as assignee)

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=inassignee:%22Space+Exploration+Technologies%22

 Note though that Thomas J. Mueller seems to have a fair few others...  all with prior firms except that one.

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininventor:%22Thomas+J.+Mueller%22
 (as inventor or co-inventor)
and
https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=inassignee:%22Mueller%3B+Thomas+J.%22
(as assignee or co-assignee)
That bears out that either SpaceX are choosing not to patent things OR that Jim is right and everything they have done is so mundane/routine/well known that it's not worth patenting.

[Norm38]

For the analogy to hold, SpaceX would need to have a fully reusable F9/MCT family flying regular weekly missions and not meeting the market demand for fleets of Mars bound colony ships being built and fueled in LEO for departure burns.

At that point they would welcome a growing industry to share the load.  Check back in a few decades.

Tesla didn't release their patents at the prototype stage, but only after they'd entered mass production, won Car of the Year and assumed market segment dominance.

[mme]

I found at least one patent...
https://www.google.com/patents/US7503511?dq=space+exploration+technologies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YYXIU8WoC8GPyATc14DoCA&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg

I don't remember where, but I've heard Tom Mueller or Elon Musk say that they have exactly one patent and it has to do with the pintle injector.  So I think that's the only one.  I don't remember the exact rational given for applying for that particular patent.

[Lar]

Someone who knows better posted asking if this thread is on topic for NSF or not because it mentions Tesla. That someone should have used the report to mod button. Their post was removed after someone else properly reported it.

I've participated in this thread, so I'm biased but you'll note my participation didn't include the word Tesla at all, not even by implication (not counting THIS post). Tesla by itself CLEARLY is off topic. Analogies are stretching it but I think out right discussion of why SpaceX only has one patent (the one I found) is ok.

Stay on SpaceX please from here on out.

(Edit: I changed the thread title as well)

[Lar]

I found at least one patent...
https://www.google.com/patents/US7503511?dq=space+exploration+technologies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YYXIU8WoC8GPyATc14DoCA&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg

I don't remember where, but I've heard Tom Mueller or Elon Musk say that they have exactly one patent and it has to do with the pintle injector.  So I think that's the only one.  I don't remember the exact rational given for applying for that particular patent.

The application was filed early in the corporate history, and it was by Tom himself, a founder and leading lightt in the company, the guy who arguably is one of the world's leading rocket engine designers[1]. Maybe it was a condition of employment?  Maybe they regretted filing it later, but I think once you file something it's doubly dangerous to leave it un patented if you can likely get the patent.  The patent grant was in 2009 and nothing granted since.

SpaceX didn't invent the pintle itself, of course, just this refinement.

All IMHO.

1 - Wikipedia says so so it MUST be true!  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller


(Edit: I'm locking as we don't do Tesla here and these threads always turn into car threads - as much as I'd love one of them - Chris).
(Edit: With permission from Chris, I am unlocking... but this thread WILL be locked again if you all can't stay on SpaceX and SpaceX only. Don't let me down...)

[Sesquipedalian]

So here's the one problem I see with this: if SpaceX invents a cool new technology which it doesn't patent, and then some competitor manages to figure out what they did and file its own patent, can the competitor then sue SpaceX over its own invention?

(If you argue that legitimate companies don't do this, that doesn't apply to patent trolls and patent farms.)

This would seem to hinge on exactly what "first to file" or "first inventor to file" actually means...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-inventor-to-file_.28FITF.29

As I recall, there was a controversy fairly recently where somebody designed an upgraded part for a Makerbot 3D printer and posted it to a community printing site.  Then Makerbot came along and patented that very design based on his work.  The designer had no legal recourse because he hadn't tried to file a patent for his design.

My understanding is that SpaceX is taking a big risk here.  But IANAL.

[Roy_H]

If SpaceX can prove that their design was in production before the competitor filed a patent, then the "prior art" should be in SpaceX favor. This would make the idea un-patentable.

[Sesquipedalian]

Allegedly, prior art didn't stop Makerbot from filing the patent either.  But on further research, it seems that my understanding of the Makerbot situation was incorrect.  (I had read one of the initial articles when the story first broke but hadn't subsequently followed up on it.)

[Dave G]

... Musk is on record about not filing patents for SpaceX's stuff, relying on secrecy instead, his concern being that China will simply use the patents once published.

Exactly.  The Chinese have shown no respect for intellectual property. 

If SpaceX files for a patent, they would have to explain what they're doing in some detail.  If the patent is approved, then this information will be made public, and the Chinese will just copy it.

[GregA]

Allegedly, prior art didn't stop Makerbot from filing the patent either.  But on further research, it seems that my understanding of the Makerbot situation was incorrect.  (I had read one of the initial articles when the story first broke but hadn't subsequently followed up on it.)

The US changed their method of patent application a few years ago. They allowed much broader submission of patents without the same initial rigour of investigation as to whether the patent was likely to hold up. Their argument was good and quite simple - their initial investigation was costly and often fought later in court anyway, so they'll file and approve the application more easily and if someone protests then it'll still be fought in court.

The downside was the impression that someone owns a legitimate patent. I think McDonalds patented a cheese sandwich. Much the same as we hear reports all the time of people suing over something stupid, which doesn't mean they won their case - in fact the same stupid cases that get people's attention and are reported in the news are often the ones that end up losing... but it misleads society into misunderstanding their own rights.

So Patents on something with prior art will make it through, but not necessarily be enforceable. In fact it's impossible to avoid if SpaceX does something novel, and doesn't tell anyone HOW it does it, then a competitor who comes up with the same answer won't realise they're doing it the same way when they patent their method.

Perhaps SpaceX will approach it like copyright. When writing a script we were encouraged to seal the early version and store it legally - even a postoffice stamp on a sealed envelope, crossing the seal. A "patentable" idea could be described and sealed & stored, legally and securely. If they ever need to prove their idea came many years ago, they open that envelope in a legal setting.

[Lar]

That sounds like an interesting business model... "we hold your information for you, timestamped with a good evidence chain, and don't disclose it to anyone until you ask us to"

[Coastal Ron]

So Patents on something with prior art will make it through, but not necessarily be enforceable. In fact it's impossible to avoid if SpaceX does something novel, and doesn't tell anyone HOW it does it, then a competitor who comes up with the same answer won't realise they're doing it the same way when they patent their method.

Perhaps SpaceX will approach it like copyright.

I would think they should also be able to show they had prior art by showing the court the in-house documentation (released drawings, manufacturing process documentation, etc.) proving what they had already done.

[QuantumG]

.. and it'll only cost you a few million dollars in discovery and legal costs to show that you have prior art!

The more typical response is to show the patent owner that you could win in court (both legally and financially) and then negotiate a cheaper licensing fee.