Author Topic: Full Text of SpaceX legal action against Boeing/Lockmart over EELV Monopoly (Read 14830 times)

kcowing · « **on:** 10/23/2005 08:44 pm »

Full Summons and Complaint by SpaceX
against Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation (complete document)

"1. This is an action by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation ("SpaceX") against the Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation for violations of antitrust, unfair competition and racketeering laws. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to eliminate competition in, and utlimately to monopolize, the government space launch business and prevent SpaceX and other potential new entrants from competing in that business."

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #1 on:** 10/23/2005 09:08 pm »

We've had people looking for that everywhere. Nice one Keith!

Flightstar · « **Reply #2 on:** 10/23/2005 09:14 pm »

Good luck Elon, you'll need it. At least you'll get yourself in the news. Media stunting at its best.

Andy L · « **Reply #3 on:** 10/23/2005 09:21 pm »

Yes, but Lockmart etc do have those government contracts that keep them more than happy at a cost they can practically choose for themselves. Look at Haliburton and Iraq!

FransonUK · « **Reply #4 on:** 10/23/2005 09:39 pm »

Defaming in the text if you ask me. Lockheed Martin and Boeing could try and counter claim on that, but then it would open themselves up. This is quiet clever of SpaceX.

realtime · « **Reply #5 on:** 10/24/2005 01:54 am »

Sweet! They're using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the same statute that did in The Mob! Go to page 28 for the dirt:

Quote

Boeing has violated RICO through a pattern and practice of economic espionage to corrupt the government procurement process, to preclude lawful competition on the merits and to harm competitors, including SpaceX.

This strikes to the heart of it:

Quote

Boeing and Lockheed Martin's agreement to merge their government EELV businesses into the monopoly ULA, and their coordinated efforts to maintain their dominant positions through actions designed to preclude competition in the EELV market - including competition from SpaceX - have destroyed any pretense of competition in the sale of EELVs to the government

Paragraph 116 on page 36 provides a pretty good summary of the case if you don't want to wade through it all. Basically it says that because of Boeing's treachery, competitive bidding between Boeing and LM for Air Force EELV contracts was now impossible. So the Air Force was forced to reward contracts to Boeing and LM (as ULA) on a noncompetitive basis, thus locking out all other competition, including SpaceX.

I think SpaceX has a pretty good case.

Being forced to move their Falcon-1 test launch off Vandenburg or delay indefinitely because of Delta-IV may have been the last straw for Elon Musk.

Avron · « **Reply #6 on:** 10/24/2005 03:09 am »

Wow... at last... This is criminal yes? FBI could ignore it?... money would flow and quick to keep them quiet, but maybe its a little late, so you ask who is funding SpaceX? it they get it right - 'Boeing/Lockmart ' and maybe NASA... (USAF, would just love it, just a guess)

realtime · « **Reply #7 on:** 10/24/2005 04:02 am »

No telling how long this is going to drag on. USAF could weigh in and force a settlement. NASA could apply pressure. It's definitely in their best interest to do so.

I don't blame Griffin from steering well clear of that fetid EELV mess when planning VSE.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #8 on:** 10/24/2005 05:29 pm »

Summary Article from our writers:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3937

Avron · « **Reply #9 on:** 10/24/2005 06:16 pm »

Quote

Chris Bergin - 24/10/2005 1:29 PM

Summary Article from our writers:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3937

"They are accused of violating the first and second sections of the Sherman Act, which declares any restraint of trade or commerce illegal, and any corporation attempting to monopolize trade as guilty of a felony. "

I read criminal ? FBI?

Terry Rocket · « **Reply #10 on:** 10/24/2005 06:57 pm »

It's going to be a mess when those lawyers from each parties class. Is this actually going to court then?

tommy · « **Reply #11 on:** 10/24/2005 07:16 pm »

Good article. I couldn't really work out what the documents said or meant. That helps me. thanks.

braddock · « **Reply #12 on:** 10/24/2005 07:20 pm »

Boeing and Lockheed Martin have 20 days to respond to the summons. It will be presented to Magistrate Judge Margaret Nagle to hear discovery motions. So yes, it is going to court.

However, I personally think that SpaceX filed this to get the FTC to rule against the ULA. I don't think the primary purpose of this lawsuit is to actually to win.

If you read the actual summons, you get the feeling that SpaceX is writing FOR the FTC, saying "just LOOK at how these jokers have been behaving! Don't give them an authorized monopoly!" Otherwise, they have a VERY weak case for damages, since they don't even have an EELV-class rocket yet.

-Braddock Gaskill

FransonUK · « **Reply #13 on:** 10/24/2005 07:27 pm »

Yes, I got the impression that was how this was all presented too. Clever of SpaceX, but it is a large can of worms at the same time.

Boris the Space Dog · « **Reply #14 on:** 10/24/2005 07:33 pm »

If Boeing and Lockmart don't respond, is that an admission of guilt?

FransonUK · « **Reply #15 on:** 10/24/2005 07:41 pm »

Quote

Boris the Space Dog - 24/10/2005 2:33 PM

If Boeing and Lockmart don't respond, is that an admission of guilt?

If this was the UK legal system, then they'd be expected to give reasons why they are not legally responding, given the suit practically defames their business practises.

James Lowe1 · « **Reply #16 on:** 10/24/2005 07:54 pm »

Maybe SpaceX knew they win on both options? 1) If they don't respond, they get their message across to the right people. 2) If they do respond, then they get their publicity.

braddock · « **Reply #17 on:** 10/24/2005 09:17 pm »

Page one of the summons states: "YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve on [PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY] an answer to the complaint ... within TWENTY days after service of this summons on you... If you fail to do so, judgement by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on the parties to this action must be filed with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service."

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems ignoring a US District Court summons might be a bad idea.

Braddock Gaskill

Peter NASA · « **Reply #18 on:** 10/24/2005 09:49 pm »

It's going to be messy, that you can be sure of.

James Lowe1 · « **Reply #19 on:** 10/25/2005 12:17 am »

Quote

braddock - 24/10/2005 4:17 PM

Page one of the summons states: "YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve on [PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY] an answer to the complaint ... within TWENTY days after service of this summons on you... If you fail to do so, judgement by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on the parties to this action must be filed with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service."

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems ignoring a US District Court summons might be a bad idea.

Braddock Gaskill

Thanks, that would be a bad idea!