Full Text of SpaceX legal action against Boeing/Lockmart over EELV Monopoly

[kcowing]

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]

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

[Flightstar]

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

[Andy L]

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]

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]

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:

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:

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]

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]

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]

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

[Avron]

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]

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

[tommy]

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

[braddock]

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]

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]

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

[FransonUK]

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]

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]

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]

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

[James Lowe1]

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!

[Shuttle Man]

Excellent article and I have to say I'm starting to like the balls SpaceX are showing. Something that is never a problem when dealing with rocketry.

[braddock]

JUST GOT AN E-MAILED UPDATE FROM SPACEX - Another Delay *sigh*:

"The target launch date for the Falcon I maiden flight is now late November to
+early December from our island launch complex in the Kwajalein Atoll.  All
+systems will be ready for flight by the end of this week with the exception of
+Merlin qualification, which we are extending by four weeks for added surety.
[...]

"There will be web video coverage of the launch and access details will be posted
+on the SpaceX website in the coming weeks."

Braddock Gaskill

[Avron]

Looks like Boeing has more problems:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0510/26boeing/

[realtime]

Thanks Avron.  So much for the argument that only ULA can reliably deliver launch services.

Boeing's rocket schedule hit by looming union strike
BY SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: October 25, 2005
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0510/26boeing/

[James Lowe1]

And here's the latest from Braddock on the state of play:

braddock - 5/12/2005  7:16 AM

An update on what has happened in the SpaceX vs. Boeing and Lockheed anti-trust civil suit in the past few weeks:

Lockheed Martin and Boeing have filed motions to dismiss the case with the California Central District US Federal court.

The court has scheduled the hearing on the Lockheed and Boeing Motions to Dismiss for January 9th at 10am.

SpaceX has a deadline of December 16th to respond to the Lockheed and Boeing motions to dismiss, followed by replies from Boeing and Lockheed by December 30th, followed then by the actual hearing date.

SpaceX now expects the next attempt to launch the Falcon I no sooner than Dec 17th.

[Avron]

James Lowe - 5/12/2005  8:35 PM

SpaceX now expects the next attempt to launch the Falcon I no sooner than Dec 17th.

Good, so we are not looking at a multi month delay... next time a client ask me for a timing on a project item due date, I wonder how safe it will be to tell them a NET date, like no sooner than Bla date....

It all just rocket science, he thinks not..

[publiusr]

First it was that last Titan IV. The Delta IV is also a pad-sitter. I wonder if the ULA partners in crime were talking up range issues. BEAL went under due to a lot of BS. I wonder if there isn't some deals under the table with Range safety folks getting hand-outs to make Musk's life even more miserable.

I really don't think Druyen was the only bad apple at Boeing. Who knows?