Please don’t be evil, if you really care about humanity going into space.
It shouldn’t be surprising — it’s the same aggressive IP strategy that he’s always taken with Amazon.
29 thoughts on “An Open Letter To Jeff Bezos”
Comments are closed.
Please don’t be evil, if you really care about humanity going into space.
It shouldn’t be surprising — it’s the same aggressive IP strategy that he’s always taken with Amazon.
Comments are closed.
A useful read concerning the effect of over zealous patents on research and development is “The Crime of Reason” by Laughlin.
This is exactly the type of scenario that Boeing and NASA were doing with the Shuttle C Boat tail in the 1990’s.
Boeing even dunked an SSME in the drink, recovered it, and fired it.
I understand the gripe, but the other side of this is that Jeff Bezos uses the technology, and then sued for using somebody else’s idea without due compensation. The patent protects his company from the same million dollar lawsuits that could otherwise stiffle it. Not that he should, but if Jeff wanted to be really generous, he should patent the technology and then rescind his exclusive rights to the technology.
A lot of tech firms engage in “defensive” patenting. The cost of patenting a piece of technology is so small (relative to the cost of defending yourself from a patent troll) that they just patent everything they can think of. Big companies like Amazon or Microsoft do not attempt to enforce the majority of their patents; they know that in the tech space the technology will be replaced by something better before the Courts sort things out anyway.
The multi-million dollar patent awards are the minority of cases.
That’s my experience, too, Brock. If he doesn’t patent something he wants to use, and someone else of a nasty disposition does, it’s a trainwreck. I’m thinking, for example, of SCO and the Unix patents. Ye gods.
Leland, Brock, Carl: I don’t think that’s exactly how defensive patenting works. If you just want to be able to keep using a technology you invented, it’s enough to publish the idea instead of patenting it.
As I understand it, defensive patenting is when people in the same industry set up a kind of mutually-assured destruction situation to prevent lawsuits. For instance, Bob worries about getting sued by Alice for patent infringement for component A, which she has patented, so he patents component B, which is essential to her business. That way they both have a “hostage” that prevents anyone from taking action first.
Unfortunately defensive patenting only works against companies that are going concerns; i.e. that do legitimate business outside the world of intellectual property. For instance, IBM and Sony hold defensive patents against each other. The problem comes along when patents are owned by a organization like Rambus, whose main business is litigation. They don’t sell any real products or services, so they’re immune to patent infringement cases. To extend the MAD analogy, they’re like non-state actors who don’t have any cities to retaliate against.
My concern about Blue Origin is that in a risky industry like commercial spaceflight, where many companies are expected to fail, it’s entirely possible that Blue Origin won’t actually end up flying anything, but will still own critical patents that allow them to loot successful participants in the industry.
Most interesting, Ash. But I think that problem can be solved by suitable restriction of the breadth of a patent. The whole point of a patent is to get early public disclosure of a new way of doing stuff, because it will inspire similar (but not identical) ideas in others, ideas which will cross-fertilize each other and result in more general progress, perhaps even an idea better than the original patent. Plenty of entrepreneurs read patents the way one would read the open literature, for new ideas and warnings about ideas that don’t work.
That is of course short-circuited if you grant overbroad patents, that essentially lock out any other remotely plausible idea for doing the same thing. But if BO was granted a suitably narrow patent everyone else would immediately get the benefit of their best thinking, without having to resort to industrial espionage or cross-raiding of personnel, say, and be able to profit by that, without BO having to give up the appropriate payback for their being willing to pioneer.
If, then, BO goes out of business, other actors will still be able to profit by being able to read the patent, and doing something similar but not close enough to infringe.
A price for this is, as you say, the ability of BO to siphon off money just for their ideas from other actors, without putting them into action themselves. But…hmm…that’s exactly the kind of position we praise lonely inventors for seeking. If I am a garage tinkerer, what’s my motivation for coming up with a clever new idea that only someone with the capital of Bezos can profitably exploit? In essence, the possibility of selling him a license — in your words, “looting” his exploitation of the idea.
If you want to argue that patent examination should be done more competently, that patents should be as narrow as possible, that stricter attention should be paid to whether an application contains something truly innovative, that isn’t “obvious to one skilled in the art,” and that patent litigation should be much cheaper and faster than it is, so that it actually serves its supposed intended purpose of clarifying what is and isn’t infringement — well, I agree completely.
The one mechanism for improvement I do not recommend, however, is that we add to the job description for a CEO that he work “for the betterment of all humanity” instead of just for the advancement of himself, his employees and shareholders. A man may competently pursue the latter with honor, but the former is just an invitation to deception and moral corruption.
Many aerospace patents on vehicle-level concepts end up being very narrow- the patents on aerotowing (Kelly Aerospace), propellant transfer (Rocketplane), Roton (Rotary Rocket) all are quite narrowly worded, with very specific claims. Component-level concepts can be more broadly worded and have broader claims, as a general principle.
If Bezos has something to protect, investors need to see that he’s protecting it. It’s sound business practice, and making a business out of this is what we’re all about…right?
On the other hand, his combination of secrecy and now patenting obvious things calls Goddard to mind. Goddard was a hero of mine when I was very young. As an adult, I read a recent biography and learned that he accomplished much less than he could have because of his obsessive secrecy and compulsion to patent his work. It hit close to home for me.
I hope Bezos isn’t doing this. It’s not evil, just misguided.
MfK,
To bring it full circle, the Wright Brothers basically made a practice of suing anyone who built an airplane for patent infringement. That was why the U.S fell behind Europe and why the NACA was created. Fighting over patents is a long time sport in American business. Its also a sign the New Space is growing up and becoming a real industry.
We have patents in every industry, and somehow cars are safer, computers faster, and ships are bigger each year than the year before. It’s fine.
Also, what Carl said about the improvements needed in the patenting process. As usual.
If there was EVER an argument for means testing, IP law is it.
The lying reason for patents is to encourage invention. It’s assumed if some poor guy (guy includes gals as mankind includes woman) comes up with an idea they get the benefit rather than someone else with deep pockets. If the deep pocket guy comes up with an idea they have the means to protect themselves even if they do lose to others using their idea… which benefits consumers which is supposed to be the whole point.
I’m against IP (it’s not physical property) and I’m a programmer who you would expect to benefit from such law. You may imagine how much I hate DRM although I think they should be free to compete with those not using DRM.
Private property in space ideas may be good business. I’m in favor of extending the duration of space-related patents given the long lead time to implement many of them. If Blue Origin has sufficient IP to make itself durable, that’s good business for Blue Origin. It’s not clear that open source is the best way to develop space.
If the author feels strongly that there should only be mutual disclosure, then it’s straightforward to set up a web site to have terms and conditions that deny rights to read the content to anyone who works for a company that does not contribute.
This whole subject is an argument for open season on lawyers. Not that this particular idea needs many more arguments in favour of it.
Better a patent than a trade secret. At least patents require disclosure and eventually expire. The only way you can get at a trade secret is to independently invent it, which probably isn’t going to happen except for more or less obvious concepts that probably aren’t patentable in the first place.
I wonder, too, whether widespread patenting of new ideas would really hold back space travel. There are plenty of old ideas out there whose value is unknown because they’ve never really been tried. The real barrier seems to be the high cost of trying out some of these ideas, at least in comparison to trying out a new way to run a website.
Ken,
[[[I’m against IP (it’s not physical property) and I’m a programmer who you would expect to benefit from such law. ]]]
But I thought that the Tea Party faithful fully supported the original Constitution. And IP was one of its innovations critical to creating a free market that many overlook.
Actually you just need to look at this as a rite of passage. Hobbyists love sharing their ideas and inventions with other hobbyists. Its what they live for. But in a real industry ideas are valuable and carefully protected by any means available to gain a competitive advantage and build value for investors.
So this is more proof, along with the government contracts and the entry of venture capital firms, that New Space has moved well beyond the hobby stage and has become a real industry. I am surprised folks here are not celebrating the milestone.
IP was one of its innovations
One of those innovations was LIMITED IP. This is why I mentioned means testing. I know you think it’s all word salad but sometimes I do have a point.
You can’t patent math. Why? Because it’s recognized as stupid.
The problem is they do recognize other forms of IP yet it’s no less stupid.
Physical property and IP have one major difference. If you take away physical property there is less of it remaining. You’ve stolen. If you give out IP there’s more of it and everybody wins. Even the source.
I can protect my physical property just by possessing it. They can only protect IP by going after any that possess it. It’s wrong.
The free software movement came about because people recognized the advantage of building on the work of others for the benefit of everybody.
I can still protect my work and profit from it without having to use the force of law to keep people that don’t pay from having it. I can sell my service rather than trying to rip off the world by preventing others from having it unless they pay me more than it’s worth.
One day some physical property may be almost as easy to copy as IP. Are we going to send in the police because your chess set looks like someone else’s design. That’s where IP is headed. It’s a farce.
I would go further and say IP is unnatural law. It fights against nature. One day we may be able to read thoughts and impress thoughts on the mind.
Are you ready for the thought police to wipe your mind of any unauthorized IP?
One day the air may not be free, but when your thoughts are not free…
Ken,
[[[I can sell my service rather than trying to rip off the world by preventing others from having it unless they pay me more than it’s worth.]]]
Spoken like a true collectivist! How dare the greedy capitalists like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates rip off the working class rocket and software engineers by daring to use the laws provided in the Constitution to protect their property! Just force them to give it to the PEOPLE! To share with everyone!
It’s amazing how folks who claim to be capitalists and defenders of free markets are actually closet collectivists. What do you think Ayn Rand was writing about in books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged? Skyscrapers and Railroads? Any collective society is able to build those. No, it’s the IP behind them and its protection that Ayn Rand recognized drives human progress. The provisions in the Constitution to protect IP was one of the key factors that help make “those inventive Americans” a global catch phase and made this nation wealthy by the progress it created. And why the creators of that IP are rightly hailed as national heroes. The Founding Fathers took protecting IP away from the whims of the king and made it readily available to all Americans. That is the genius of the Patent and Copyright provisions of the Constitution. And no, its not unnatural law. Every try to take a bone from a dog? Even they recognize their property rights.
Also remember in a market based products are sold for exactly what they are worth, no more, no less, so you are not paying more than it’s worth, you are paying the market price. And markets only work if there are protections in place for private property. Eliminate the IP laws will bring this fountain of wealth to an end, not increase it.
[[[The free software movement came about because people recognized the advantage of building on the work of others for the benefit of everybody.]]]
Actually that is the intent of patent laws since they enable individuals are publicize their inventions without having to worry about folks ripping them off. And if folks want to perform the unnatural act of giving their IP away they are welcome to. But forcing them to by not protecting it is just socialism pure and simple.
[[[One day some physical property may be almost as easy to copy as IP. Are we going to send in the police because your chess set looks like someone else’s design.]]]
Actually George O. Smith covered this topic as one of the major social outcomes likely from the development of transporter/replicator technology that was invented in two of the short stories (“Pandora’s Millions” and “Mad Holiday”) in the Venus Equilateral series back in the 1940’s. And the emergence of 3D printers bring this day far closer than many expect. You might want to prepare for the social consequences by reading them, and also help Rand by buying the book through his Amazon link 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Equilateral
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
I’ve put in bold those items you seem to be having some reading comprehension issues with Thomas.
to protect their property
Once an idea becomes public knowledge it is no longer the exclusive property of any single person. The constitution recognizes that it takes time to develop an idea into something profitable. So for a limited time they enforce an exclusive right. If I were an artist, after a limited time, no artist should not have to worry about going to jail because they put pants on a mouse. The idea that IP should be exclusive forever is a perversion and does exactly the opposite of promote progress.
An idea, your minds thoughts, are the property of EVERYONE that has those thoughts. It’s not exclusive in the same way that physical property is.
So what we have today is that physical property doesn’t get the protection it should while IP gets more than it should. Perversion.
IP protection was never suppose to be absolute. We recognize this by the arbitrary decisions about what is or is not IP. Well we don’t have to make those arbitrary decision if we understand it isn’t private property. Nobody is harmed because ideas are infinitely divisible and not limited in supply as physical property is.
Would you want to have to pay a licensing fee for every new word that comes into use?
A business name can be protected because it is an exclusive item. It is an identity which is not infinitely divisible.
forcing them to [giving their IP away] by not protecting it is just socialism pure and simple
WRONG! They aren’t being forced. They can keep their IP by keeping it secret, but the moment they reveal it, it is no longer exclusively theirs. Patent law recognizes this by saying, ok, for a limited time, it is exclusively theirs (in defiance of nature) so it can be revealed and profited on, but after a limited time we must recognize it’s nature. That limit has to be as short as it can be because we are defying nature as long as it is in place.
no artist should, please strike out the double negative.
And if folks want to perform the unnatural act of giving their IP away they are welcome to
This is your glaring error in a nutshell. Making your thoughts public IS the natural act (as is not making them public by keeping them secret.) The unnatural act is saying that something public is private, which is something other than what it is.
We make the naturally public, legally private, because we BELIEVE (and it really is just an article of faith) it promotes progress.
Ken,
And what is a book, but IP? Just because its on paper instead of digital format doesn’t change that its someone’s ideas and thoughts.
[[[They aren’t being forced. They can keep their IP by keeping it secret, but the moment they reveal it, it is no longer exclusively theirs.]]]
Yes, this is how it worked in the old days before patents and often industrial progress was lost when the inventor died. And even while alive it was not available for others to study and improve on.
[[[Would you want to have to pay a licensing fee for every new word that comes into use?]]]
If its used as a Servicemark then you should only have the right to use it with the permission of the owner.
[[[Nobody is harmed because ideas are infinitely divisible and not limited in supply as physical property is.]]]
So you feel it should be OK to download music and videos other spent money producing just because its so easy to reproduce them? Without paying any royalties to the users? How is that different than socialists views that each should just provide their labor free to the collective good? That its OK for entertainers to go bankrupt because their property is considered to have NO value. Of course when that is the case it will be no time at all before they do something else for a living and you will have no more music to download.
And BTW copyright is for limited time although it may be too long top suit you, its not forever. As are patents. The patents that Blue Origin filed will only be good for a limited number of years. And then anyone will be able to use their system.
Ken,
[[[We make the naturally public, legally private, because we BELIEVE (and it really is just an article of faith) it promotes progress.]]]
No, its the reverse. Folks feel safe in making their business and technical ideas public when they know the law will protect them. Its when they fear others stealing them they keep them quiet. Suppose you wrote a computer program based on a formula you discovered that always makes money in the market. Would you just give it away, or would you want to make money for it?
Or do you feel all the computer trading programs written for investment firms should be public knowledge?
Also keep in mind there is also a difference between simple random thoughts and discussion, like on these blog posts, and ideas that are actually worth something because they are innovative and unique.
Folks feel safe in making their business and technical ideas public when they know the law will protect them. Its when they fear others stealing them they keep them quiet.
These are both relatively true statements and you’ve ignored what I’ve said. In order to respond to you I now have to repeat myself in a different form.
There is a legal process for IP protection and there is a natural process for IP protection. They are at odds with one another. Your first statement is the legal process. Your second statement is the natural process.
Is legal protection required for ideas to become public? No, it’s an incentive, but it’s not the only one. It is unreasonable to ignore that.
You asked me, “Would you just give [specified s/w] away?” The answer is unique for each person. My answer is I would use it for a while and then yes, absolutely I would make it public. But that’s just me. I may also choose to keep secrets for entirely different reasons from the ones you assume.
I believe that laws can support or oppose natural law and those that oppose are problematic. Patent law opposes the natural way of things. It has certainly been abused. Seriously abused.
To claim that patent law is all good is to ignore how it prevents people from building on others work by imposing a legal and financial burden. You also ignore a certain amount of arbitrariness regard what is or is not protectionable IP. You also ignore the difficulty for a person not established to acquire a patent.
The most important point is the question of whether IP protection is morally right and is totally separate from the question of the benefits you say it provides. Do IP rights have no limit? That’s how holders treat it in many cases.
The founders believed in some protection for a limited time. I think it may be prudent to also include means testing as well. Large corporation can provide the same protection to themselves by means of contract without patents. Small inventors may not even be able to obtain a patent because it’s not a trivial process.
Calling me a collectivist is a vile accusation. I have already said I believe private property should be inviolate. That’s not a collectivist position. I, nor the founders, believe IP should have the same inalienable protection. This is how lefties deny inalienable rights, by creating new ‘rights’ at odds with them.
I need to make my point clearer. Assume you come up with a patentable idea. You can keep it secret or patent it.
Independently I come up with the same idea. Perhaps even before you did.
If you and I both keep it secret we can both benefit from it’s use, but the public has to wait. However, if you choose to patent it, now you can prevent me from using the idea I independently came up with. By what right?
You could also choose not to license your idea, also preventing the public from legally benefiting (they could choose to ignore your patent.)
If you keep it secret and I make it public, since it was my idea as well… how can you claim any harm? You can’t. Or is it only harm to you and not to me (quite an arbitrary claim.)
Are you also going to claim that someone will not develop an idea unless they are certain to be able to patent it? That’s absurd. They can have no idea what others are doing and so can not know in advance they can even get a patent. Yet still have the option of keeping it secret as many choose to do even with patents.
Might there be some cost analysis? Of course, but so what? If they choose not to pursue something because of an analysis that doesn’t mean others won’t. That’s like saying nobody will write a song because others might as well.
Ken,
[[[However, if you choose to patent it, now you can prevent me from using the idea I independently came up with. By what right?]]]
I will assume you have no proof that your idea predates mine (sealed letters with post marks are one strategy to keep it secret and still show predating…) But because you choose to keep it secret that is the price you pay for not properly protecting it. Its YOUR decision to take that risk. I should not have my right taken away because of the choices you make.
[[[You also ignore a certain amount of arbitrariness regard what is or is not protectionable IP. You also ignore the difficulty for a person not established to acquire a patent.]]]
Costs are an issue, but that is only if you go through a patent lawyer. There are many modestly priced books available on protecting IP (The NOLO series is especially good investment for under $50.) that walk you through the process. The actual patent fees are also quite modest.
In terms of copyright, anything you write, including computer code, is automatically copyrighted. You just need to prove the date you wrote it. Again, a sealed post marked letter is good legal evidence. Or simply publishing it with “Copyright, Ken Anthony, All Rights Reserved.” works as well. Then it belongs to you and your heirs until 70 years after your death.
Now defending patents and copyrights are always an issue, but if you have a strong case you may often find a lawyer that does it based on a percentage of the award, so you would not have out of pocket expenses.
So the costs are not the huge barrier you seem to feel it is IF you have good IP.
Now could the patent office work better. Sure, but that takes money to hire experts, modernized the filing system and have consultants who specialize in specific industries and technologies. Perhaps if they had it they would reject Blue Origins patent. But given all that has been published on launch systems it does not seem to be a difficult patent to beat, if you could just find a single article or book, or perhaps even blog post that describes such a system that predates it. That is all a patent search (search for prior art its called) is.
In terms of collectivism, I consider the open software moment simply a virtual commune of programmers, that like all communes believe a higher purpose is served by working together. And its an individual’s right to join in such a “commune”. But it’s values should not be imposed on anyone.
In terms of what is IP. Really its quite clear and not as arbitrary as you feel.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/intellectual-property.html
Note, the key is commercial value.
I should not have my right taken away because of the choices you make.
You have no right being taken away. That’s my point. It’s an artificial right which creates problems that don’t exist without it.
Copyright belongs to you and your heirs until 70 years after your death.
Why should it? Plagiarism is wrong (I stormed out of my fifth grade class over this issue one time.) I do take it seriously. But copyright has changed over the years and not for the better.
open software moment
I predate this ‘movement.’ My reasons against IP legalities is I see first hand how it represents a thought control type of tyranny.
Assume I independently come up with some code that happens to infringe on a patent. I can now be punished FOR THINKING. This is not right. Don’t tell me I should have researched patents first. That’s absurd.
It’s even worse than that. Suppose I’m working on something and I’m open about it (because sharing ideas is how programmers work.) Some company with many times my resources can then patent my ideas to prevent my success.
Finally, don’t hand me a dictionary definition of IP. Judges rule both ways and often make ridiculous calls when it comes to IP. Value is what all people decide, not just judges, but we have to live with the error or judges.
it’s values should not be imposed
That’s pure assertion with no foundation. Why should a whole artificial construct of IP laws be imposed on my freedom to think? Or my freedom to act on my thoughts? Who’s imposing on whom?
Face it, this is just another of the many examples of using government violence against individuals. That you can turn this into a commune is laughable. It’s using government rather than open competition. It’s thought control. It’s going to get worse as technology enables tighter control of individual actions.