Maybe I'm just disregarding a lot of patent law, but wouldn't it be a better plan to just have all NASA patents open to anyone?
Sort of like the Tesla model with patents. i.e. Let's build a docking mechanism that all private companies will use as well because engineers have poured many hours into it and let's not re-invent the wheel. This provides a better outcome for both the governmental agency and private companies.
In the end, NASA's money is the public's money, sure it doesn't come directly from a private company all the time, but it will come from the individuals who make up that private company.
This will keep NASA innovating things that may have no commercial value, but also allow for more partnerships among private companies and NASA.
I work at a US government research agency and am in the process of applying for a couple of patents, so might be able to provide some insight.
We do not patent things to make money. The most profitable patent that my organization (NIST) has makes in the low six figures of royalties per year. If we started pulling in real money, I suspect congress would shut that down.
The stated mission of our tech transfer office (and the whole organization) is to make US businesses more successful and competitive. The unstated mission of researchers is to figure out interesting things and to get our ideas into practice. Fulfilling both of those missions, we might patent something for a few reasons:
- So that we can license it to US companies and not German or Chinese companies. Not unreasonable, considering the US taxpayers paid for the work.
- So that we can offer an exclusive license to one company in exchange for commercializing the invention. Many inventions require more investment to be commercially useful, and corporations are more likely to put up the money if they can't get copied by a competitor.
- So that we can offer the invention royalty-free (or at least below market rates) to anyone who wants to use it. Sometimes this is easier and more reliable than trying to get the invention into the public domain via a journal publication.
- So that we can get the lawyers to do the writing for us instead of having to write a paper.
I completely agree with you. There should be zero licensing cost for patents created by a public agency. I don't know why it's the way it is and I'm going to assume it's just another way for them to make money and fund other stuff which I kinda understand but that can also stagnate things.
I've worked with public agencies before and multiple times we were mandated by freaking congress to open source our work for anyone to use and we were contractors working for a public agency. Charging licensing fees to a public agency seems insane to me.
> Maybe I'm just disregarding a lot of patent law, but wouldn't it be a better plan to just have all NASA patents open to anyone?
I think they're learning from university tech transfer programs. A number of universities tried the exact approach you describe. What they found is that companies weren't interested in the ideas because of the substantial risk of someone out-developing them. A risk significantly increased by a lack of exclusivity. By patenting them and offering transfer of the patent, they got much better uptake.
So this is a case of ideals trading off against reality and results.
Most university tech transfer programs don't make money. Typical power law, a handful of ideas (patents) generate the most revenue. I think having the ideas open and make consulting agreements to get them to work would a better model.
I agree with your line of thought; however the NASA program described in the link only applies to non-exclusive patents. They state at the end that if you want an exclusive patent, to contact them.
From my limited understanding:
NASA doesn't make any revenue on the licensing agreements; all earnings go to the Dept. of Treasury.
I imagine it would take a legislative / executive vote to open the patents for free to use.
That being said, it'd be an interesting economic impact study if all patents were free to use, as long as used by US registered companies and manufactured in the US.
But just for fun...
Having a patent doesn't protect how my invention works, just how my invention is used. If someone lives in Pineland and wants to use a patent I filed for nothing is really stopping him. Regardless if my patent is free to use or not.
Well, right from the top of the page: "The NASA patent portfolio is available to benefit US citizens."
True, it doesn't seem explicitly say anywhere that only US companies can apply. But even if was the case, would this really target the technology benefits exclusively at US citizens? To do so might only be directing the commercial benefits to US corporations, who are only a sub-set of US taxpayers.
Would it not be better to share in the hope that this brings a net benefit to the people of the US?
After all, if you look outwards beyond your borders, I'm sure you will find some other non-US tech, paid for by others, available to benefit you.
Yes, in the since that it could increase the chance of a good idea coming out of this. That is assuming everyone is playing be the same rules and laws.
You mean a tax break for 1% business owners who stand to freely profit off research paid for by American tax payers? Because that's how it'll be framed.
Maybe that's how it would be framed if private corporations are allowed to purchase exclusive licenses to NASA patents. But if that patents are free, than anyone can use them.
You can ask the same question about universities. They are also quite aggressive when it comes to patenting. Some even bully researchers that want to start their own company to sign licensing deals.
Nope. ITAR, among other reasons. The explicit purpose of the STTR and SBIR programs is to encourage domestic businesses. Not to say NASA doesn't do open-source, but patents open for all might even hurt U.S. small businesses, since a foreign company could compete.
If there is a separation between the knowledge creation and the commercialization, I'm all for this model of funding science. However, the problem starts when NASA becomes a lab that creates patents with the intent of licensing them. In this scenario, NASA will stop focusing on advancement of knowledge and become focused on creating the kind of knowledge that will sell.
I would take it a step further. I used to work at NASA, and I never even thought about a patent. Not sure if we could have even gotten them, but the idea couldn't have been further from my mind.
To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space.
Maybe there is a role for a government organization dedicated to researching quasi-commerical science and engineering, but I would hate for NASA to become that agency. I want NASA focused on putting men in space.
"To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space."
There's obviously another branch of Nasa, otherwise how does
James Hansen ever work there?
James Hansen has not worked for NASA for two years, but that's nitpicking -- your point is correct.
There are multiple NASA centers who generally see the enterprise of space exploration differently. JSC and KSC are more focused on "putting men [sic] in space" (as the parent commenter said). GSFC is more focused on observing Earth and the Sun from space. JPL is more focused on robotic planetary exploration. Those are gross generalizations, because GSFC has been heavily involved with Hubble, and JPL does some Earth missions, etc.
I don't know who James Hansen is. The above is how I think NASA should operate, not how it actually does. I think NASA gets easily distracted by science, when it should be an engineering organization devoted to space and flight (more space than flight these days). Many smart people disagree.
I don't know the full spread of salaries at NASA, but from the people I do know who work for the government, they don't do it to get rich. I tend to think that people at NASA are there because they believe in its mission, and will be fairly likely to hold to that mission.
Yes, but what about the people in charge of those people? Once they see that some research is more profitable than others, what's stopping them from going to NASA people and demanding more profitable research? At what point does NASA lose its focus in its mission?
I'm all in favor of Startup NASA. I'm merely asking for things to be done in a way that doesn't mess with what's being done right already.
The problem is that NASA's patents may enable a subsequent technology that is also patentable that NASA will then need to licence. By holding patents they can get negotiating power on further technological improvements.
As a current NASA engineer, I suspect that the truth is along these lines. Similarly over the years I've noticed an odd trend of NASA funding external development of tools or technologies (either to private companies or universities), only for us to have to then license it once it is complete. A double bill for the taxpayers.
How long have you been there? I've been gone for over a decade, so I'm curious if you can confirm a suspicion I've had recently - that NASA has a bit of Silicon Valley envy and are trying to emulate the tech startup world in ways that may or may not be appropriate to their mission. When I worked there during the .com bubble, nobody cared about Silicon Valley at all - it very much had a military industrial complex feel to it.
I would say that depends largely on the project. Some projects are purposefully trying to appropriate ideas from the tech world (development lifecycle practices, etc.) but others are pretty firm in holding on to more traditional gov't ways of operating. Flight projects in particular have not changed very dramatically, and that is probably not a bad thing.
My least favorite part about the traditional ways are that they tend to be very poor at estimating FTE/WYE needs for a body of work, and will more often than not err towards over-estimation. This ends up necessitating the creating of busy-work to make use of all assigned personnel. Mostly by adding extra checks and documentation that many would agree are not very beneficial.
It's hard to be lean when you're given 15 more people than you actually need, basically.
I generally think this is a good way to openly share advanced research results and engineered technologies with the goal of implementation in mind. It makes some very cool technologies and information available and actionable to more people. I think that alone is positive.
But you are right, nothing can go unbounded.
Let us hope commercial success won't change the motivations of the organization...
you can't eliminate all conflicts of interest all of the time. But why not try to commercialize existing NASA technologies? this is exactly the type of knowledge transfer that is good for society
If I understand correctly. I think that the parent comment is concerned about NASA favoring the research of technologies that have a potential for marketization rather than others, more "moonshot"-like projects.
Commercialization is good, as long as it does not leak everywhere.
Exactly. If commercialization is done in way that does not distract from the principles of the research, it is great. But to achieve that, the incentives must be right. With Startup NASA, what is the incentive for NASA to keep doing moonshot-like projects, when they can make bank by investing only in profitable-in-the-near-future research? If the incentive is there, I am glad startup NASA exists. If not, I fear that Startup NASA will turn NASA into just another lab that has lost its focus.
Think about it. If people who work for NASA wanted to make bank, why would they work for NASA in the first place ? is NASA known as the best place to make bank, if that's your objective in life ? Is it going to become that place, as a result of this ? I understand the concern, but I think it's misplaced
The problem is not the people working at NASA wanting to make bank. It's the people overseeing those people realizing that there is a possibility to make bank, then pressuring the people working at NASA to do research to make bank. That's the change I fear.
But I wanted to respond to a different thing you said in the first comment:
> why not try to commercialize existing NASA technologies
I never said commercialization of the technologies is a bad thing. In fact, I'm all for it. But it has to be done in a way that doesn't break what's already being done right.
It won't be the decision of people who actually do the work, but of the people upstairs who decide what research the agency is focusing on.
The entire trend around public agencies trying to earn their own living on the market seems increasingly ridiculous. The whole point of having government agencies in a market economy at all is to have someone do the work that is necessary but doesn't make sense in market economy. Like feeding the poor, healing the sick, or doing basic research.
Agencies like NASA are one of two primary ways for society to tell the market: "you're a great optimization engine, but not perfectly aligned with our needs; sometimes you fail and we need to compensate - for instance, you rejected X, and yet we want X to be done". The other would be to become Elon Musk and keep shoving electric cars down market's throat until it gives up and suddenly there's a demand.
As Americans you can not - hell, as the world we can not afford agencies like NASA and ESA to drop basic research and pursue things that can be done by any random government contractor, but better, because said contractor would have less accumulated red tape.
When I was in university one of my favorite professors encouraged his students to browse through the tech transfer catalog every so often as a source of idea generation. I found it helps tremendously as a mental exercise to go through their technologies and brainstorm ways to commercialize.
One of the things about idea generation is that it is a muscle that needs exercise.
I'm glad to see the tech transfer program starting something new(ish).
Weird how this stuff goes in circles. So here NASA attempts to move away from basic research and toward startup trivialities, while just yesterday we've been reading about YC branching off a division to go away from startup trivialities and towards basic research.
Maybe let's just switch Sam Altman with Charles F. Bolden and skip the slow process? ;).
Also, BTW., ESA seems to be playing the same game too. Only few hours earlier I've been watching a video on international flight where ESA described their program of technology transfer and startup incubation...
From the sample licensing agreement, the "standard net royalty fee" mentioned is 4.2%, and the minimum fee is $3000 per year after the first three years.
Why would NASA need patents?
I would venture to guess that if NASA doesn't apply for a patent for a new tech they might use. Soon after not patenting it a commercial enterprise would, and then NASA would be required to license the technology they developed.
The concept of non enforced or open source patents has only gained ground VERY recently, even though the idea has been around for a long time.
A bit of a tangent to this post, but within the walls of NASA there are a few projects which are trying to structure themselves around the startup tech company model. The CAS (convergent aeronautics solutions) project is one example.
Sort of like the Tesla model with patents. i.e. Let's build a docking mechanism that all private companies will use as well because engineers have poured many hours into it and let's not re-invent the wheel. This provides a better outcome for both the governmental agency and private companies.
In the end, NASA's money is the public's money, sure it doesn't come directly from a private company all the time, but it will come from the individuals who make up that private company.
This will keep NASA innovating things that may have no commercial value, but also allow for more partnerships among private companies and NASA.