GOP is selling off NASA!

[ColbertWatcher]

GCN Home > 09/15/08 web stories
NASA patents to be auctioned
Auction is part of program to help commercialize NASA-funded technology
By William Jackson

A suite of 25 patents for technology developed at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center will be put up for sale at a live intellectual property auction being held in October by Ocean Tomo Auctions LLC in Chicago.

The sale, which will include rights to signal processing, GPS for spacecraft and sensor technologies, is the first auction under a partnership announced earlier this month between Goddard’s Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) and Ocean Tomo Federal Services LLC. Ocean Tomo provides a marketplace for intellectual property, which NASA wants to leverage in commercializing its technology.

“A major component of NASA Goddard’s Innovative Partnerships Program’s mission is to transfer NASA technology to the commercial marketplace, said IPP program office chief Nona Cheeks.

Creating a market for patented technology funded by NASA benefits both the government and the commercial sector that will take advantage of it.

--Government Computer News

Imagine that. The GOP is gutting the government to benefit the commercial sector.

The auction is set for October 29th and 30th (http://www.oceantomo.com/auctions.html). Gee, anyone want to guess if Blackwater or Halliburton will be bidding on anything?

[jkshaw]

1. And how many more months until we're

through with this administration?

[ColbertWatcher]

2. Too many. n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. Who owns Ocean Tomo?

Malackowski, the CEO, is a D contributor. In fact, $2000 to Franken's campaign.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. Sounds like it's a bank.

Maybe they'll be another victim of the GOP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Tomo_LLC

[Duppers]

25. Yes, thank you! - NASA has ALWAYS sold useful patents

NASA has ALWAYS sold useful patents - that are not a security risk - to public companies.

This packaging auction is just a more useful way of doing it.

Can no one say "whoops, sorry!" here????

[Trajan]

4. THOSE patents belong to us ....

No GOP hack should benefit ...

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Yes, they do, but the GOP are selling off everything ...

... to donor corporations or Saudis.

[Duppers]

20. oh, geeesh! This has been happening for YEARS!

NASA TU has always sold patents, so that ALL taxpayers can benefit fr their invested dollars.

What do you want them to do? Give 'em away?! Then only those companies benefits.

[Duppers]

26. yes, and as such

You're getting a return on your investment! The companies have to pay royalties to the US govt. They actually supplement our tax dollars!

You want them to just give them away? Or just let them to sit on the shelves (or in computers) and not be used by companies--who must then reimburse us, the taxpayers?

Where's the logic here?

[MiniMe]

5. Seems like that would be a national security issue

[Duppers]

21. they don't sell any that could do that

They do have strict priorities.

:hi:

[RollWithIt]

6. It's actually the only way NASA can survive... sadly....

Sadly we can't afford the program anymore. Especially since we're in financial crisis. On the bright side, NASA will develop MANY new technologies in the future too. They have a nice big lab to develop them in. Plus we'll be the first to colonize the moon. This isn't a "support" of the GOP. I'm just pointing out that Obama really won't have any choice either. If we're going to Mars we're gonna have to raise a shitload of money.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. "the only way NASA can survive." With the GOP in charge yes, but ...

... it doesn't have to be that way.

If CERN can spend how much on LHC?

There is no excuse for the GOP to sell off patents; they're giving our property to their donor friends.

[RollWithIt]

13. Ok, think of it this way... economy, jobs, healthcare, education, foreign policy, etc etc

Where exactly do we get the money to pay for NASA? The thing is, because of the research we're still conducting trying to establish a mission to mars and take a trip to Mars in 20 years we'll have all kinds of new technology developed to make the current patents outdated. Actually, most of the patents they are selling are already outdated to NASA.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. Still no reason to sell off an asset.

Just because the GOP cannot manage a government agency, doesn't mean it's worthless.

Or, just because the GOP went on their Iraq Adventure doesn't mean science should suffer.

[Duppers]

24. how is TU an asset if these patents cannot be implemented?

CW, I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, nor pick on you (I respect you too much).

:hi:

[Pab Sungenis]

37. Don't SELL the patents....

LICENSE them. Like any PRIVATE patent holder would.

[Duppers]

38. YOU'RE absolutely right

Me bad. That is what they do, in general.

Thanks, pabsungenis.

[Hannah Bell]

16. ummm - taxes?

oh, that's right, only the little people pay taxes, & they have no money.

after nasa sells off their assets, how, pray tell, do "we" pay for nasa then?

you don't eat your capital, you use it to generate income. not one-time cash, INCOME.

the only reason "we" can't do it is because "they" want to privatise it & take that INCOME for themselves & their cronies. & "they'll" be the ones colonizing mars - if there's profit in it.

if not, "we'll" pay for the non-profitable part, & then "they'll" step in again to take the reward on the investment.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. Exactly. Thank you, Hannah! n/t

[Duppers]

23. geesh again.

see my post up-thread.

[Up2Late]

7. Why didn't I expect this?

Silly me.:banghead: :grr:

[peacetalksforall]

8. That's it. That is the proof. They are in deep doo doo financial trouble or are in

incredible need of money for legal funds to defend themselves or are paying off their self-exile expenses in advance or it is one of their last grasps at our throats and pockets to get what we own (as in we the people).

[ColbertWatcher]

18. I doubt it has anything to do with being low on cash.

If that were true, they'd end their tax cuts to the filthy rich.

This is about selling assets to "friendlies" corporations, or nations who are ideological fellows.

[Zorro]

10. This type of thing has been going on for a while

Goddard and other government entities promote having someone commercialize their technologies developed under IR&D. There have been a few successful companies that have turned these technologies into products.

[Duppers]

27. thanks, Zorro

apparently not many people have read your post.

[conscious evolution]

50. WD-40 is one such product,IIRC.

Same with circuit breakers in your electrical panel .
NASA has been selling and liscensing technology for years.

[ThoughtCriminal]

11. G.I.P.P.?

Sounds about right. Goddard’s Innovative Partnerships Program - I notice they drop the "G" for the acronym.

OK - Commercializing the technology sounds good but am I to understand that the buyer gets exclusive rights to the technology?

[ColbertWatcher]

14. "the buyer gets exclusive rights" More than likely, yes.

And who knows what they're selling and who's buying.

[Duppers]

28. it's all public record

there's no under the table deals.

the amt of royalty payments in the contracts are not made available however.

[marmar]

22. I can picture a rocket taking off with Bank of America and Wal-Mart ads on it......

:scared:

[Duppers]

32. these are PATENTS

they're selling. Intellectual properties. TU - Technology Utilization.

NASA has created more patents than any other organization and if the public can use these to better our lives, which they have, then why not?

These companies have to pay royalties back to the govt. We're not being ripped off here, folks.

NASA has been selling patents since its' beginning.

The OP should offer a 'whoops' but I do not see that forthcoming.

-d

[LunaSea]

41. Duppers is correct

The OP is misleading. I'd consider this a return on investment.
There are much bigger problems with poorly constructed rules such as the ITAR restrictions.

This approach could be a boon to the fledgling private space industry that's
growing by leaps and bounds at this very moment and fits perfectly with the
traditional efforts of NASAs Space Product Development office.

[progressoid]

39. Yep.

It's sad.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. This isn't their property to sell

It belongs to the taxpayers.

[fascisthunter]

31. Exactly... That's Why I Accuse Republicans of Stealing

[Duppers]

35. "Stealing"?? FROM WHOM?

These companies HAVE to pay for these patents; PLUS they must pay royalties on their profits.

The payments go to the US Treasury! Those royalties supplement your tax dollars.

You prefer that TU sit on shelves and not be used?

[Duppers]

33. have you not read the posts in this thread?

Let's apply some logic here.

[fascisthunter]

30. Republican Fascist Agenda.... sell off the commons

commons belongs to the average American, actually every American. Republicans, especially the wealthy ones pushing this agenda know full well they mean to destroy what the common man has to profit their upper-class... socializing losses for the wealthy while privatizing gains for the wealthy. FASCISM.... Republican is an old worthless label.

[libodem]

34. I've felt NASA has taken a back seat to spending on the war

for some time. I hates thes Cons enough to believe the space shuttle that blew up wa the 9/11 of the space program. Only instead of an excuse to start something it has been an excuse to shut it down to a crawl and funnel the money else where. I'm pretty sure the chickens will be coming home to roost on the other giant cuts to programs, Chaneybush, hacked out, like Headstart and National Parks.

[Duppers]

36. thanks, libodem

from a NASA supported family member here.

-d

[On the Road]

40. Why is This a Bad Idea?

There are several options:

1) Keep the patents and do not allow them to be used.
2) Keep the patents and allow them to be used freely.
3) Keep the patents and allow them to be used for a liscence fee.
4) Sell the patents.

AFAIK, the federal government is not generally in the business of liscencing patents. The alternative would be to sell them to an entitiy that is that business.

I would prefer that the federal government benefit from patents and spin-offs developed in the space program. This is one way to do it.

[ColbertWatcher]

42. "Why is This a Bad Idea?" Normally everything you've said would be true, but ...

... this is the republicans in charge.

There's no telling what they're selling and who they're selling to!

[On the Road]

44. OK, The Terrms and Conditions Might be Bad

but I would prefer to see that it's a bad deal before condemning it.

[ColbertWatcher]

45. Oddly, I'd like to see that it's a good deal before giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt! n/t

[On the Road]

46. Fair Enough,

but before starting a thread decrying it I would rather see some information suggesting it needs to be decried.

[ColbertWatcher]

47. We might be able to eventually hear about the sale, but ...

... it will probably take a FOIA request first.

[specialed]

43. It's better than what they were doing...

which was just publishing white papers and letting people take whatever they could without reimbursement. It's smart to be able to generate revenues this way. Anything that can offset taxes is a good thing. Look at Norway they basically do the same thing with oil leases on the North Sea. It's not like NASA has any real product competition. (Yes I'm a Dem). :)

[pipoman]

48. NASA is in existence largely for their R&D

Much of the technology discovered by NASA has valuable commercial uses in everything from medical science to plumbing. This has been going on for years. At least they are being auctioned and not given to * corporate cronies.

[ColbertWatcher]

49. Who's to say they're not being auctioned off to *'s cronies!? n/t

[pipoman]

51. The term "auction"

indicates competition and sale to the highest bidder. If * cronies are the highest bidder in an auction known by all companies who may have an interest in the technology, who cares.

[ColbertWatcher]

52. I hope you're right. But I don't trust these criminals.

You have heard what they've done with those contracts in Iraq, haven't you?

[pipoman]

53. I certainly oppose 'no bid contracts'

which would be the opposite of a bid contract which is essentially what an auction is. It may be that even with distribution of information about Iraq contracts or these auctions, only one bidder would emerge. Again as long as all possible interested parties are aware, what do ya do? I would be interested in how these auctions were billed and to whom they were offered and billed, as long as that was fair I don't see an issue. That said I do think certain R&D technologies developed with US tax dollars should only be available to US companies, and maybe with a stipulation the products developed with the technology must be produced in the US wouldn't be bad either.

[ColbertWatcher]

54. Nicely put. Of course these guys' priorities may not jibe with what you've suggested. n/t