Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Google Patents Wireless Networking Communications Crime Government Network Networking Space The Almighty Buck The Internet United States Hardware Technology

Google Accused of Stealing Balloon Network Tech Behind Project Loon (thestack.com) 58

An anonymous reader writes: Google's parent company Alphabet has found itself faced with a lawsuit, which claims that the tech giant stole the idea behind its Wi-Fi-emitting balloon network, Project Loon. The Space Data Corporation of Chandler, Arizona, filed the suit and is arguing that it currently holds patents for a balloon-based system which carries broadband antennae to create a wireless network to deliver data services to U.S. armed forces and across remote areas of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. The organization is seeking damages for two counts of patent infringement, as well as two counts of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of written contract. Space Data says in their complaint that they had med with as many as 10 Google representatives, including Larry Page and Sergey Brin, in 2007 and 2008 to discuss potential partnerships. They say Google did not agree with the collaboration, and chose to steal trade secrets and start developing their own balloon network in 2011 instead. "Project Loon improperly and unlawfully utilizes Space Data's confidential information and trade secrets which Space Delta disclosed to Defendant Google pursuant to a 2007 Mutual Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement," the complain states.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Accused of Stealing Balloon Network Tech Behind Project Loon

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...Google will just lawyer up until the plaintiff company shrivels from legal expenses (see: Rambus VS. Samsung, Micron, Hynix). Then we'll know why they changed their "Do No Evil" motto.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Immerman ( 2627577 )

      I'd love to know what "trade secrets" they're claiming were violated. I mean the idea itself wasn't exactly secret, and it seems like there'd be a very limited and fairly obvious number of ways to provide navigation and power, establish a mesh network between balloons, etc.

      Of course, presumably they're using trade secret protection because it's not something that could be patented, so probably it's not a technological aspect... which makes me even more curious. I mean you're floating balloons across the c

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I'd love to know what "trade secrets" they're claiming were violated. I mean the idea itself wasn't exactly secret, and it seems like there'd be a very limited and fairly obvious number of ways to provide navigation and power, establish a mesh network between balloons, etc.

        I'm no fan of Google, but "a balloon-based system which carries broadband antennae" is just not an invention deserving of a patent. This is just another stupid patent that never should have been approved.

        • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

          I don't know. Certain ideas seem obvious that perhaps are only obvious in hindsight because we think they should be obvious, but in reality, no one had seriously considered the idea until someone actually took the time to think it out and maybe test it.

          It depends very much on how much work they did on this. Balloon wireless may not be a hard idea to think up, but the engineering needed to make it feasible may be at least a little challenging. If it's just a crayon drawing of Linksys router attached to a

          • I read a science fiction story a couple decades ago that had network and phone communications being sent by a floating station. So the basic idea had been considered and thought out by at least one popular author, and all the people who read his works.

  • by bongey ( 974911 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @06:45PM (#52332283)
    It is up in the air to who will win this lawsuit.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Special snow flakes were the specialest firstest people to think to put signals up high. Firstest all must pay. Pay the precious. Bad hobbitses hobbitses only put base station underground. Never think of baloon or tree. All must pay. Satellites just copying baloons. Special snow flakes precious IPR. Kill the hobbits. Kill Kill kill.

  • by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @06:48PM (#52332301) Homepage

    Instead of "x...but on the Internet", it's probably just "x...but with balloons".

    • Actually, when Google's endeavor was announced, I was surprised how similar it was to someone else who had been in the market for since around 2005. I think I actually read about them on /., although this company name doesn't ring any bells.

      Google (and all large companies) operate this way all the time; vendor comes in thinking they have hit the jackpot, but company just co-opts the information and technology if their lawyers say they can get away with it.

  • modus operandi (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16, 2016 @07:10PM (#52332419)

    ...or something... (posting AC because I don't feel like going through pw recovery)

    I worked for a company that was approached by google with an interest in our VOIP technology... We were all giddy because it seemed like the big "G" was in talks to buy us and our technology. There were NDA's signed, and access to our source tree was enthusiastically granted and Google engineers poured over our source code for a week.... Shortly thereafter, they declared they were not interested in purchasing us.. Lo-behold, not long after "Google Voice" was born with technology similar to our own...

    We all felt duped but I'm sure it was all on the up-n-up...

    • Re: modus operandi (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Or, they were working on their own technology internally 'similar' to yours and mined your implementation to be sure no viable threat existed before ratcheting up funding? In this case signing an NDA is a *fantastic* price to pay for full access to the internal workings of a competing product (worthy or not).

      I'm just playing Devils Advocate but I do know this situation occurs far more often than most would believe.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        I would think the opposite situation is more dangerous, you review something under NDA but the features/quality/price isn't right then a few years later you want to make something in the same ballpark and you get sued. If developing it in-house still is an option I wouldn't do it, only if you were trying to pick which third party to buy. Then you have a plausible excuse that yes, we bought your competitor and of course their technology is fairly similar to yours but nothing illegal happened here. Even thoug

    • Re:modus operandi (Score:5, Informative)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday June 16, 2016 @07:44PM (#52332601) Journal

      Lo-behold, not long after "Google Voice" was born with technology similar to our own...

      Google Voice was a rebranding of a company Google purchased, Grand Central.

      https://techcrunch.com/2009/03/11/grand-central-to-finally-launch-as-google-voice-its-very-very-good/

    • by CTalkobt ( 81900 )

      Actually they didn't... I interviewed for a position at a company that handles all of the backend VoIP for Google... they may have been talking / looking at more than 1 company at the same time. (Didn't get the job darnit... )

    • Did you have the NDAs signed with "representatives of Google Corp", or individually and personally signed by each person to who you gave access to your source code, with dire warnings of personal liability etc. Or did you get NDAs signed by both groups?
  • Google's new motto: "Don't get caught"

    • Google's new motto: "Don't get caught"

      Sadly, you couldn't be more wrong here.

      This is the problem with mega-corporations. They now simply don't give a shit if they get caught stealing IP, because they already know the little guy doesn't have the endless funds to feed a legal battle (for years if necessary).

      And even if they are ultimately found liable, the "punishments" are a pathetic joke that management pays with pocket change.

      TL; DR - Google's new motto: "Fuck You Very Much and Have a Nice Day"

  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @07:19PM (#52332467)
    prior art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • Considering it's less advanced than an airship from 1929 what is the big deal here?
    • Arguably it was innovative at the time it was developed-- a low-cost network that can be easily hoisted in different locations as weather patterns dictate. The competing ideas were much more along the line of high endurance drones with 25-72 hours loiter above an area. The ballon solutions were not only more elegant, they provided a robust and economically viable strategy.

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        Until a storm front comes through.
        Then it's back to the drawing board and playing catchup with something from 1929.
        • Actually, the weather prediction handles that; loss of one ballon resulted in degredation of service. Balloons weren't that expensive in the first place.

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )
            Hence the words "storm front" wiping out a lot over several states and not a storm wiping out a few in a small area. Current balloons are very fragile, even more so than Italian technology of the 1920s let alone rigid stuff.
  • by recharged95 ( 782975 ) on Friday June 17, 2016 @11:04AM (#52336203) Journal

    Flashback to 1997, I recall working in a startup where we were partnered w/Orbital (in VA/Chandler Az) on a high altitude system using airships (balloons) as an alternative to Orbcomm and Iridium back in the day. The transceivers were to handle IP traffic. OSC was to supply the electronics, and we teamed with Gore Industries for the airships (to be flown at 120000ft) since Gore was the main vendor for materials on those high alt balloon experiments. The effort of course, collapsed with the space industry at the time. Looking at the people involve, Space Data has merit in the idea, but NDAs w/Google is another investigation that will determined this lawsuit's outcome.

    Those were fun days, the Internet was just ramping up from dial up, Iridium was driving great ideas in the space communications industry and mobile phones were taking off.

    Funny thing was back then, our balloon competitor was Alexander Haig and his odd partner [washingtonpost.com]-- and tackling regulations to get their balloon system off the ground via gov't permission instead of focusing on tech.

    Fun days I sure miss...

  • buyout in 3...2...1... google jest put out the press release.

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...