If SES Americom did use the lunar swingby, then (as happened with HGS-1, the satellite this trick was used on in 1998) it will use up most of the satellite’s manoeuvring fuel. The upshot of this is that it won’t end up in a true geostationary orbit; instead, it will be in a not-quite-as-good geosynchronous one. This means that it will weave around in a figure-of-eight pattern in the sky instead of seeming to stay fixed, so limiting its use to customers with tracking antennas. Now, there are still plenty of those, but it does rather constraint its market; the satellite’s useful life will also probably be shortened.

In other words, faced with a choice between getting half what they paid for, or claiming an insurance payout and launching a fully-functional replacement, it’s not surprising they’re looking for an excuse to go for the second option. This ludicrous patent is just a convenient bit of FUD to wave at the insurers.

Doesn’t matter. All that matters is can you enforce it? I’m sure they’d be able to. This is also no doubt considered part of the US military’s plan for total space dominance (at least, close to Earth).

If a law is consistently, spectacularly and very publicly stupid – pretty soon no one pays any attention to it. Why aren’t the patent lawyers protecting their racket and doing all they can to shoot this down? It’s as if they made money either way.

SES put up a satellite into the wrong orbit, then they had internal discussions about how to correct the orbit so the satellite would work for a little while, then Boeing found out about the secret internal plan, then Boeing sent a transcript of the secret plan to their IP department, then the Boeing IP department sent a cease and desist letter to SES, then SES decided to let the satellite plummet to earth and collect the insurance.

Sure people, that’s how the alien spaceship fell at Roswell too. Damn you Boeing with your secret cease and desist letters.

Keep up the good fight, copy fighters!

None of this has any bearing on the validity of the patent, but if it is valid, than space counts. If they think that the patent is not valid, then they should weight the risk of a successful lawsuit against them v.s., the cost of not performing the maneuver.

Drinks are on me lads and ladies, I’ll be a millionaire by the end of the week.

Cost to use patent < loss of satellite shurely!

Even by the barrel-scraping standards of the US Patent Office, this is what we English legal types refer to technically as “utter bollocks”.

Where’s the inventive step? Where is the idea not obvious to a skilled practitioner in the field? Whilst as a good European I object to patents on scientific and mathematical methods, I can at least concede that some of the orbit-related patents that have been granted on, say, use of weird chaotic transitions through the Lagrange points are at novel and inventive. But use of a swingby to simultaneously change the eccentricity and inclination of an orbit is out of Orbits 101; it was done in 1992 at Jupiter for the Ulysses mission, and space journalist James Oberg described how it could be done to get into geostationary orbit in an article back in 1984. There’s abundant prior art to invalidate this patent, even leaving aside the matter that it should never have been patentable in the first place.

The article even goes on to say how there have been several offers to buy the satellite and correct its orbit but SES Americom would prefer an insurance payout – without informing its insurer of the alternatives. The patent is ridiculous but the post saying the satellite “being abandoned in orbit because its position can’t be corrected without violating a Boeing patent” is far from the whole story…

Welcome to the new era of peace and prosperity.

Really? If that’s the case, then fight the patent! Invalidity is not only a defense, but if Boeing tried to use a patent they knew was invalid, it’s possible to recover damages from them. There are copyfighters and there are copywhiners; SES seems to be the latter.

Regardless of who did it, as Mr. Scott might have said, “Y’canna patent the laws of physics Captain!”

At least you shouldn’t be able to.

“In 2000, the Hughes satellite organization became a welcome addition to the Boeing family.“

Good find with the statute. However, I’m not at all convinced that Section 105 would apply in this case.

Section 105 is limited to satellites, etc., that are “under the jurisdiction or control of the United States.” Without researching the statute in detail, I’m not sure if this applies. This sounds it is limited to satellites that are owned and operated by the United States government, not owned by private entities within the United States (although I could be wrong).

This also assumes that the company that owns it is a United States company. Even it it is a United States company that was subject to Section 105, it could simply sell the satellite to another company in another country (such as a subsidiary set up for this purpose), and then let the subsidiary perform the salvage operation on its own from that country. Under such circumstances, there would be a strong argument that the rescue operation would not fall within the jurisdiction of United States patent law.

If the company hasn’t considered this, then it needs better lawyers. I’m with the above comments suggesting that this “patent infringement” excuse is just a big ball of FUD, and that the company would rather just collect a payout from the insurance company.

Although Boeing may only own this patent by acquisition, they have other methods patents of their own that are equally egregious.