[awelkie]

So the article says the technology was developed at NASA and then licensed to Smart via the "Space Act Agreement". It looks like the company has three patents already, one of which[0] seems (to me, after a brief glance) to cover the essential innovation behind the metal tires.

Can anyone tell me how the Space Act Agreement works? Does the innovation developed by NASA end up as a patent for a chosen company? Or do these three patents represent work done by the company and not at NASA? If it's the former, does NASA get any money from this agreement?

[0]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10449804B1/en

[wil421]

The patent you linked to is under NASA and the NASA employees who came up with the tech.

What do the company’s patents say and detail?

[awelkie]

Ah good catch! The reason I thought the patent was assigned to the Smart company was because they list it in their Wefunder page[0] (under the heading "Key Accomplishments"). But actually all that's stated on that page is that "multiple patents protect this innovation", they don't actually claim that they have the patents.

I'm still curious how the licensing from NASA works. Do they typically grant a monopoly to certain companies or can multiple competing companies license this technology?

[0]: https://wefunder.com/the.smart.tire.company

[dpiers]

It depends. NASA will file a notice of intent to grant an exclusive or partial license - you can see the notices here[1].

In this case it seems the patent is still available for anyone to license[2]. They have special licensing terms for startups that are pretty favorable[3].

1: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%...

2: https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/LEW-TOPS-99

3: https://technology.nasa.gov/startup

[Mizza]

More importantly - why do innovations by NASA not go into the public domain?

Our tax dollars paid for it, our homemade battlebots should be armored by it.

[V_Terranova_Jr]

NASA does publish on much of its research. See, e.g.: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/

There are other forums in which they publish export-controlled information.

They patent things for at least two reasons. One is monetization - some in Government believe that monetization helps recoup some of the taxpayer's R&D contributions by claiming a "rightful" share of the benefits to commercial entities. I'm not saying I agree with this, just that is it a commonly held viewpoint.

Another, even in cases where the licensing is royalty-free, is for defensive purposes. It ensures a benevolent entity owns the patent and can license it for implementation in an equitable and non-discriminatory way.

Practically speaking, if you were to implement NASA-patented technology in a non-commercial context (homemade battlebot), it's extremely unlikely NASA would come after you for patent infringement.