I’m not a fan of patents or NASA, so call me biased, but I just received an email regarding my recent article.
It was from an engineer/lawyer in England who pointed out the latest Audi ad campaign: to get to the A6, Audi filed 9,621 patents. In contrast, to date NASA has only filed 6,509.
But is that really a smart comparison to make?
The first problem, because it is entirely funded through public monies NASA has no financial incentive for patenting anything it does (whether it succeeds in innovating or not).
Plus, generally speaking, by law some research receiving federal funding (such as NASA) is required to release their discoveries into the public domain (various legislation proposed last year wants to place all federally funded research into the public domain).
The other problem is that NASA does not make automobiles, nor does Audi build rockets (yet) — so isn’t this just comparing apples and oranges?
Why not simply find a moribund American carmaker (like GM) and compare the fewer patents they have, and then flex and grunt to show your superiority?
Ultimately however, what do consumers care about patents? Did market research find that many people still associate space travel with “great technology”?
Of course, a true cynic would think that the A6 blows up 1-out-of-every-50 uses…