SpaceX vs BoeingLM: 0 - 1

[tap_sa]

LINK<br /><br /><i>A US District Court this week has dismissed all anti-trust claims brought by SpaceX against Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.<br /><br />The court concluded that SpaceX "is not yet ready to compete with the Defendants in the EELV market. Because it lacks such readiness, its speculative claims regarding future harm are not ripe."</i><br /><br />Yes Elon, let's see some rockets fly first.

 

[mlorrey]

This is bogus. If Boeing and Lockheed keep SpaceX from entering the market in the first place by tortious interference in launch operations, that is an antitrust violation.

 

[no_way]

http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=976<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>From the description of the decision, it sounds like a Catch-22 situation. The judge is saying that you can't sue to stop the formation of a monopoly until you have built your system and proved that it is capable of competing against the monopoly. However, in a monopoly situation, especially in such a capital intensive area as rockets, it can be extremely difficult to raise the money to build your system if potential investors see that you will be kept out of a primary market. Talk about a barrier to entry!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IOW, you have to show that you are able to compete against monopoly .. which then wont be a monopoly anymore .. whats the whole point of antitrust laws then ??

 

[mikejz]

Generally the government's reaction to monopolies is to break up the given companies. (Bell, Standard Oil, etc). However, remember that when you get the government involved with monopolies, generally it’s a safe bet they will remain that way. Look for example at the effect of franchise fees on basically enforcing a cable company’s monopoly within a given city. <br /><br />Anti-Trust law also seems hinge on the consumer, not if the barriers to entry for competitors are extremely high. In which case, you could argue that it should be the US government that brings the case against ULA. Of course, the risk is that they discontinue launches (something that the DoD would NOT like). <br /><br />I think that in this case the judge was right, SpaceX might face high barriers to entry, but in the end they are clearly are faring well in securing contracts in the non-EELV market. I wish all the best to SpaceX, but the NEED a proven track record before they can start to fight Boeing/Lockmart head on, period. They will never win a court case with a paper-rocket. <br />

 

[cretan126]

Mikejz. You're right on the money. At the moment, SpaceX doesn't have a leg to stand on as a competitor in the EELV world - definately not enough for a judge to do anything BUT toss out their lawsuit. In fact, I believe their credibility even in the small launch vehicle area is rapidly deteriorating given their continuing stumbles on the road to launch. <br /><br />They have had a consistent track record of over promising and underdelivering, demonstrating some level of naivete regarding how hard it really is to (literally) get off the ground in the launch vehicle business. (Recall that they first announced Falcon 1 would launch by the end of 2003). When - or if - they turn that that into a consitent record of actually launching successfully, they would be better served to be more contrite. <br /><br />The ultimate validation is in satellites in space, not lawyers in court. Only time - and another good chunk of Elon's millions - will tell.

 

[yurkin]

Good Reply<br />I agree. The thing is, with launch industry so international it’s hard for anyone to claim that they have a monopoly. Since this deal between Boeing and Lockheed is currently relegated to the public sector the government is the only customer that can file suit. Of course they aren’t likely to go through the courts if it comes to that.<br />