Look up what "non-obvious" means, and let me know if you still think objects falling towards Earth at a different altitude constitute a patentable idea. Floating communications networks are not new.

There's nothing obvious about floating communication networks. It takes a pretty large amount of engineering to get right. There's a massive difference between satellite vs balloon based communication that I don't know why the comparison even needs to be made. To totally reduce the two to "falling towards Earth at a different altitude" (which isn't even accurate for balloons) totally ignores just about everything that makes them different. It's like saying the idea of a car can't be patented because it's just a hunk of metal on wheels and we already have bikes that fit that description.

"And now the gods of destiny smiled on Henry Ford. With the three-judge federal appeals court, he finally won vindication. The case opened on November 22, 1910, and the judges handed down their decision on January 9, 1911. They ruled that the Selden patent was valid, but only for cars made to its specifications. This was a total victory for Ford, because no working automobile had ever been built to Selden’s design. Thus the appeals court actually ruled that no royalties were required of anybody."

https://fee.org/articles/how-henry-ford-zapped-a-licensing-m...

To wit: the patent on the gas engine was held to be enforceable only to that exact specification, and it changed the world more than floating balloons. Case law here is pretty clear, and broad patents like this would not hold up in the time of the rise of the car.

> objects falling towards Earth at a different altitude constitute a patentable idea

You may also want to look up what falling means (hint: working satellites do it, working balloons do not).

Just because the gas in a ballon is lighter-than-air doesn't mean it is free from the effects of gravity.