Wright Brothers vs. Glenn Curtiss

jvmatthe writes "Today's All Things Considered on NPR had a story about intellectual property and patents from America's history that could have been ripped from today's Slashdot headlines, yet it happened almost a century ago. It discussed how the Wright Brothers, considered the fathers of modern heaver-than-air-flight, had tried to lock up the skies after their patenting of the ideas used to build their airplanes. They had a long, bitter legal battle with Glenn H. Curtiss who also made airplanes; Curtiss is credited with being "the first to make a public flight in the United States, the first to sell a commercial airplane, the first to fly from one American city to another, and the first to receive a U.S. pilot license", among other things. Here's where it really gets interesting: the patent battles dragged on and apparently could have actually hindered the growth of the American airplane industry. It wasn't until World War I that people put aside their differences for the common good and the industry worked together in a spirit of free exchange of ideas! So, does is this a sign for how we might eventually get out of the patent mess we're in now? Some catastrophic event brings everyone together and the locking up of ideas with overly broad patents finally ends? For more reading, the NPR story focussed on Unlocking the Sky by Seth Shulman."

Comments

wright brothers...

[Two Eyes of Greg]

well... why did the wright brother not team up with the other dudes? then no trouble, and more money... especially money... to buy lots of coke!

it's a sign

[abe ferlman]

I think it's a sign that we need to go to war with a country with a more enlightened intellectual property policy.

And lose.

Heavier

[Squareball]

Heavier is spelled heaver in the summary... so get ready for the millions of people to tell you about it!

Re:Heavier

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget the improper use of "does" in the third-to-last sentence in the summary...

but really, does who cares?

attention public

[redhotchil]

project Pork is about to begin..

weeeeeeee

It took a world war?

[3.5 stripes]

So, maybe this invasion of Iraq might help break this whole patent/IP thing wide open?

Re:It took a world war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job moderators! What was this poster thinking? Talking about war and patents in an article about patents and war. Completely offtopic.

Re:It took a world war?

[#!/bin/allen]

There are several books in the response to that statement.

The problem with recent wars is that nobody got scared enough to put aside their economic differences.

In the first half of the last century, the government didn't have the power or will to control individual's lives the way it wants to now. It also had several sever upheavals to remind it what was important. We haven't had that, really, since the Korean war.

I'm not in favor of going to war to help straiten out intellectual property. The war that did that would probably be personally devastating for a large percentage of the population.

I'm in favor of Common Sense. Look at the reason these laws were originally created. Look at what they do today. Decide if the original purpose is still valid. Change the law based on that decision.

Review Intelectual Property Law

Re:It took a world war?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a particular irony involved when someone misspells the word "intellectual" :)

Re:It took a world war?

[wwi]

>>In the first half of the last century, the
>>government didn't have the power or will to control
>>individual's lives the way it wants to now.

In WW I, the US had its first
opportunity to control all aspects of people's
lives. Information (the press) was controlled in an
unprecidented manner. Food production
was controlled, the government took
over the means of communication (railroads,
telegraph, radio, etc), dissent was severely
stifled, far harsher than today. And
all done by the "progressive" party of
Wilson, not by "conservatives". The social changes
made in 1917-19 forever changed the
United States, and brought about a command
and control society. Read "Over Here" by
David Kennedy for more background.

Re:It took a world war?

[JonTurner]

First opportunity during WWI? Hardly. Try the Civil War. Lincoln shut down newspapers critical of the war, imprisoned civilians without trial, ordered and approved attacks on civilian targets and the execution of prisoners, etc.
To claim this quest for control over the populace began during WWI is short sighted. There have always been power-hungry politicians who will seize any opportunity to expand their authority. It's human nature, as anyone who's read the Bible will be familiar.

that's true

[geddard]

Imagine building the atomic bomb with all your enemies looking over your shoulder.

That's how it feels right now about developing standards.

You're building a standard for your company's next product, and you need your competitor's approval...

wtf???

Boogie Gal ---

Re:that's true

[GigsVT]

That's BS man. Companies should compete on implementations of open standards. No one is forcing you to give up your secrets on how your implementation works 100% faster than the rest, etc.

Re:that's true

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,503863,00.asp

Look, larger companies don't want standards. That's the reason why companies don't want standards (if all possible). It's just that their internal management foils them from operating efficiently enough to capitalize.

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

I claim this fp on behalf of Red Hat.

Glory hole discovered!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just discovered a hole between two stalls in one of men's bathrooms at our university. I suspect it is a glory hole! I am tempted...

The more things change...

[n-baxley]

the more they stay the same.

This should be a lesson to us all that although we think that the problems we face are new atnf will soon lead to the end of the world as we know it, we must remember that there have been patents, big companyies, monopolies and greedy people in the past who held great sway on the way things were done. But somehoe things worked out and we made it through. Think of that the next time you get too woried about the end of the world or how evil BillG is.

Re:The more things change...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK this is off topic but so what. I'm genuinely curious. I keep reading posts where people are calling Linux users "dirty fat scum bags" or "dope smoking hippies" or "communists" or my personal favorite "black t-shirt wearing long hair greasy slime bags". Obviously this is a stereotype. I'm sure there are many upscale, rich, preppie Linux users out there, but does the stereotype hold true for the most part? Are you guys a bunch of long haired dope smoking, acid tripping, hippie wannabees?

Re:The more things change...

[mbogosian]

[W]e must remember that there have been patents, big companyies, monopolies and greedy people in the past who held great sway on the way things were done. But somehoe things worked out and we made it through.

We must remember that there were always people (however few) that weren't too complacent to fight these large corporations. For the pendulum to swing back, there must be something pulling it. But you're right, this is a valuable thing to keep in mind. It is important to remain optimistic that these discussions do have value in the efforts to bring things back to being tolerable again.

Re:The more things change...

[gillbates]

Amen.

I've learned to stop worrying so much about DRM, Palladium, Microsoft, etc... simply because I have faith in the ingenuity of people. I used to think that patents and IP prohibited innovation, but it occurs to me that they might actually spur programmers on to invent better ways of doing things, rather than merely copying someone else's idea or program. The reason why so many Open Source advocates have philosophical problems with the patent system is because most Open Source authors are merely copying someone else's idea, rather than inventing something new. I, for one, would like to see Open Source projects that invent something new and useful, rather than just making cheap knock-offs of someone else's program.

Re:The more things change...

[Geezle2]

we must remember that there have been patents, big companyies, monopolies and greedy people in the past who held great sway on the way things were done. But somehoe things worked out and we made it through

Some of these problems did not just go away naturally and of their own accord. It took a tremendous amount of effort to at least partially free this country from the death-grip of trusts, monopolies and robber-barons the first time around. Sure, now we are more aware of the threats to public intrests that monopolies pose but the strategists for big business have learned a thing or two as well and have not been idle.

Perhaps the most remarkable success of big business has been the consolidation of all the mass media into a couple corporations. This makes it easier to censor or spin the programming (so that it tastes great AND has less content!) to present big business in a positive or at least neutral frame of reference. Big business has learned that when properly done they can control the publics' perception of their actions such that huge numbers of halfwits will sing the corporate anthem and gleefully spout the company PR line even while they are being robbed blind.(Why yes, I am refering to the Gate's Jugend and Microserfs here!)

The lesson here is not "See, it happened before. . .don't worry. . .be happy". It is "See, this has happened before and we are letting it happen again". Too many suckers buying the same old (modernized and repackaged) propaganda. . .

"There is a sucker born every minute." "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -PT Barnum

Re:The more things change...

[ProfessorPuke]

You are simply wrong. I'm a professionally programmer, and all around me I see my colleagues wasting their time re-implementing things that have been done before many times. Sometimes redoing techniques from books, from competing software, from non-competing software (completely different fields). Sometimes even reimplementing their own prior work, because they're not licensed to paste it in again.

If I had to guess, I'd optimistically say that only 10% of programming work is really original. Even if you don't agree with my percentage, you've got to admit that the more time someone spends retracing old ground, the less energy they have to blaze new trails. I feel really guilty that we as an industry use copyright laws to extort money from our customers, by getting paid for the same works over and over again.

This is why a drastic reduction in the efficacy of software IP would do so much to help the industry, and society at large. Even if the looser-reuse laws slashed the income to the software engineering profession by 66%, we'd still come out ahead. The dead weight would be laid off (the guys who jusy re-code the same old stuff), and a greater total amount of investment would go towards new research.

Sure, the Prime Directive sounds like a cool principle, but you shouldn't have to force everyone to reimplement the warp-drive, on the chance that someone will do it in a new & unique way. If someone is really enough of a genius to improve on an established technology, he'll probably be able to make his invention without you forcing him (and everyone) to research it without studying the existing methods.

(Sure, the attempt to derive an idea from first principles can be good practice- I often try to "write my own" before going to get sample code- but in a corporate setting, that kind of random education is a waste of salary)

Re:The more things change...

[kcbrown]

What you say is true within certain limits, but not as much as you might think.

Do you really think you'd ever see the U.S. government today stepping in and telling two parties in a patent fight that it would not be enforcing any of the patents in question? Not in your lifetime!

The problems we face today are much worse than those in the past, because the bad guys today have a worldwide presence and many times the amount of money and power that they had back in the day.

That's not to say that the problems today are new: they're not. The Roman Empire went through the same thing. The difference is that the Roman Empire had enemies on the outside to topple them, whereas a worldwide police state (which is what we're headed for) wouldn't. Oh, and back in Roman times a group of 100 trained soldiers had perhaps a factor of three or four advantage over a group of 100 civilians, whereas today a group of 100 trained soldiers with modern weapons has more like a factor of a thousand (or a million if you include nukes) advantage. Point being that any civilian uprising in modern times is going to be squashed unless it gets military support.

The American Revolution simply couldn't happen today.

So things are different today.

Re:The more things change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:The more things change...

[gillbates]

I'm a professionally programmer, and all around me I see my colleagues wasting their time re-implementing things that have been done before many times. Sometimes redoing techniques from books, from competing software, from non-competing software (completely different fields). Sometimes even reimplementing their own prior work, because they're not licensed to paste it in again.

I too am a professional programmer, and I see the same thing. But this is simply a matter of job security. The employer pays for the wheel every time it is reinvented. Horribly inefficient from an economic standpoint, but you won't find me crying over Corporate America's (tm) lost money.

...you shouldn't have to force everyone to reimplement the warp-drive, on the chance that someone will do it in a new & unique way.

True - you should license the warp drive from the original inventor. This will probably save your company money in the long run, and if it won't, then you have every justification for reimplementing the Warp Drive. Perhaps you'll come up with a Better Warp Drive (tm) and add competitive advantage to your software, as opposed to merely marketing Yet Another Warp Drive (tm).

I feel really guilty that we as an industry use copyright laws to extort money from our customers, by getting paid for the same works over and over again.

So do I. But I've realized that this is what Corporate America (tm) demands. Look at how hard it was for Linux to break into Corporate America ("If it's free, it must not be worth anything...etc."). Companies want you to charge them money. The more money they spend, the better they feel - managers brag about how much money they spend.

I know it's kind of unethical, but I can't really shed tears for a system that intentionally destroys American jobs so they can exploit the poor in third world countries. Don't feel guilty about reinventing the wheel for your employer - your company gets what it deserves.

Business software is seldom written to innovate. In most cases, you just get a job done - nothing else. Yes, patents can cost your employer money, but they do it by keeping you, the programmer, employed.

My real point was this: patents can stimulate improvement in software by removing the ability to merely copy another programmer's work. So what if I have to reinvent my own wheel? Do you really think that I won't come up with a better solution the second time around? The patent system encourages programmers to make progress in their discipline, rather than plagiarizing the work of others.

Re:The more things change...

[hypersqurl]

There was an adapted short story based on "Unlocking the Sky" that was in MIT's tech review magazine this month. Here is the part I found most interesting (and related to ProfessorPuke's post above):

"For his part, Glenn Curtiss did receive a number of patents over his lifetime. But he always permitted further use of the principles underlying his inventions - a strategy that enormously benefited the emerging industry. Unlike the Wrights, Curtiss believed that invertions and products had to succeed or fail in the marketplace on their own merit. The goal, he said, ought to be simply to keep building better airplanes than anyone else."

It is too bad inventors these days (and the corporations that employ them) don't take this kind of view.

Comforting

[paulywog]

It's always nice to listen to NPR. Usually they make intelligent arguments that very precisely make your point. That show did just that...

The summary was "not only do you have to be creative and intelligent to make something successful, but you also have to share it."

Re:Comforting

[gotvim]

Yeah if your an upper-middle class white kid going to college, living off of your parents, NPR is great! NPR is not for the real world! NPR sucks!

Re:Comforting

[Wyatt Earp]

Wow. NPR scooped by a made for TV movie from the 70s.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0078496

It's a good movie, covers the subjects well. It was on the History Channel a while back.

Re:Comforting

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and mod this as flamebait too.

Even though NPR has been shown to be spread liberal disinformation:

NPR: Sorry About the Story Linking Christian Group to Anthrax

Odd that /. gives a 3 mod to someone that says NPR is great and dismisses someone that says no it isn't.

You know there can never even be a hint of the alternate perspective that most of the technological innovation, economic development and productivity gains of the past 30 years occurred due to private funding in startups as a result of the startup obtaining a patent on a promising new technology.

You guys are like a seventh graders that say school sucks or teenagers that say there should be no speed limits.

Re:Comforting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah if your an upper-middle class white kid going to college, living off of your parents, NPR is great! NPR is not for the real world! NPR sucks!

With an argument like that, I can't imagine you are capable of appreciating actual intelligent and critical argument, such as would be found on NPR.

Let me guess: Fox News?

Re:Comforting

[gotvim]

Actually, I use many sources for my info and filter out as much bs as I can. Including NPR. I do listen to it and once in a while get something worthy out of it, but it's the same with otheres like BBC, PBSTV, etc. Unfortunately there's no one true source. If it's sponsored, it's influenced by it's advertisers. If it's non-profit, it's influenced by it's contributers. Just because it's non-profit, doesn't mean they're not bias, and will deliver you an open-minded untarnished piece of information. I was raised on the left side of the fence, but I'm slowy finding out that the liberals are just as guilty, they censor everything just like the "righty's". They just do it differently! And from my experiences NPR is the worst culprit on that side.

Re:Comforting

[gotvim]

Ahh, another one for the dark side!

Re:Comforting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, Fox News.

Re:Comforting

[gotvim]

Yep, Anonymous Coward!

Its too late

[tanveer1979]

" So, does is this a sign for how we might eventually get out of the patent mess we're in now? Some catastrophic event brings everyone together and the locking up of ideas with overly broad patents finally ends?"

I don't think so... no catastrophe can cure us at this stage. We are far too gone now. Back in 1914 if you saw somebody lying wounded on road you would take him/her to the hostpital, today you Rob the person.

So most probably if you have a bit catastrophy coming, you can expect a patent on the method to fight it. Period

Re:Its too late

[Squareball]

I think you are mistaken. Look at what happened on 9/11/01. People were helping strangers. A lot of people lost their lives while trying to carry people down 85 flights of stairs because they were handicapped. Don't under estimate us! I saw the lines of people lining up to give blood that day. When called upon, we DO unite.

Re:Its too late

[jmu1]

I don't think it is so much that we would rob the maimed person. I think it is more likely that we would just keep walking, trying hard not to notice the utter pain the other was experiencing.

Re:Its too late

[radja]

people may help. but most patents are in the hands of large companies. Companies almost never help, look at the pharmaceutical industry and Africa's AIDS problem.

Re:Its too late

[glesga_kiss]

There was an experiment once on this I caught on TV. They had 4 different folk lying in agony on the sidewalk. One was a businessman, another a "rough" looking man. There were also an attractive woman and an unattractive woman.

The results are obvious. The businessman and the good-looking woman got help almost straight away. The other woman took a bit longer and the scruffy man didn't get anyone helping at all, despite appearing to be rolling around in agony.

Group psychology played a large part in it. Once one person helped, others quickly followed. This can be observed anywhere; the basis of most human behaviour revolves around imitation. It is the process that allows children to develop and it doesn't stop at adulthood. The blood donations on 9/11 would have been the same; once some folk did it, a trend was started. Not many of them would have had the original thought to donate blood without something else planting the idea in their mind.

Re:Its too late

[chthon]

Funny that they helped the businessman. I thought that ties were to be used to help them out of their agony.

Re:Its too late

[maxconfus]

didn't Africa's PM deny any importing of HIV drug for infants?

Re:Its too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to be an American with a grasp of geography that good... Africa doesn't have a president. South Africa, the country, has a president called Thabo Mbeki, a man who is diverting funding away from AIDS treatment programs towards law enforcement - the simple reason being that very few of the rich South African elite minority get AIDS (it is predominantly a problem among the poorer majority), but there are a lot of South Africans who are going to riot when the realise what Mbeki is actually doing.

Re:Its too late

[Gerry Gleason]

I don't think so... no catastrophe can cure us at this stage. We are far too gone now. Back in 1914 if you saw somebody lying wounded on road you would take him/her to the hostpital, today you Rob the person.

Are you just in a cynical mood this morning, or are you always this way? Things really haven't changed that much, it all depends on who comes along. Maybe there are more people who would just walk by, or worse, but I would suggest that this is because more people are already disenfranchised by the societies that they live in. Actually, the appathetic fraction probably hasn't changed that much.

The really interesting thing is that we are talking about this today. Until the GPL and the explosion of Open/Free source software that eventually followed, it was taken as fact that no one would create original works if they could not have some exclusive property right to it. The critical thing is to prevent someone else from making a profit from your hard work, and not sharing their own work.

What is particularly damaging to the Wright Brothers' reputation is the claim that they did exactly that. Apparently, there had been a lot of sharing of information in the community that was trying to acheive powered flight, but the Wrights just took what they could and gave nothing back. Then they attempted to use the patent system to claim ownership of the entire field. It is shameful, as is the same process as it occurs today.

Re:Its too late

[Rich0]

I'm sure that if you developed a cure for AIDS and released it into the public domain there would be lots of small generic pharmaceutical companies out there who would mass produce it for you. Why don't you do this? Oh wait - you don't have billions in cash to spend? Well, why don't you do some fundraising, and develop your own cure for AIDS - and then you can distribute it any way that you want. Oh wait - you'd rather dictate how some other organization spends its money than come up with some of your own - typical...

Last time I checked the life expectancy of the average person has only increased since the advent of the pharmaceutical industry. It is really easy to tell somebody else what to spend their time and money working on, and how it is to be used. The fact is that pharmaceutical companies have developed products that help lots of people every day. It seems that you feel that those people aren't the right people to be helping, and that there are particular diseases which are more in need of "help". Many pharmaceutical companies spend money developing cures for diseases which are not likely to generate much if any of a profit - you seem to feel that their crime is spending any of their money on products which turn a profit.

Think of the spirit of open-source. Does Linus Travolds go around litigating to have Windows placed in the public domain? No - he strives to invent something better and releases it to the public under the GPL. I applaud his efforts - he is donating his time and effort to the common good. Keep in mind that the nobility of donation tends to disappear when you advocate donating something that doesn't actually belong to you... If you want to spend your own money on curing AIDS nobody is going to complain. My only issue is that you expect a company which exists to make a profit to spend its money on your favorite cause in order to "help".

I do understand some of the frustration that people feel on the issue of comapies that block the use of generics in 3rd world countries. However, in most cases, these companies will supply the drugs themselves at the best price they can manage. Big pharma companies generally don't expect to make any profit in the 3rd world - their main objection to the generics is that they tend to find their way back into markets where they compete with the branded product. My blocking generics at every turn the result is that the small companies cannot get the same economies of scale, and it is not as profitible for them to sell their products in industrialized countries. If you subsidize a generic company to produce a product in Africa, they can turn around and sell the same product in Europe/America for only their marginal cost.

Drug development is expensive business generally driven by a profit motive. If you remove the money side of the equation you eliminate much of the motivation to produce medicines. Money instead will flow to projects like anti-obesity and anti-depression drugs which have no market in the developing world.

I think you'll find that pharma companies are less cold-blooded than you perceive. Many if not most of them do invest in products that would be unwise to pursue if the only motivation were profit.

Re:Its too late

[sphealey]

Last time I checked the life expectancy of the average person has only increased since the advent of the pharmaceutical industry.

No doubt modern medicines have helped quite a bit. But I think you will find that life expectency started rising with the implmentation of flush toilets/sewage treatment systems, chlorinated potable water systems, and regular garbage disposal. Smallpox vaccination probably didn't hurt either but AFAIK there was never a patent on that.

sPh

Re:Its too late

[radja]

>If you subsidize a generic company to produce a product in Africa, they can turn around and sell the same product in Europe/America for only their marginal cost.

they're not subsidized, but the patent on something can be revoked for national disasters. millions of people suffering from a disease counts as disaster, at least I think it does. Any government is perfectly in their right to allow a factory to produce patented goods, effectively putting it in the public domain. Basically, exactly what the US did when it said they were not going to allow patents to slow the development of airplanes in times of war.

btw.. what would you think if the dutch company that holds the patent (actually, I'm not entirely sure if they have the patent..for the sake of the arguement, let's assume they have) on the cure for anthrax decided that they wanted a million bucks per injection, right after the US was hit with a biological attack? the US would force them to deliver at a decent price, or would produce it at a decent price themselves. And good for them. at a point like that, the patent should be declared invalid, at least temporarily.

Re:Its too late

[Geezle2]

"Oh those noble pharmaceutical companies! What true heros of the age!". . .Well, this would sound almost reasonable if most of the research for creating new drugs wasn't done on the public dime. The large pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than on R&D. YOU believe that they spend so much on R&D because of all of the marketing dollars that they have spent getting you to believe this. . .Do a little basic research of your own on this subject and see if you still feel like helping these societal parasites with their PR campaign.

Re:Its too late

[Rich0]

I do not believe that big pharma spends more on R&D than marketing. You are quite correct that the opposite is true.

I do not believe that big pharma companies are heros any more than I believe that just about any company is. They do nice things on occassion, and they look out for #1 most of the time.

Can you give me an example of an industry which does spend more on R&D than marketing? Is marketing wrong? Is it wrong to promote open source software on /.?

As far as most pharma reasearch being done on the public dime - I'd question that. When government labs come up with patentable ideas they typically sell them to the highest bidder. They typically don't fetch much. Why? Because they aren't that valuable. They are only good leads at best - and most of them don't turn out to be anything worthwhile. That's why it is research.

The beauty of competition is that if you want, you can make your own pharma company - and then you can bid for a license to some NIH lead. After all, they don't cost that much - maybe $20 millon or so - dot-coms had enough funding to buy them. Then you can spend $14.95 of your own money to develop it into a cure for cancer. (That is what you are implying the big companies do.)

Your typical non-pharma company spends vastly more on marketing than on R&D. The only reason that pharma companies don't is because it doesn't work for pharma. Trust me - the company boards don't spend that much on R&D because they like giving charity to chemists - if marketing was all there was to it, that would be all that is funded.

As far as suspending patents in times of war go - obviously that happens. However, it shouldn't be a normal thing. I'm sure some german company had a patent on some high explosives during WWI/II - and the allies surely ignored it. But during a war, the main goal is to completely destroy your opponent - or at least drive them to the negotiating table. You don't do that by respecting their patents. Ignoring the patents of a foreign company is an offense to the foreign nation - in the case of Germany that wasn't a big deal since we were already bombing them... In the case of the Wright brothers the matter was purely a domestic dispute - all the companies involved belong to allied governments - and the governments made it worth the companies while to set things aside. Besides, they sold so many planes to the govt they were hardly worrying about roll correction patents...

If Zimbabwe wanted to suspend a patent held by a Zimbabwe pharma company that would be an internal disupte. However, they want to suspend the patents of foreign companies. This is more of an offense to US law than to the pharma company, but the US isn't likely to do anything about it since in US politics at the moment big pharma apparently is the incarnation of all that is evil...

What about AFTER???

[dennison_uy]

"... It wasn't until World War I that people put aside their differences for the common good and the industry worked together in a spirit of free exchange of ideas! So, does is this a sign for how we might eventually get out of the patent mess we're in..."

This assumption is a bit scary. What about AFTER such catastrophies?

Following this line of thinking, then everything should just go back the way it were. After 2 world wars and 9/11 where are we now? There's still RIAA, there's still Microsoft and their DRM.

Some things just never change, it's sad that you need a catastrophe just to realize that.

Re:What about AFTER???

[Anonymous Coward]

A free exchange of ideas is good. Let's help Sadam target the Scud missiles.

Go for it, dude. Here's the protocol!

[Anonymous Coward]

3.0 What's the protocol to see who does what?

I've seen little talking in adult theaters. It does happen but mostly stuff happens by sight and by a standard protocol.

3.1 If you want to be the person who helps the other person cum:

1. Go into a booth; close and lock the door, if possible.
2. Drop some money in the video machine.
3. Sit down if the establishment provides a place to sit.
4. Expose your genitalia (usually by dropping your pants) and get hard.
5. Wait for someone to come into the booth next to you or check the person out in the next booth by looking through the glory hole. Don't be shy about this, almost everybody who is there is looking to be checked out by the person in the next booth.
6. If you like what you see, stick your finger through the glory hole far enough so that the other person sees it. Withdraw it to show him you are ready to receive him. If you want him to use a condom, place it in the hole between you now.
7. If the other person wants you to play with him, he will stand up and place his penis through the hole. If he doesn't, he won't. If he will use the condom you placed in the hole, he will take it now. Sometimes he will just want you to watch him play with himself.

3.2 If you want to be the person who cums:

1. Go into a booth; close and lock the door, if possible.
2. Drop some money in the video machine.
3. Sit if you wish but standing up is the generally accepted indicator that you are not willing to play with anyone else.
4. Expose your genitalia (usually by dropping your pants) and get hard. You will find it more difficult to get someone to play with you if you don't have at least a half-mast hard-on.
5. Wait for someone to stick their finger through the glory hole.
6. Put a rubber on now if you want. Place your penis through the hole. Some guys will just play with you; others will suck you; a few will want you to penetrate them anally.

3.3 If you want to take turns:

If you stop playing with someone before they cum, and stand up with yourself exposed and hard, that is a general signal that you would like to take turns. That is, it's now time for him to withdraw his penis and allow you to place your penis through the glory hole so he can play with you. Your best opportunity to make this happen is to find someone who is sitting down (looking to play with someone) and is willing to play with you (responds when you stick your finger through the glory hole).

This will result in one of two things happening - the other person will either oblige or refuse. The typical refusal is shown by the person sticking his penis back through the glory hole or by leaving and looking for someone else to play with.

On occasion, the person being played with will want to help you cum. He will signal this by withdrawing his penis from the glory hole before he cums and putting his finger through the hole. If you want to be played with, place your penis through the hole. If you aren't ready to be played with, stick your finger back through the hole after he does. Negotiate from there.

There have been many occasions that I have refused to take turns and just wanted to make the guy cum. For example, if I want to go through a few guys that evening before I cum, I won't let the first guy play with me and risk cumming too early. I think some guys take it as a rejection and it is not meant that way.

3.4 If you want to have anal sex:

Follow the same procedure as above, except place your anus as close to the glory hole as possible. When the person on the other side sees this, he will attempt to penetrate you through the glory hole. You should shortly begin to feel him pressing his penis or finger up against your anus (or nearby). Guide his penis or finger to where you want it to be. Please note: usually if the other person is not at least 6+ inches long, this is a pretty difficult position and penetration may be impossible. You may have to settle for his finger.

And, if you do this without a condom, you have a death wish.

3.5 If you want to have sex with someone in an adjoining bathroom stall:

A favorite of truckers - the bathroom stall is the only major anonymous sex stop on or near interstate highways. The protocol is very simple.

If you want to play with someone, go to a stall at the farthest end of the bathroom. Close the door, pull your pants down and wait. When someone comes into the next stall, move your foot so that you know the other person can see it and slowly start tapping it. If the other person wants to be played with, they will kneel down and place their penis under the stall wall.

does this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

that in 100 years the government will have to bail out microsoft whenever the balance sheets don't look too good?

War Patents

[badnews_bear]

I think that if we went into a major war today, we would not see the same thing that happened in World War II. Companies can profit from war if they get military contracts. If a company develops a technology that the government can use, they (the company) would want to keep those ideas as close to them as possible so another company doesn't come along, develop the same thing for a cheaper cost. At any rate, selling to the military is big business now, and unless this hypothetical war went on for a number of years, like World War II, then I don't forsee anyone working together for the common good. Just look at the medical industry for many examples. Drug companies hold onto their research because they want to be the one that develops the cure for cancer, so they can sell it to the world.

Re:War Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies can profit from war if they get military contracts.

Many wars have been fought partially because of the profit available. War is good for the corperations, and the Bush familly has known this for a long time...

Re:War Patents

[ProfBooty]

I think things would be different if the US was attacked/invaded as companies U.S. manufacturing and R&D facilities would be in danger, no matter where they would be located. It companies would have some incentive in working together if their physical assets are in danger, and there is no option to move elsewhere.

Re:War Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

> At any rate, selling to the military is big
> business now

It always was. Capitalism existed then, and the result was small shipyards expanding rapidly when they won gov't contracts. The same could happen today.

Re:War Patents

[Isle]

Drug companies hold onto their research because they want to be the one that develops the cure for cancer, so they can sell it to the world.

No, they hold on to it because the research is funded by private charity funds and the government. And because even though they research for someone else' money, they still get to keep the patent. This is how the medical industry works and have worked for decades.

Put aside?

[Telecommando]

It wasn't until World War I that people put aside their differences for the common good and the industry worked together in a spirit of free exchange of ideas!

It's my understanding that the two parties didn't just "put aside" their differences, the US government paid off each side and told them to quit fighting and get to work building better airplanes and that the government wouldn't allow enforcement of any of their patents. For the good of the country.

Re:Put aside?

[argStyopa]

Not just told them, AFAIK it wasn't really a request that they could refuse.
Also, as long as we're holding up the early 20th Century as an era of enlightened patent resolution, note that this faded immediately after WWI, as the Allies plundered German intellectual property patents as part of the Versailles settlement.

Asprin, for example, was a protected formula of the Bayer company. After WWI this protection was nullified so Allied countries' companies could make it without having to pay a royalty.

So the lesson would be, we need to ask someone to conquer us, dissolve all our current patents and IP systems, so we can rewrite them from scratch.

Oh, and kill all the lawyers while they're here. That wouldn't hurt either.

Re:Put aside?

[mpe]

It's my understanding that the two parties didn't just "put aside" their differences, the US government paid off each side and told them to quit fighting and get to work building better airplanes and that the government wouldn't allow enforcement of any of their patents. For the good of the country.

Presumably at this point the US government realised that patents were intended as a means to an end. Wonder if the current US government would do the same.

Re:Put aside?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US was so desperate for aircraft that it dumped something like a billion dollars (in those days!) on the industry. Every automobile, bicycle, and sewing machine company wanted a cut of that pie, and began turning out second-rate, unreliable copies of aircraft years behind their European allies & enemies. The post-WWI scandal was huge...then lost as the military demobilized and dismantled itself.

What's the lesson here?

Re:Put aside?

[Anonymous Coward]

how bout we kill you instead, you gay, sniveling bitch.

Re:Put aside?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the lesson here?

You suck cock?

Re:Put aside?

[argStyopa]

MODERATION: +1 erudite.

Re:Put aside?

[ratamacue]

the US government paid off each side

In other words (for anyone who is interested), the government put the responsibility on the taxpayers to clean up the mess created by government. More support for the philosophy that government should be responsible only for securing our human rights and protecting us against coercion. Everything else is just a battle of special interests.

libertarian.org

Re:Put aside?

[Tablizer]

Asprin, for example, was a protected formula of the Bayer company. After WWI this protection was nullified so Allied countries' companies could make it without having to pay a royalty.

I thot that the active ingredient comes from (or was originally found in) tree bark.

You can't patent tree bark. (Although manufacturing {cloning} techniques perhaps were.)

Re:Put aside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Telecommando is correct. The Curtiss-Wright owned site is a marketing bull version, not history.

The issue is the us gov didn't fix the problem with patents then, so we're still suffering.

Since it took a war to get limited national involvement last time, I'm a little concerned. Corportate lawyers studied and learned from this case, but the public did not. We're at a disadvantage.

Do we have more recent examples, btw? The Wright/Curtiss issue has been the one i've used to explain things to lay folks, and being almost a century ago it's hard to convince them of relevance. The look at cheap jet transport and "we won the war" and figure "well, it s'all good, right?"

Re:Put aside?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

dissolve all our current patents and IP systems, so we can rewrite them from scratch.

One way to get to IPv6 I suppose... we're under attack- activate the new protocol stacks! That'll stop 'em.

;-)

Re:Put aside?

[DunbarTheInept]

Specifically, Willow tree bark. But what comes in asprin pills is a synthetic imitation of the active ingredient in the tree bark, and that synthetic imitation can be patented. That doesn't stop someone from making natural cures out of Willow tree bark, or studying it to derive a different way of mimicing the active ingredient.

Some Native Americans used to make a pain relieving tea for headaches by boiling the willow bark. It tasted terrible, but it worked. Others just chewed gnawed on the bark directly for a while and then spit it out, like a stick of gum.

It was from studying this phenomenon that scientists at Bayer eventually figured out their formula for asprin.

Re:Put aside?

[Tablizer]

(* But what comes in asprin pills is a synthetic imitation of the active ingredient in the tree bark *)

You cannot patent something that exists in nature already. You can patent a process of cloning (synthesizing) it, but I have seen no indication that this is what happened.

Re:Put aside?

[DunbarTheInept]

You cannot patent something that exists in nature already

True. Now next time try replying to what was actually said instead of inventing a strawman.
They patented their synthetic imitation - which is NOT identical to what is found in nature.

Re:Put aside?

[Tablizer]

(* They patented their synthetic imitation - which is NOT identical to what is found in nature. *)

I am not sure what you mean. It is either the same substance or something different. There is not a lot of in-between WRT chemical formulas. It is either the same chemical or a different chemical.

Re:Put aside?

[JaredNYC]

Got that right...their legal battles lasted for years with the Wright's trying to claim royalties from anyone wanting to exert control over pitch, yaw and roll.
As it happens while the Wrights 12 may have been first (discounting the balloonists for a second), not much of what they did lasted...Curtiss is responsible for win flaps and landing gear and a lot of the other things that go into modern aircraft...and his first flight was a hell of a lot longer than their carefully controlled demonstrations...Albany to NYC.

Re:Put aside?

[JaredNYC]

Should have been "the Wrights 12 second flight"

Should have used preview...

Re:Put aside?

[Lars T.]

Well, maybe because you didn't look on the US Patent and Trademarks Office's homepage? E.g. on the Kids Page

Not all medicines were of the snake oil variety. In 1897 Felix Hoffman of the Bayer company found a better method to synthesize acetylsalicylic acid. In 1899 Bayer began marketing the new product as Aspirin. Bayer lost is rights to the trademark, as aspirin became a generic term.

Re:Put aside?

[DunbarTheInept]

I'm aware that if you have the same atoms, put them together the same way, that you have the same exact thing and it's no different than in the naturally occuring form. But this isn't like that.

It's actually a different molecule. It just happens to be similar to the one found in willow bark - in just the right way that it has the same pain-dampening effect when it comes in concact with our bodies' nervous systems. Most medicines made to mimic what is found in nature are like that. The molecules found in nature are way too complex to be easy to mancufacture an exact replica. It's not simple to derive a formula that will result in some exact molecule with almost a hundred different atoms in it.

For example, the insulin diabetics take is not precisely the same as the insulin a human body manufactures, but it's close enough to function
the same.

In a biological molecule, often the precise make-up of the molecule isn't the relevant part of how it operates - it's the manner in which it flexes, and the points at which it tends to bond to other molecules that matters. As long as those points are the same, it has about the same shape and size, some of the other atoms in the body of the molecule aren't that relevant to its function.

Tech Review article by Shulman

[F452]

Shulman wrote an article about this in a recent Tech Review. You can read part of it at http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/shulman10 902.asp. (It's premium content so you need to be a subscriber to read the whole thing.) Good stuff.

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so so sorry. And now I've apologised, you have to mod me up.

Patenting something already invented

[Tellarin]

all this discussion about who invented the airplane in the USA

and the real inventor was a Brazilian named Santos Dummont whose first flight was in Paris, France.

tsc, tsc, tsc

Re:Patenting something already invented

[ParnBR]

In fact, Santos Dumont is considered the father of modern heavier-than-air flight in many countries other than the USA. This is because the first heavier-than-air flight with witnesses was with his airplane 14-bis. The Wright Bros. allegedly flied before Santos Dumont, but they didn't have witnesses. Also, the 14-bis was self-powered. Santos Dumont made his public demonstration in the Bagatelle Field, in Paris, in 1906, while the Wright Bros. only could publicly show their airplane in 1908. Just for the sake of information.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> the 14-bis was self-powered

Just to make it clear, the 14-bis was able to take off on its own engine's power, while the Wright Flyer needed to be catapulted.

And BTW, Alberto Santos-Dumont, who was an accomplished inventor, also commissioned Cartier to create the first wristwatch, among more than 100 other inventions.

Having independent income as a prosperous farm-owner, he refused to patent anything so that his inventions would benefit humankind.

He had to fight, and won, the Wright Bros. in Europe too over their attempt to patent the airplane.

He committed suicide when, already broken by seeing his biggest invention misused in The Great War (AKA WWI), he had a triumphal reception in the then-capital Rio de Janeiro during which several well-known Brasilians died in an airplane crash in the Guanabara Bay intended to honour him.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[ptomblin]

Wrong on several counts. While the Wright Brother's first flight wasn't "open to the public", they did have several witnesses, as they invited some people from the local coast guard station to watch. Also, Santos Dumont's public flight was mere seconds of barely controlled flailing around at a time when the Wrights were making figure eight flights around pylons.

The proof is in who made a success of building aircraft after the first one. Santos Dumount's plane was crap, and went on the scrap heap of history. Wright Brothers, because they understood the concepts of control and aerodynamics, went on to build a highly successful aircraft company based on ever better aircraft. By 1908, the Wrights were demonstrating flights of an hour or more and carrying passengers.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[richieb]

and the real inventor was a Brazilian named Santos Dummont whose first flight was in Paris, France.

There were many who build machines that looked like birds and who tried to fly them. Santos Dumont was one of them, and his machine actually got of the ground.

However, the Wrights not only got a machine into the air, they figured out how to control it.

None of the others, like Santos Dumont or Gustav White, or Samuel Langley, had any idea how to steer an airplane (the rudder does not cause the turn).

The Wrights figured this out and designed a control system that allowed them to fly circle (literally) around any of their competition, who took years to catch up.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> Wrong on several counts.

Not.

> While the Wright Brother's first flight wasn't "open to the public", they did have several witnesses

But took years to publicise and demonstrate, because they didn't want to benefit humankind as Alberto Santos-Dumont wanted, but just to make a profit.

> Santos Dumont's public flight was mere seconds of barely controlled flailing around at a time when the Wrights were making figure eight flights around pylons.

Still their flights were secretive, and his were open to the public. He didn't ever need a catapult, and at the time taking off was considered the proof of the pudding.

> The proof is in who made a success of building aircraft after the first one. Santos Dumount's plane was crap, and went on the scrap heap of history. Wright Brothers, because they understood the concepts of control and aerodynamics

Alberto Santos-Dumont's models nrs. 19 to 22, the Demoiselles, were nice, graceful light airplanes that reached 96km/h and were used for travelling around up to 18km. He used them to visit friends in the country, as he used his balloons to go around in Paris. It was small enough to be transportable in an automobile. His idea was that it would be used by private individuals.

> went on to build a highly successful aircraft company based on ever better aircraft.

Good they succeeded where they should have started, at services, instead of robbing everyone else the benefit of the airplane for 17 years.

I wonder why only First-World Westerners are allowed any glories. Even former Pres. Clinton admitted to Santos-Dumont's merits. Your aggressiveness and arrogance shows you are a mostly insecure person.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally bogus argument, as it always has been since 1906.

"This is because the first heavier-than-air flight with witnesses was with his airplane 14-bis"

The Wrights had no witnesses? Their first flight was witnessed by John T. Daniels (who took the famous *picture*), Robert Westcott, Thomas Beacham, W. S. Dough, Benny O'Neal and Johnny Moore. The Wrights flew in 1904 and 1905 at Huffman Prairie, just outside of Dayton and along a heavily travelled trolley line. By October of 1905, the Wrights were flying their Flyer III for 24 miles and 38 minutes. Octave Chanute, the famous engineer and mentor to the Wrights, witnessed a flight. Amos Root published an account of a flight he witnessed in his "Gleanings in Bee Culture" magazine in early 1905 about the Wrights and their work. Many Ohioans swore out statements saying they witnessed their flights (see Frank Lahm's work in 1931 about this point).

Along comes Santos-Dumont, quite a nice guy for sure, but with a technologically dead-end vehicle based on a Hargrave boxkite that couldn't do better than 722 feet in 21 seconds. Alberto was simply lucky he didn't die in the thing. It was uncontrollable.

"Santos-Dumontians" like to always tout the flight of the 14-bis as being the first because they like the quality of his witnesses. The fact remains that hundreds of citizens witnessed the Wright flights while Santos-Dumont was flying dirigibles.

I believe these people do a great disservice to both the Wrights and Santos-Dumont's work when they insist he was the father of the aeroplane. The story of the Wrights is every bit a story of the struggle to find the secrets of *controlled* flight. There's nothing in the 1902 glider, which their patent was based, that precluded it being built thousands of years ago. And Santos-Dumont contributed to aviation's growth in 1909 with probably the first GPL'd aeroplane - the Demoiselle.

Why not claim Clement Ader or Sir Hiram Maxim as the inventor of the airplane before Santos-Dumont? They hopped off the ground as well. But the difference is, as is with the 14-bis, their vehicles were uncontrollable.

To say that anyone other than the Wright Brothers are the father(s) of aviation is plane wrong :-)

Re:Patenting something already invented

[ptomblin]

because they didn't want to benefit humankind as Alberto Santos-Dumont wanted, but just to make a profit.

It might frighten you to learn this, but making a profit on your work is not evil.

Besides, what does that have to do with anything. You tried to make it sound like the Wright Brothers didn't fly until after Santos Dumont, and you asserted that there were no witnesses to the 1903 flight. I showed that you were wrong, and you came back with this crap about them not publicizing it. Did you know that the day of the flight, they approached local newspapers and nobody was interested in the story?

He didn't ever need a catapult
And by 1906, neither did the Wrights.

Good they succeeded where they should have started, at services
I don't know where you get this idea from. They built an airplane company that built airplanes. Those are things, not services. They built them to make money, which evidently you consider evil, but they were highly successful at it and the name Wright was on an aircraft company until well after World War II.

Your aggressiveness and arrogance shows you are a mostly insecure person.
The fact that when you can't win an argument on your phoney made up "facts" you resort to personal attacks shows a lot more about your personality than it does about mine.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Anonymous Coward]

Even former Pres. Clinton admitted to Santos-Dumont's merits.

Pres Clinton, aviation historian? Or just trying to kiss someone's ass one day? You be the judge!

lol.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[rodgregori]

the airplanes of the Wright brothers used to bend their wings! Santos-Dummont's flight was documented, public and filmed. And he did fly around the eiffel tower. Santos-Dummont is recognized as the "father of aviation" in Europe. Just check these links: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary /Santos-Dumont/DI41.htm http://educate.si.edu/scitech/impacto/graphic/avia tion/alberto.html http://perso.wanadoo.fr/blimp/SantosDumont.htm

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> making a profit on your work is not evil.

When you have built only small, missing parts on much that has been done by other people much before you.

When there were other people doing the same thing at the same time with equal or superior success, depending on the measure used.

When these people give away their work to humankind, and you want to have the power of prohibiting everyone's else use of the work for egotistical reasons.

Then yes, it is.

Furthermore, define work. Inventions are inventions, they are not labour or a product or a property.

> You tried to make it sound like the Wright Brothers didn't fly until after Santos Dumont

Read again. I didn't. I said that Santos-Dumont's 14-bis didn't need a catapult, unlike their Flyer.

> you asserted that there were no witnesses to the 1903 flight.

I didn't, that was another person. And if this another person was wrong in letter, was right in spirit.

> the day of the flight, they approached local newspapers and nobody was interested in the story?

Santos-Dumont didn't need to approach the newspapers because he worked in the open. Have you ever thought about how patents hinder progress by causing people to work in secret?

> And by 1906, neither did the Wrights.

Yet they toiled in secret, while Santos-Dumont in the open.

> They built an airplane company that built airplanes. Those are things, not services.

OK, got me here. I just took you on your apparent meaning. Sorry for this.

> They built them to make money, which evidently you consider evil

No, I don't. I consider egotism an evil, and money the root of all sort of evil, but not an evil in itself. Now patents and copyrights are evils, specially in the conditions I explained just above.

> you resort to personal attacks

I didn't, you did. I only reacted to your unhappy "Santos Dumount's plane was crap, and went on the scrap heap of history", and by your dishonest hint that he didn't knew aerodinamics by writing en passant "Wright Brothers, because they understood the concepts of control and aerodynamics".

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Anonymous Coward]

And he did fly around the eiffel tower

I know it's hard for you Santos-Dumontians to figure out, but, there's a difference between a dirigible and an aeroplane!

Santos-Dumont flew a Dirigible (a GAS BAG) around the Eiffel Tower in 1901. While he may have flown a Demoiselle around it later, he's noted in aviation history for his 1901 flight in a GAS BAG.

Sheesh!!!

Re:Patenting something already invented

[LighthouseJ]

You get mad props from me. I can't stand it when non-Americans have to take it upon themselves to spout rhetoric and talk to us like we're arrogant.

Especially this line of posts about Alberto Santos-Dumont. It's like all these people are in his fan club with Alberto Santos-Dumont decoder rings when they drank enough Ovaltine. All these people like to regurgitate arguments by people stealing inventions.

Americans make all the cool and useful inventions, like

• Cars (Henry Ford)
  
• Airplanes (Wright Brothers)
  
• The Telephone (Alexander Graham Bell)
  
• The Internet (US Military created ARPAnet)
  
• Air Conditioning (Willis Haviland Carrier)
  

and on and so forth.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Anonymous Coward]

while the Wright Flyer needed to be catapulted

The Wrights did not introduce the use of a catapult until September of 1904 and ONLY because they desired to stop having to reorient their takeoff monorail into the wind when it changed on them. The Wrights flew before that date exclusively on engine-powered takeoffs alone. Your statement shows how little you know of their work.

Infact, in 1909, during the Fort Myer Army Trials of their Signal Corps machine, one of the contract requirements was to takeoff without use of the catapult. They did it.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> There were many who build machines that looked like birds and who tried to fly them. Santos Dumont was one of them, and his machine actually got of the ground.

There were many who built machines that looked like birds and who tried to fly them. The Wright brothers were two of them, and their machine had to be catapulted off the ground.

> None of the others, like Santos Dumont or Gustav White, or Samuel Langley, had any idea how to steer an airplane

Wrong. He did know, and thus build his models 15 to 22 after the 14-bis until he got grounded by sickness.

This is a totally unfounded affirmation, he did steer airships and went around Paris in them much before creating the 14-bis.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

Sorry for the auto-reply, it is to correct a piece of misinformation.

> Having independent income as a prosperous farm-owner

He actually sold his family's farm after he father got crippled in an accident, then proceeding to Paris to study and work.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> The Wrights did not introduce the use of a catapult until September of 1904 and ONLY because they desired to stop having to reorient their takeoff monorail into the wind when it changed on them. The Wrights flew before that date exclusively on engine-powered takeoffs alone.

Interesting. References?

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> I can't stand it when non-Americans

Guess what? Brasilians are Americans too. What you call Americans are citizens of the United States of North America. You can't even call yourselves Noth-Americans properly, since this would include Canada and Mexico too.

> talk to us like we're arrogant.

Guess what? Many of the ignorant among you are.

> Americans make all the cool and useful inventions, like [...] Cars (Henry Ford)

All of them? Wow... now, move on. Automobiles were invented by Germans, including one named Benz. Not to mention the Britsh jet engine and radar, the wristwatch by the sames Alberto Santos-Dumont, and the world goes ever on...

Re:Patenting something already invented

[DEBEDb]

Furthermore, define work. Inventions are inventions, they are not labour or a product or a property

Invention are not labour, but they are a result
of hard labour, and provide ways to produce
new/better products. So why is it that
labour and products are somehow different?

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> Invention are not labour, but they are a result of hard labour, and provide ways to produce new/better products. So why is it that labour and products are somehow different?

Labour is one thing, products are a similar thing. But inventions are different, because there is no lack of an idea if it is publicized and widely used. If you employ your labour somehow, it can't be employed otherwise; if one sells you a product, he can't sell it to someone else, and if someone manufactures something with some materials and labour he looses the ability of producing something else with the same pieces of material and of time.

In other words, there is not such a thing as intellectual property. Patents and copyrights are artificial, should expire and benefit the public. They seldom do, and many fortunes that today rely on them to enlarge themselves own their existence to not having had to comply with them originally. A pity I lost the reference to the book that documents this.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Tellarin]

just correcting you,

the wright brothers patented their method of lateral control in 1906

santos dummont made his first machine propeled flight in 1906

and in his second try yet in 1906, he could control
the plane in a very similar but not identical way to the wright brothers

and to all reading this thread, according to this Smithsonian Institute page (http://educate.si.edu/scitech/impacto/graphic/avi ation/alberto.html)
about santos dumont first flight in 1906

"thanks to this flight the "Archdecon Prize" was awarded to Santos Dumont, who had thus, solved the problem of making a heavier-than-air machine take off by its own means."

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Tellarin]

in 1908 the wright brothers where indeed far ahead of santos dumont whom at this time was suffering from multiple sclerosis

but take a look at this Smithsonian Institute page (http://educate.si.edu/scitech/impacto/graphic/avi ation/alberto.html)
about santos dumont first flight in 1906

"thanks to this flight the "Archdecon Prize" was awarded to Santos Dumont, who had thus, solved the problem of making a heavier-than-air machine take off by its own means."

so, why would they write this if he wasn't the first to fly?

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans make all the cool and useful inventions

I don't think anyone can deny there's several useful and/or interesting and/or cool (and so on) inventions by United Statians. However, I think that your sentence was a bit of a hyperbole. Not to flame or anything, just nitpicking.

The Telephone (Alexander Graham Bell)

I thought Bell was Scottish or something, just leaving in the US. But I really have no clue. Can anyone confirm that?

And I am not sure you can call the Internet in itself an invention (I said not sure, I didn't say you can't). Not that it is not cool and devised/designed by United Statians. But saying it is an invention is kind of like saying an MP3 player is an invention. Sure, no one has put one together before, but you're just putting together pre-existing technology in a not very revolutionary way. And I have read before (and this time I have even less of a clue) that packet-switching was invented by a United Kingdomer.

Just my 2 cents, really, no offense intended. As I said, I am not sure about some things I mentioned.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? Brasilians are Americans too. What you call Americans are citizens of the United States of North America

Guess what, it isn't called "the United States of North America". It is called "the United States of America".

Now, tell me, where is there a continent called "America"? I know of one called South America, and one called North America. So, you are from Brazil-- you are South American.

People from the United States of America are the only ones that could possibly lay claim to "American" by itself. Like those in the People's Republic of China are Chinese, and those from the Islamic Republic of Iran are Iranian, and those from the United Republic of Tanzania are Tanzanians.

You want to give us pedantic bullshit about what to call our own country in our own language? As I said, you South Americans can't lay claim to "American" any more than we can.

Suck it up, Brazil.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon,

The best invemtion ever, SNOW SKIS, do not come from the US!!!

Re:Patenting something already invented

[sphealey]

"thanks to this flight the "Archdecon Prize" was awarded to Santos Dumont, who had thus, solved the problem of making a heavier-than-air machine take off by its own means."

so, why would they write this if he wasn't the first to fly?

This would be the same Smithsonian Institute that paid Glenn Curtiss to attempt to backdate the evidence that Langley's Aerodrome flew before 1903? (Curtiss managed to make it fly by changing out the engine for one powerful enough to get a banquet table into the air, almost losing his life in the attempt).

No, I would have to say the Smithsonian is not the most reliable source of information when it comes to claims of "first flight"!

sPh

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Tellarin]

i may agree with you about SI

but Santos Dumont indeed won the "Archdecon Prize" for his flight and it was not given by the SI, but by an American in 1906

for me an airplane is a machine that has to take off by it's own means and fly, and before Santos Dumont's 14 bis flight in Paris in 1906 no plane by the wright brothers that i have heard anywhere has done so

although they managed to do so sometime between this and 1908

Re:Patenting something already invented

[richieb]

This is a totally unfounded affirmation, he did steer airships and went around Paris in them much before creating the 14-bis.

But that's the point. Airships are steered completely differently from airplanes. This is common misunderstanding. Airships turn like boats with a rudder.

An airplane cannot be turned with a rudder. If you try it, the airplane will just skid sideways through the air. Airplanes turn because they bank. To bank you use ailerons, and the rudder is needed to balance the turn (look up adverse yaw).

The Wrights discovered this with their glider experiments, and devised a mechanism to allow an airplane to execute a balanced turn. No one else had any idea.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[DEBEDb]

Agreed that they should expire. But a labour
you spent while working for an employer
or a customer is compensated. A labour you spend on an invention is not immediately compensated,
hence patents are a way to reward the
inventor.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[sphealey]

for me an airplane is a machine that has to take off by it's own means and fly, and before Santos Dumont's 14 bis flight in Paris in 1906 no plane by the wright brothers that i have heard anywhere has done so

So the F-14 and F-18 are not airplanes?

Just kidding a bit, but the idea of using a catapult vs. a wheeled takeoff is to me no big thing. Coordinated aileron-rudder control is what made everyone's jaw drop at the 1908 Paris Airshow.

sPh

Re:Patenting something already invented

[Tellarin]

santos dumont used ailerons in his planes in 1906

and the wright brother got a patent for it at the same year, i think some months before dumont's flight

Re:Patenting something already invented

[NTDaley]

> To say that anyone other than the Wright Brothers are the father(s) of aviation is plane wrong :-)

Unless you say that Richard Pearse was.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> No one else had any idea.

Do you know why ailerons are named that? Hint: it is a French word, used by Alberto Santos-Dumont. He was building and selling practical airplanes complete with steering, the Demoiselles, before anyone else.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[richieb]

Many words in aviation come from french (eg. fuselage etc). So what. The Wright's plane used wing-warping mechanism (so they weren't ailerons).

The point is that the Wrights understood how airplanes turn and they could build a machine that could do it.

Don't forget that the Wrights were flying fully controllable gliders several years before their power flights. During their glider flights they discovered the adverse aileron yaw (before ailerons were named) and figure out how to control it with the rudder.

Please read up on you history. For example take look at this:

Wright's Chronology

Santos Dumont's first heavier than air flight was in October 1906. By then Wright's patent was already granted and they were trying to sell their working airplane to the US Goverment.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> Many words in aviation come from french (eg. fuselage etc). So what.

It means it was in Europe that aviation popularised.

> The Wright's plane used wing-warping mechanism (so they weren't ailerons).

Yes, just as Santos-Dumont nos. 19 to 22, the Demoiselles.

> The point is that the Wrights understood how airplanes turn and they could build a machine that could do it.

Just as Santos-Dumont did. But when he did, he did not kept it to himself.

> Santos Dumont's first heavier than air flight was in October 1906. By then Wright's patent was already granted and they were trying to sell their working airplane to the US Goverment.

And kept the whole aviation field in the USA in a check, having the power to forbid people from using their patents. Which should never been granted in the first place, because all they did was build upon other peoples work in parallel with people from other countries. The whole situation parallels the incredible injustice of the patent granted on the telephone by a few moments difference in the filing time.

That while Santos-Dumont produced the Demoiselle and gave away both the concept and the projects for everyone to use, thus precluding Wright brothers attempts at hindering the progress of aviation in Europe too.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[richieb]

Just as Santos-Dumont did. But when he did, he did not kept it to himself.

Santos-Dumont's first flying machine, the one that flew in 1906 could barely manage a hop. The Demoiselle did not fly until 1909!

Wilbur Wright went to Paris in 1908 to demonstrate the Wright Flyer. It caused a sensation. I believe that Santos Dumont was in Paris during that time.

I happen to think that patenting their invention was the right thing to do. It was quite an achievement. This was not a "one-click" patent. The Wrights risked they lives to perfect their invention.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> I happen to think that patenting their invention was the right thing to do. It was quite an achievement. This was not a "one-click" patent. The Wrights risked they lives to perfect their invention.

The point is that it was not "theirs". It was made of incremental improvements over other people's works preceding and in parallel.

Take the aileron, for one. Patented in the US by Bell in 1.911, invented in 1.909, ignored by the Wrights even if essential for the big airplanes they planned... and already present in the 1.906 Santos-Dumont 14-bis, who favored wing warping in the Demoiselle because this was such a small airplane. With the aileron, if Santos-Dumont had patented it, any Wright patents would have to be exchanged for the aileron patent in order to allow for practical big airplanes and thus generalised, since Santos-Dumont made a point of making his work available for everyone.

But all this was unnecessary, because the European courts saw thru the folly and did not accept the Wright patents.

Had their patent succeeded in Europe and stood in the US, it would have delayed the whole field. So much for patents fostering Science and the Useful Arts...

Re:Patenting something already invented

[richieb]

The point is that it was not "theirs". It was made of incremental improvements over other people's works preceding and in parallel.

Of course the Wrights build on the work of others. As every scientist and inventor does. They used data from Lilienthal and Langley and others. They discovered that the data was wrong (this was computation on how much lift a wing section produces).

So they conducted their own experiments and Orville Wright built the first wind tunnel to measure the lift of different wing sections.

But their major invention was to figure out how to control an airplane in flight (i.e. turn). Lilienthal did it by weight shifting, others tried using just a rudder.

Even Santos Dumont's 14 bis was not really steerable. As it says here.

Octave Chanute reported back to the Wrights that, while Santos-Dumont had indeed flown, he had no means of controlling the aircraft except by shifting his weight, and even that was difficult because the pilot stood in a narrow wicker basket. Santos' next airplane, the No. 15, equipped with a makeshift wing-warping mechanism, broke up while taxi-ing for a take-off in March 1907.

The Wrights had flown a fully controlled glider in 1902! Nobody else had a clue how to do that until the Wrights have shown them.

The Wright's patent was on the method and mechanism of controling an airplane in flight, not on the aileron. Aileron is just another implementation of the Wright's system.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> Octave Chanute reported back to the Wrights that, while Santos-Dumont had indeed flown, he had no means of controlling the aircraft except by shifting his weight.

And his report was misinformed. The 14-bis had already ailerons. The difficulty of steering resided mostly in the fact that the pilot was standing, thus incapable of using his feet. The body contortioning was not weight shifting, but activating the control surfaces by strings attached to the pilots' clothes. Awkward, but given it was independent development, and since the Wright brothers were working in secrecy and eager to control airplanes everywhere, European courts were sensible enough to deny their claims.

> The Wrights had flown a fully controlled glider in 1902! Nobody else had a clue how to do that until the Wrights have shown them.

False. They did they work in secrecy, so necessarily all the European designs, and much of the US ones, were parallel developments.

> The Wright's patent was on the method and mechanism of controling an airplane in flight, not on the aileron. Aileron is just another implementation of the Wright's system.

So much worse. That means that, had they succeeded in their patents, they would have been able to forestall aviation during 17 years both in US and Europe.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[richieb]

> The Wrights had flown a fully controlled glider in 1902! Nobody else had a clue how to do that until the

False. They did they work in secrecy, so necessarily all the European designs, and much of the US ones, were parallel developments.

Well, I guess we'll have to disagree. To me there seems that there is plenty of evidence that the Wrights were quite ahead of any competition. When Santos Dumont was making hops in his 14 bis, the Wrights were flying in circles in Dayton, with plenty of witnesses.

In 1904 there was not a single heavier than air, powered aircraft in Europe that could have flown at all. Meanwhile the Wrights were flying in circles and made duration flights of over 30 minutes that year at Huffman Praire near Dayton.

Here are some photographs from 1905.

When did 14 bis fly? 1906 or was it 1907?

So much worse. That means that, had they succeeded in their patents, they would have been able to forestall aviation during 17 years both in US and Europe.

Patents can be licensed. The Wrights expected to make money from their invention. Is that so bad?

You seem to oppose the idea of patents altogether. Is there an invention that you think should have been patented? Do you think the patent on public key encryption, let's say, was OK, or not? Especially since public key cryptography was already invented by a British cryptographer, in the 60s - it was just kept secret by the british goverment.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> there seems that there is plenty of evidence that the Wrights were quite ahead of any competition.

I am not disputing that. I am saying that Santos-Dumont had a much better attitude by sharing what he did, and that served better the world than the Wright brothers secret, proprietary attitude.

> When did 14 bis fly? 1906 or was it 1907?

October 1.906. But the Wright brothers only cared to show their airplanes in Europe in 1.908. By that time Santos-Dumont was already developing the Demoiselle, the first ultralight airplane.

> Patents can be licensed. The Wrights expected to make money from their invention. Is that so bad?

Yes, because patents can, don't need to be licensed. It they were RAND, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory, it would be much better. But the way it is, they actually managed to forbid other people from flying. That is umititaged evil, and contradicts the spirit of patent law.

> You seem to oppose the idea of patents altogether.

No, but I think the current implementation of the concept is counterproductive. Even at the Wright brothers' time, it encouraged them to do things in secrecy, while Santos-Dumont worked in the open. There should be a provision that provided for patents to be granted only to work done publicly. The way it is, the patenting process is a powerful incentive to delay publication for years.

Also, patents should be always RAND. They should reward the inventor, not the manufacturer or distributor.

> Do you think the patent on public key encryption, let's say, was OK, or not?

Software, processes and methods aren't in the original definition of patents, and have proved to be unmitigated evil. They should be stopped now, and all already granted revoked.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[richieb]

I am not disputing that. I am saying that Santos-Dumont had a much better attitude by sharing what he did, and that served better the world than the Wright brothers secret, proprietary attitude.

OK. I see what you are saying. The problem is that Santos Dumont did not make any fundamental breakthroughs. In fact, according to this page the Demoiselles, which first flew in 1907, did not have ailerons, or wing warping. Just rudder and elevator.

Also, patents should be always RAND. They should reward the inventor, not the manufacturer or distributor.

That sounds reasonable. The problem is that without exclusive manufacture and distribution how can one profit from an invention? Maybe there should be a mandatory fee for the inventor from anyone using the invention? Except that "using" cannot be as clearly defined as we'd like. Wrights thought Curtiss was using their invention, and Curtiss thought he didn't.

Software, processes and methods aren't in the original definition of patents, and have proved to be unmitigated evil.

I tend to agree with you on software patents.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> The problem is that Santos Dumont did not make any fundamental breakthroughs.

That is not true. 14-bis had ailerons before anyone else. He was also the first to use internal combustion engines, while still working in ballons, and to steer dirigibles around. The Demoiselle was also the first ultralight airplane. And BTW, among other inventions he created the wristwatch, commissioning his friend Cartier to manufacture the first wristwatch ever, to be used while flying.

> according to this page [lycos.co.uk] the Demoiselles, which first flew in 1907, did not have ailerons, or wing warping. Just rudder and elevator.

If this was true, how could he reach 100km/h speed and 20km range as he did? But it was false. The Demoiselle used wing warping, simply because the ailerons used at the 14-bis weren't simple and small enough for such a light airplane.

> The problem is that without exclusive manufacture and distribution how can one profit from an invention?

In a word, royalties. Obviously there should be an upper limit, and the option of contesting them in courts if they are deemed prohibitive for a given use.

> Except that "using" cannot be as clearly defined as we'd like. Wrights thought Curtiss was using their invention, and Curtiss thought he didn't.

That would be an argument against patents, because they have the potential of throwing a whole field in disarray, like they are doing now for computing.

Re:Patenting something already invented

[richieb]

That is not true. 14-bis had ailerons before anyone else. He was also the first to use internal combustion engines, while still working in ballons, and to steer dirigibles around. The Demoiselle was also the first ultralight airplane. And BTW, among other inventions he created the wristwatch, commissioning his friend Cartier to manufacture the first wristwatch ever, to be used while flying.

You are right. Santos Dumont was quite an inventor. His contribution to early aviation was clearly extensive.

I think the part that people miss about the Wright brothers is that they made the fundamental scientific discovery of how to make airplanes turn. They discovered "adverse aileron yaw" and figured out how to handle it.

They also made the first systematic study of wing sections (inventing the wind tunnel in the process).

I don't believe those discoveries were patented. It was the wing warping/rudder connection mechanism that was.

That would be an argument against patents, because they have the potential of throwing a whole field in disarray, like they are doing now for computing

Right. Especially, if getting a patent costs more than an average inventor can affford.

I attended a talk by a lawyer at NY LUG, and he said that there are not enough technical people becoming patent lawyers, so some of these ridiculous patents are accepted.

I don't have an answer. I'm too old to go to law school. :-)

Re:Patenting something already invented

[leandrod]

> I think the part that people miss about the Wright brothers is that they made the fundamental scientific discovery of how to make airplanes turn.

True enough. Too bad their discovery got muddled in the patents war and the consequent "who got there first" dispute.

> Especially, if getting a patent costs more than an average inventor can affford.

I think the cost must be high anyway, at least for refused patents. One of the problems is too much applications; people should be charged for spurious entries lacking enough prior art research and clarity.

The problem isn't too few patents in the small guy's hands, but too much everywhere. If you do any work with enough visibility, you are liable to get sued for infringement, and the court costs of fighting are so high you end up paying or desisting even because of totally worthless patents.

This keeps the barrier to entry too high, so that nowadays there are big corporations, lots of small box-shifting VARs and retailers, and nothing in between.

In contrast, Digital got started hardly bothered by patents, Sun got by but had to pay IBM US$20M when they were yet quite small in the middle 1.980s, but now, even if the field is technologically very immature, it is hardly possible that there will be another *innovative* Sun, Digital or even Oracle that won't get severily penalised by patents.

not likely

[__aahlyu4518]

"a sign for how we might eventually get out of the patent mess we're in now"
Not likely... That was a time when corporations weren't as powerful as countries.

Re:not likely

[sql*kitten]

Not likely... That was a time when corporations weren't as powerful as countries.

That's not insightful, it's just dense. How do corporations enforce patents? Answer: they don't, the government does it for them by providing a legal framework and sanctions for noncompliance. If a government simply decides not to honor a patent (see examples of various third world companies deciding to produce generic pharmaceuticals) there's really nothing the corporation can do.

In fact there is one thing it can do: it can refuse to develop new products. That's actually far worse for everyone than what we have now. For example, the choice might be:

• Expensive AIDS drugs
  
• No AIDS drugs at all, because the corporates couldn't patent, couldn't recoup their investment in R&D and decided it would be easier to make lifestyle drugs like Prozac and Viagra.
  

Patents, on the whole, are good; the only problem is the patent system is administered incompetently and patents are granted that shouldn't be.

No

[GMontag]

So, does is this a sign for how we might eventually get out of the patent mess we're in now?

No.

Another industry has cropped up since then with a common enemy. The legal industry views anybody with an idea or a bank account (us) as the enemy and have been on a relentless, full frontal assault ever since they got all States to require JD degrees before testing and licensing. The first wave was packing the legeslative branches full of those that had read the law and it has been a down-hill slide ever since.

Re:No

[geekoid]

Maybe we need to go to war against IP lawyers?

Re:No

[GMontag]

Maybe we need to go to war against IP lawyers?

Too late, they are already at war with us!

One good turn...

[kc0dxh]

Does this mean that if the US attacks Iraq we get our music back?

So...

[jamis]

"It wasn't until World War I that people put aside their differences for the common good and the industry worked together in a spirit of free exchange of ideas! "

that means if the US invades Iraq, it'll put an end to all patent disputes! Really! I'm suprised Bush hasn't tried that one yet.. :-)

Your hopes are sadly mistaken.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays, most patents are held by corporations. And as we know, corporations do not always share, even in the event of catastrophe.

Patents or intellectual property?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not patents but intellectual property that is the problem. Patents expire after a given amount of time so if you come up with a neat gizmo someone else can make your gizmo or an improved version after fifteen years and pay no royalties. With intellectual property though the rights last forever so if you go and write a story where Mickey Mouse goes to visit Bugs Bunny you'll get sued (twice). Intellectual property; stories, ideas, songs, DNA, etc, needs to expire and become public domain after a certain period of time just like patents. This will do two things; keep the companies hungry and looking for new ideas and let the little guy get into the game without facing years of litigation over alleged infringement.

Re:Patents or intellectual property?

[leandrod]

> It's not patents but intellectual property that is the problem.

There is no "intellectual property". This is just a misnomer to an aggregation of totally unrelated fields of trademarks, copyrights and patents. No intellectual construct is subject to property rights: trademarks are the right to ones' own name, and patents and copyrights are temporary monopolies granted by governments to incentive specific actions.

> With intellectual property though the rights last forever

All three of patents, copyrights and trademarks should expire, patents and copyrights after sometime and trademarks if they get unused. The US Congress has just to stop extending copyrights, which extensions are inconstitutional anyway because they fail to foster "the useful arts".

Re:Patents or intellectual property?

[mavenguy]

Nit picking correction:

Extending copyrights are unconstitutional because they fail to foster "science".

Art I, Section 8, US constitution has a parallel structure to associate "science and useful arts" with "authors and inventors" with "writings and discoveries"

And, yes, Congress is sure screwing with the meaning of "limited times"

What story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't the words "a story" in the article link to the actual story? Instead, there are direct links to everything BUT the story..

Why is that?

Hello?

[inerte]

Santos Dumont invented the airplane.

And the wrist watch too! =)

The poster twisted the end of the story a bit

[codingOgre]

It wasn't until World War I that people put aside their differences for the common good and the industry worked together in a spirit of free exchange of ideas!

I also listened to that NPR broadcast and there is a clarification I would like to make. The parties involved didn't just set aside their differences for WW1. The U.S. government had to step in and effectively end the lawsuit by paying *both* parties. This action then cleared to way for all parties in the airplane industry to work together.

Re:The poster twisted the end of the story a bit

[tangent3]

In latest news, the U.S. government stepped in and effectively end the war between the RIAA and Napster by paying both parties. This action has cleared the way for the music industry and file-sharing pirates to work together.

Re:The poster twisted the end of the story a bit

[killmenow]

I also listened and was going to point that out; but, I would like to add that the NPR show also said it wasn't the U.S. Government pay off to both sides that cleared the way for "all parties...to work together."

Rather, they disallowed them from claiming ownership of their individual advances in the ensuing years.

So basically, the U.S. Government *forced* them to share.

Re:The poster twisted the end of the story a bit

[codingOgre]

Moderators, please mod the parent up! The poster is correct and I forgot to add this crucial bit of info to my post.

Re:The poster twisted the end of the story a bit

[Anonymous Coward]

I did a paper on that a while ago:

Two companies, the Wright Brothers and Curtis Brothers were holding the key patents that effectively blocked the manufacture of an aircraft. The situation is best described in the report issued by National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) on January 13, 1917:

"various companies were threatening all other airplane and seaplane manufacturing companies with suits for infringements of patents. [...] To protect themselves in case they were forced to pay large license fees, the companies had greatly increased the prices of their products. [...] Some companies would not expend any money on their plants for fear that suits brought against them would force them out of business." (Multinational Monitor, 14)

Obviously, in such situation the war machine of United States suffered from a high prices of the aircrafts and inability of the companies to fulfill the orders. From the initiative spearheaded by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then undersecretary in the Navy, on March 22, 1917 NACA, the War and the Navy Departments and the aeronautical industry met jointly to discuss "various means by which the basic airplane patents could be acquired by the Government for the development of the industry," while providing "just recognition [...] to the owners of the more important or basic patents in the form of reasonable royalties to be paid by the purchasers whether for military or civil use." With the competitive industry in mind, Government created the Aircraft Manufacturers Association among all aircraft manufacturers and suggested the cross-license of the patents between its members. (Multinational Monitor, 15) The effects were visible almost immediately. Before creation of the patent poll the Wright Brothers asked $1,000 (about five percent of the cost of a plane) per aircraft as a royalty for a single patent. After creation of the pool the federal government forced patent owners to accept the $200 flat fee for each airplane manufactured, and later lowered this to $100 per plane. By limiting the exclusive rights of the patent owners, United States created one of the best aircraft industries in the world able to compete with the superb engineering skills of Third's Reich aircraft industry.

Love, James. "Commentary: Patent Pools and the AIDS Crisis." Multinational Monitor Jun. 2002: 14-15

Re:The poster twisted the end of the story a bit

[WNight]

Couldn't we have beaten Germany by just upping the royalty fees for aircraft until the Krauts couldn't afford to build them? :)

nice idea, but...

[tongue]

nice idea, but I don't think that one-click-shopping is going to win any wars. What are we gonna do, bombard them with books?

Re:nice idea, but...

[SkankhodBeeblebrox]

Indeed... I think trying to compare the importance of flight to a war-effort to ANY Intellectual Property patent is going to result in strange looks and white canvas shirts with reeaally long arms that tie in the back.

Flight revolutionized the world at the time, none of this IP patent nonsense is really earth-shattering

Re:nice idea, but...

[Gigs]

Actually the free flow of ideas is exactly what is needed. Theses Islamic countries are set up so that their base of power comes from an uneducated populace. A modern society cannot function under total socialist polices, which don't kid yourself Islamic rule is a form of socialism. Central management can not be robust enough to make sure that everyone can have two cars, a DVD player and a computer at their house. And as such if we simply start introducing these people to these simple things we take for granted. Social change will occur all on its own. As an example women will be given rights and the ability to work because they will be needed to produce the goods that the new and enlightened society demand.

Re:nice idea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Theses Islamic countries are set up so that their base of power comes from an uneducated populace."

And this is different from western, capitalist "democracies" how exactly?

"A modern society cannot function under total socialist polices, which don't kid yourself Islamic rule is a form of socialism."

You have no real idea what socialism is do you? you think that socialism was the "communism" practiced by the totailitarian government of the USSR, don't you? My friend, you could not be any more wrong. Socialism is, by definition, the participation of the common man in the decisions that effect the common man, it is the control of the workforce BY the workforce, not by a central administration. Real socialim is the idea that the whole population is involved in the process of ruling themselves, not a single group of representatives who are voted in every X years. Read Marx before you start spouting crap about socialism. The "Communist" government of the USSR was really nothing more than a company working as a government (compare how most companies work with the structure of the USSR and you will find some pretty amazing parallels, with the obvious exception that most companies don't use tanks to control their workers. They use pink slips instead - getting fired form the company rather than life as you might view it)

The "Islamic countries" you refer to are corporate-structure (ie: command hierarchy) oligarchies controlled by a dictator.

Re:nice idea, but...

[Gigs]

"And this is different from western, capitalist "democracies" how exactly?"

Hmmm... I wonder why it is that the uneducated populace that exists in this country, that I believe you are referring to, seem to all vote for the liberal socialist democrats?

"Socialism is, by definition, the participation of the common man in the decisions that effect the common man, it is the control of the workforce BY the workforce, not by a central administration...Read Marx before you start spouting crap about socialism"

I suggest you read it and attempt to understand its ramifications before you attack those who do not agree with you. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Right? The end all be all basis of Marxism. So who decides what your ability is? Who decides what your needs are? That's right, a central ruling body! Because the end belief of Marxism is that we are all sheep and we need to be managed by the elite who believe they are smarter and better than the rest of society at determining what society need and what is good for it.

You wish to make a huge jump in your logic; you wish to place on me your belief that our country is screwed up. While I do agree that our country is screwed up, I do not believe that we share a common belief as to why. This country has for the past 80 years or so been moving away from a government of and for the people to a central socialist structure. (Yes you could say that it started before that with the civil war, but the current trend began with the New Deal.) And with this move we have see the restrictions of rights the increase of crime and the whittling away of our moral fiber. You see the issue at hand is that socialism feels good, because we can convince ourselves that we are helping out those who cannot help themselves. When in reality we are simply setting of a sociological feedback loop to encourage laziness. Where as true capitalism is a harsh reality in that if you sit back and don't do anything with your life you will be cast to the wayside of society and left because you bring nothing good and suck out what does not belong to you. The simple fact is that if you are willing to work your ass off and push yourself to be all that you can, capitalism will reward you for that. Where as if you want to sit back and rest on what others have done to make your life happy socialism is what you see as the way to go.

Of course I could ask you whether you like to keep the money you work for and live your life as you see fit, but you would most likely answer me that I am a cruel and harsh person who would let people die of hunger. But then I wouldn't expect you to understand that any person who is willing to lie down and die with out a fight to make some thing of themselves does not deserve my pity.

Re:nice idea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"
I suggest you read it and attempt to understand its ramifications before you attack those who do not agree with you. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Right? The end all be all basis of Marxism. So who decides what your ability is? Who decides what your needs are? That's right, a central ruling body! Because the end belief of Marxism is that we are all sheep and we need to be managed by the elite who believe they are smarter and better than the rest of society at determining what society need and what is good for it."

Actually, Marx went out of his way to point out that there should be no central ruling body. Decisions should be made by the people - the soviets that were set up in the early days of the Russian revolution were the embodyment of this. When Stalin usurped the power of the soviets, converting the USSR into a truly heirarcical system, the system was no longer socialist. The whole basis of socialism is that people are not sheep - they should be educated and involved in the decision making process. Every country that has attempted socialism, or a close variant of it, has undergone a massive upsurge in literacy and the involvement of the populace in education programs, only to be ended by internal corruption of the structure (the USSR being a prime example) or outside military and economic warfare (Nicaragua)

"Of course I could ask you whether you like to keep the money you work for and live your life as you see fit,"

There is nothing in true socialism that prevents you doing what you want, or owning whatever you want. The "in socialist states, everything is owned by the state" is another lie people swallow without thinking.

" but you would most likely answer me that I am a cruel and harsh person who would let people die of hunger."

Actually I'd say that you are a perfect and laudable example of the incredibly good brainwashing of western populations that has been going on for the best part of the last century. You get your terms mixed up, your priorities all wrong and trot out the same misconceptions and lies that the media has been drumming into the population for decades. Congratulations on being a paid-up member of the sheep, now go back to your pointless job peon.

Re:nice idea, but...

[Gigs]

"Every country that has attempted socialism, or a close variant of it, has undergone a massive upsurge in literacy and the involvement of the populace in education programs, only to be ended by internal corruption of the structure (the USSR being a prime example) or outside military and economic warfare (Nicaragua)"

You make my argument for me. Socialism is inherently flawed. It in and of it self leads to the corruption and perversion of its intended goal. True capitalism keeps this from happening by use of the simple facts of human nature. A person naturally wants to make his life better and so strives to do so in the best way he can. Others doing the same and competing with and against him or her lead to the balance and furthering of the society at large.

"There is nothing in true socialism that prevents you doing what you want, or owning whatever you want. The "in socialist states, everything is owned by the state" is another lie people swallow without thinking."

Socialism:

noun: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry

noun: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

I guess the dictionary fell into the same lie!?!

"You get your terms mixed up,..."

Check above seems my terms are correct.

"...your priorities all wrong..."

I'm sorry??? My priorities are wrong? How so? I get up in the morning and go to work and do my job to get paid so that I can enjoy the fruits of my labor as I see fit. Not as everyone else feels I should! My priorities have gotten me to the point in my life where I own my own house, car, motorcycle, entertainment system, and (I'm sure this one will send you though the roof...) enough guns to defend the liberties and freedoms that I enjoy.

"...and trot out the same misconceptions and lies that the media has been drumming into the population for decades."

I'm sorry again...as I once again missed how you feel your jab is pointed at me. Maybe you missed the fact that the media in this country has been spewing out the so-called lies you say aren't true of socialism. (i.e. government healthcare, welfare, Social Security...) and yet the openly claim they are the true followers of Marxism! You seem to be well versed in Marx's words but you are not as well up on why the founding fathers of this country rejected the ideas and doctrines that lead Marx to his conclusions. I suggest you pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers and The Constitution and read why the bill of rights was written and how it becomes the founding principle of Capitalism.

"Congratulations on being a paid-up member of the sheep, now go back to your pointless job peon."

Maybe my job is pointless. I work for a cable internet access provider as a network engineer. But the fact of the matter is that I enjoy my job. I like what I do and feel that I am building something that people want. And as such I work hard to make it the best system that it can be. Not only because I want to get paid but also because it gives me a feeling of accomplishment. Also the company that I now work for happens to be the same company that drove me to sell my dialup internet access provider that I started at the age of 21. Of course since I owned it I sold it for a profit and then went straight to work for the people who drove me to sell my business. But then I didn't have to listen to "The State" or as you call it "The Body of Workers"(Side Question: What do you think Marx Body of Workers is?) tell me that I couldn't act in my best interest and that I had to keep my business so that there was competition. Or worse that my current employer had to open up the system that they built with their money to me because "Its only fair because to compete I need access to their network."

What I'm getting at is that your idea of true socialism has never and will never exist because the ideas and structures for it lead in and of themselves to corruption and the feedback loop of laziness. You can rant all you want about how it's the right thing to do but the simple fact is History proves you wrong. In two ways as a matter of fact, one in that no socialist government has survived the test of time, always leading to the corruption and implosion that you yourself spoke of. And two that The US is the most powerful and stable government ever to have existed since Rome.

So I'm going back to being a self accomplished and empowered peon that I am. You go back to working for your comrades so they can sit and watch soaps all day and make babies so they can get more state welfare.

What are you talking about??

[alienmole]

You're building a standard for your company's next product

Well, if you're building it on your own, without anyone else knowing about it, then it's not a standard, is it? Unless you're talking about internal company standards, in which case you can do what you like, just don't expect the rest of the world to accept it. The point is that to increase the chance for your product to be widely accepted, it helps to conform to agreed-on standards. What's so complicated or confusing about that?

The underlying issue that I think you're missing is that you only need standards when the product you're creating is just one of many similar alternatives. If you had a truly innovative product, you wouldn't need any standards, you'd just create your own. Take Dean Kamen's Segway, for example. He didn't have to come up with an open standard for a gyroscopically stabilized two-wheeled human transporter - he just invented it and patented it (although he still runs afoul of road use standards, but that's a different issue).

So, if you want to be creating your own standards, you have to actually invent something, not just manufacture the same recycled pap that the company down the road is creating.

What is an invention/Who was first

[Yokaze]

Aeroplane, Car, Computer, Telephone... Name an invention as famous as these, where there is a single inventor (or group of inventors). The difference between innovation and evolution is often in the eye of the beholder. Especially when you have a closer look.

Otto Lilienthal could also be considered as the father of aeroplanes. He has done various research and the Wright Brothers work is based is on his. Of course your free, not to consider a sailplane as an aeroplane.

The idea was also articulated by da Vinci 400years before (with an inpractical flapping mechanism).

Re:What is an invention/Who was first

[AdamInParadise]

Anyway, everybody knows that Clément Ader was the first to fly a plane, in 1890, way before the Wright brothers.

Re:What is an invention/Who was first

[Yokaze]

Depends on what you call a plane and what you call fly.

Charles Parsons (England) let a small 100m "fly" before it crashed. It was driven by a steam engine.

Sir George Cayley let a small glider fly, which carried a boy (1853).

Or, following your link a bit further,
John Stringfellow should be considered the first pilot (1848).

Re:What is an invention/Who was first

[Anonymous Coward]

Lilenthal must be given a huge amount of credit in the work that lead up to the invention of the aeroplane.

Lilenthal's lift tables were used by almost everyone in that era, including the Wright Brothers (in 1900 and 1901). They ended up being wrong because Lilenthal had used the accepted value of Smeaton's Coefficient at the time, which was wrong and destroyed the value of his tables. (Values at the time ranged from .002 to as high as .006).

The Wright Brothers, independently, measured the value of Smeaton's Coefficient at .0033 and this, in part, helped them accurately calculate lift.

Today, with all of our technology at our disposal, this value has been refined to .003289. The Wrights were off by only .000011!!

Re:What is an invention/Who was first

[Anonymous Coward]

They never took off. Their planes were launch towards the bottom. Ader did take off 3 times (1890, 1891 and 1897 -- this time with a bi-engine plane)

And in many languages (Spanish, French) plane is based on the word "avion", name created by Ader in his patent.

By the way, the first American to have flight was neither the Wrights nor Curtiss, but Whitehead in 1901. Unfortunately, as he was German (naturalised, and having changed his name from Weisskopf), American history tried to delete him.

Re:What is an invention/Who was first

[Anonymous Coward]

Charles Parsons (England) let a small 100m "fly" before it crashed. It was driven by a steam engine.

Indeed, so could it not be said that the father of powered flight was the guy who invented a light-weight engine. Or the guy who discovered how to make fuel, or machine metals to higher tolerances than ever before.

Ideas are not born in isolation, the are build using the building blocks created by others. So when enough building blocks are in place the next step is obvious. Who invented the helicopter? Some would say Pitcairn, other Sikorsky, and there is a whole weight of evidence that it was the Nazis. And don't forget Leonardo. Who invented the Television? The Telephone? The Computer?

Ideas are of their time. Not of an individual.

So let's all celebrate the pioneers of aviation. And not argue the toss over intellectual property because if you ask me there is no such thing.

Okay, I'm done ranting - I'll fetch my coat....

sigh

[__aahlyu4518]

"Some catastrophic event brings everyone together and the locking up of ideas with overly broad patents finally ends?"
Well... There was a catastrophic event, and although the people DID get together, it seems that other parties are just locking up peoples freedoms to A: make a filthy profit or B: get more control themselves. In the meantime trying to create another war to hide the fact that they themselves are listening less and less to their own people and the rest of the world.

Even that won't help

[jridley]

No, going to war won't help. Companies these days wouldn't fail to enforce a patent no matter what was going on. The only way they'd cooperate with infringing companies would be under presidential order and threat of being shot for treason. And even if that happened, the minute the threat was over, they'd be in court suing for compensation.

Re:Even that won't help

[geekoid]

I have said it before, and I'll say it again:
The Next world war will be fought against corporations.

Sure everybody says it's a crack pot statement, but I bet it's true.

Re:Even that won't help

[Chris Johnson]

Are you sure you mean 'will be'? If it was being fought, where would you hear about it- CNN?

Perhaps it is being fought and lost. After all, what would it look like? The corporations are as amorphous as Al Quaeda. Even when you get an Anniston or Bhopal, it's tough to identify a specific person responsible for the deaths. How do you fight a legal fiction and a set of codified behaviors about as enlightened as a shark?

Re:Even that won't help

[xA40D]

Sure everybody says it's a crack pot statement

I don't. I think it's very insightful

The Next world war will be fought against corporations

I've always been infavour of it being between corporations - but than I woke up one morning and realised that's already happening.

Huh?

[alienmole]

What are you talking about? Dumont's first flight of a heavier-than-air vehicle, as opposed to a balloon, was three years after the Wright Brothers. He could have just sent off to them for the plans...

Factual corrections are appreciated...

Re:Huh?

[leandrod]

> Dumont's first flight of a heavier-than-air vehicle, as opposed to a balloon, was three years after the Wright Brothers.

The Wright brothers used a catapult. Alberto Santos-Dumont's 14-bis took off on its own.

> He could have just sent off to them for the plans...

They were working in secrecy, while Santos-Dumont made a point of inventing for the benefit of humankind. Patents could even be for the benefit of humankind, if patent holders didn't have the rights to forbid the use of their inventions and if the patenting process didn't cause so many people to work in secrecy.

Re:Huh?

[Tellarin]

please read the following post

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40738&cid=43 36 200

unfortunatelly, there is no complete/correct account of that experiments

Re:Huh?

[alienmole]

The Wright brothers used a catapult. Alberto Santos-Dumont's 14-bis took off on its own.

The point being? Modern jet fighters are catapult-launched off aircraft carriers.

The Wright Brothers were three years earlier, and were the first to achieve sustained, controlled, powered flight. That makes it hard to sustain the claim that Dumont was "the real inventor" who "invented the airplane" (as claimed in the post I responded to).

They were working in secrecy

For their first successful flight on Dec 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers invited everyone living within five or six miles. Not many attended because of skepticism, and the winter weather.

They asked their father, in this telegram, to inform the press, although it was over a year before the information appeared anywhere. For interest's sake, here's the text of the telegram:

Success four flights thursday morning all against twenty one mile
wind started from Level with engine power alone average speed
through air thirty one miles longest 57 seconds inform Press
home Christmas . Orevelle Wright

I'm sure if they could have posted on Slashdot at the time, they would have.

Santos-Dumont made a point of inventing for the benefit of humankind

Good for him. So you're saying that Dumont has some kind of moral advantage, but that doesn't change who achieved it first.

Re:Huh?

[alienmole]

"Santos Dumont...solved the problem of making a heavier-than-air machine take off by its own means."

The Wright Brothers were the first to achieve sustained, controlled, powered flight (with an engine), in December of 1903. It's true that they launched by catapult, so possibly Santos Dumont was the first to perform a self-powered takeoff. However, you claimed Dumont as "the real inventor" who "invented the airplane". That's misleading, at best.

Re:Huh?

[leandrod]

> The Wright Brothers were three years earlier, and were the first to achieve sustained, controlled, powered flight. That makes it hard to sustain the claim that Dumont was "the real inventor" who "invented the airplane" (as claimed in the post I responded to).

Fair enough.

I would rather say that, as the automobile, there wasn't "one" inventor, but several simultaneous one. Each one contributed a little, until several of them succeeded around the same time.

The fact that the Wright brothers took so long to publicize their feat, whatever their reasons, made Santos-Dumont the one who really influenced the world before the Wright brothers, and prevented them from filing a patent at Europe.

Re:Huh?

[Tellarin]

i kind of agree with you, maybe i was a bit misleading

but my concept of airplane is of a machine that can take off by it's own means and fly, and by this conecpt, Santos Dumont made the first flight, ok?

Re:Huh?

[alienmole]

No, not OK. Are you saying that the jet fighter planes which are still today catapult-launched off the decks of aircraft carriers are not airplanes?

To claim that Santos Dumont "made the first flight" is sheer delusion. For more detail on where I'm coming from, please read this post.

Re:Huh?

[Tellarin]

one thing is to need to be catapulted because there is no room to get velocity, another thing is to need to be catapulted do fly at all

why don't you build a catapult to launch a boeing 777 ? would there be such airplanes is such catapultas were nedded?

and i never claimed that santos dumont "made the first flight" but that according to that definition of airplane i provided
his flight was the first with such a machine

Re:Huh?

[alienmole]

According to material I have found, the Wright Brother's 1903 flight actually did have a self-powered takeoff. However, they had difficulty repeating this feat (being so far ahead of everyone else!) and so began using a catapult.

Certainly, a repeatable self-powered takeoff was an advance, but that's a separate question from who was "the real inventor" of the airplane and other such claims. I don't think it would be fair to say that the Wright Brothers were the "real inventors" either; they were building on other's concepts, like all inventors. However, the Wright Brothers were the first to design, build and successfully fly an airplane that could be controlled while in the air.

and i never claimed that santos dumont "made the first flight" but that according to that definition of airplane i provided his flight was the first with such a machine

This is perhaps a language difficulty. In English, we would not usually redefine "airplane" to make such a statement; instead, we would qualify what we mean by "flight", e.g. to say that "Santos Dumont made the first flight with a self-powered takeoff". (Although, as I have noted above, this may not be a true statement.)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It might not seem like a big deal today, but taking off by itself was a major issue at that time that needed to be proved feasible, and it was done first by Santos Dumont.

Long before 1903, people were already flying gliders, with diferent levels of control. So, it was understood that heavier than air planes could fly, but taking off by itself was a real must to diferentiate planes from gliders.

A few articles published at the French press ( at that time ) explain a bit about this and you can check it yourself ( in French, sorry ):

http://www.cabangu.com.br/pai_da_aviacao/10-oque eu vi/056_50.jpg

http://www.cabangu.com.br/pai_da_aviacao/10-oque eu vi/059_50.jpg

These are extracts from Santos Dumont's own book published later. It is interesting that they made reference to take off by its own means instead of using a balloon, which Santos Dumont himself had done before ( and others as well ). Check this cool photo:

http://www.cabangu.com.br/pai_da_aviacao/10-oque eu vi/051_50.jpg

However, some people seem to claim that the Wright bros. did not use a catapult in 1903. If that is really the case, than all the Dumontian arguments would not be valid.

Oh, I can see it now

[clausiam]

[Tough Army Sgt]: Guys, let's move - the enemy is just ONE CLICK AWAY to the North. [Jeff Bezos ]: I heard that and I own any ONE CLICK process - I'm gonna sue your sorry asses for this patent infringement.

Discovery Channel!

[Timmeh]

If anyone is interested in this stuff, mostly Glenn Curtiss stuff, I'd reccommend the Discovery Wings channel. I was never much for planes until I got that channel when we ordered digital cable. It's great stuff, I love watching the pieces on the modern technology as much as I love watching all of the historical stuff. I've seen 3 or 4 different shows (3 shows a day, an hour a piece, repeated more or less continuously for an entire day) on Glenn Curtiss and it helps you put a human face on early aviation, makes it more interesting when it's not just planes and dates. I don't think I've seen a show on yet devoted to patent fights over airplanes, but it has been mentioned several times in passing. Discovery Wings channel and the Discovery Science channel are reason enough to your average nerd to get digital cable. (Disclaimer, i don't work for any of the cable companies or the discovery channel. :P)

classic 1) 2) ??? 3) profit

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Patent design of airplanes
2) Everyone else rips you off anyways.
3) You begin sueing left and right
4) ????
5) PROFIT!

Wright Brothers, Schmight Brothers

[archetypeone]

What about Richard Pearse?

Re:Wright Brothers, Schmight Brothers

[Anonymous Coward]

hes not american, therefore youre wrong.

Re:Wright Brothers, Schmight Brothers

[NumberGod]

And also here.

http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/pearse.html

I think he was the first to fly, it's a shame he didn't see a future in it and didn't claim the title.

Glen Curtis Museum

[Lahjik]

Since you have just about Slashdotted the poor little Glenn Curtiss Museum just down the road from me, let me give you some highlights about this amazing man. More information at the Glenn Curtiss Historical Site.

Glenn Curtiss was not only a true pioneer in the world of aviation, but also in motorcycles. He had the distinction of being the "Fastest Man Alive" for a good period of time after putting his V-8 motorcycle to the speed test. The motorcycle featured at the small museum in Hammondsport, NY - about 1 hour south of Rochester, NY in the heart of New York's Wine Country. The motorcycle, really just a huge engine with a very small seat, is quite an impressive little beast.

Curtiss also developed and implemented seaplanes and aircraft carriers. My wife's grandfather actually saw Glenn Curtiss piloting one of his "Flying Boats". Her grandfather was beaten by his blind father for insisting that there was a boat flying over Keuka Lake!

If you are ever in Upstate NY I highly recommend the Glenn Curtiss Museum. The last time I was there, they even had a great exhibit of classic comic book covers by Dick Ayers.

Re:Glen Curtis Museum

[oldstrat]

I also used to live just down the road from Hammondsport in Tyrone.
Got to go a round in the night trainer when I was a kid(they won't even let you touch it now).
One thing to note is that Glenn was very much in touch with other inventors of his time.
It was very very common to share information and techniques, and 'steal' them.
But there are a few things overlooked about that time, and most any other, and it applies directly to computer code.
There are only a limited number of ways to build a practical device with available technology be it an aileron, or a shopping cart.
Worse yet who is to define the difference between the function of flexable portion of a wing and an aileron?
Written craftily enough, there could appear to be no difference, especially if the reviewer knew nothing of a budding technology like aviation.

Another point, a lot of what happened to Curtiss, Tesla and others is what happened to Visicalc creator Dan Bricklin and others in the software world of the not so distant past.
Sometimes it's not who is better, first, or best, but simply who is the best connected politically, or has the deepest financial pockets.

Re:Glen Curtis Museum

[Anonymous Coward]

Her grandfather was beaten by his blind father for insisting that there was a boat flying over Keuka Lake!

Hmm, why did he tell his father where he was so he could be beaten?

"Son, there's no such thing as a flying boat! Come here so I can beat you!"

"Okay, I'm right here father." (Whiff) "No, more to your left. OW!"

Re:Glen Curtis Museum

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes it's not who is better, first, or best, but simply who is the best connected politically, or has the deepest financial pockets.

Sometimes? I would say almost *always*.

Re:Glen Curtis Museum

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wright brothers gave the world something it could really use -- something world changing. And then they spent the rest of their lives trying to earn at least a little bit of something on it. My understanding is that despite there huge contribution to society, at least one of the Wright brothers died in poverty while trying to enforce his patents against big business which simply used them, knowing that the benefits would outweigh the patent-battle costs. I doubt this is the case Slashdot wants to hang its arguments about the unjustness of patents on.

4 letter acronym

[Anonymous Coward]

The next "catastrophe" won't be WW3. It will be AIDS. Of course I don't think we can expect governments to pay off the pharmaceutical companies until it is far too late.

In other news..

[Plutor]

In other news, one-click shopping reveals the location of Osama bin Laden and brings Al Qaeda to a standstill.
Coming up next, how the opening of DNA sequencing technology patents will thwart Saddam Hussein's evil machinations.

Does this remind anyone else of 'Connections'?

How is this redundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's the first person to tell us about it. "You're the first person to mention this... redundant!" Fucking retarded moderators. ThinK!

Also worth noting..

[papskier]

that they mentioned that even after WWI no airplane patents were issued for nearly 50 years, and American airplane technology still led the world. Also, in the early days of computers (back in the 50's and 60's), all the big players had patents on their technologies but also had informal agreements to not enforce them, for the good of the industry.

Exactly!

[Evro]

So, does is this a sign for how we might eventually get out of the patent mess we're in now? Some catastrophic event brings everyone together and the locking up of ideas with overly broad patents finally ends?

Yes, as World War III looms on the horizon, the world unites to stop the patent madness and give us the uberweapon we really need: One Click Shopping!

Explain to Me...

[reallocate]

...why Orville and Wilbur should have gone to all that trouble and then just given it all away? If you invest years of effort, labor, and money in creating something that didn't previously exist, why aren't you entitled to reap the benefits?

Legitimate issues with software patents and digital media copyrights have fostered the projection of the free software/open source "philosophy" onto society as a whole. That's utopian. This "philosophy" works in the specific egalitarian sub-culture that emerged around Unix. It won't work in any environment in which people plan on controlling the results of their efforts in order to maximize their gain. In other words, any human environment populated with something other than comfortable, well-fed saints.

Re:Explain to Me...

[glesga_kiss]

If you invest years of effort, labor, and money in creating something that didn't previously exist, why aren't you entitled to reap the benefits?

Sure, you are entitled. But a lot of inventions were done by people where greed wasn't the motivation. Science and discovery once had a appeal. Now it's the moola.

Re:Explain to Me...

[reallocate]

With rare exception, it's always been about the "moola". Expecting to benefit from your work isn't greed. It's normal human behavior. Commercial artists, musicians and writers are in it for the money. That's what the word "commercial" means. Ditto people we call "inventors".

The idea behind patents and copyrights is to encourage the development of new inventions and new art in return for a degree of protection and exclusivity. You might call that "greed", but I don't. The notion that art and invention are the result of flashes of inspiration that come to altruistic people is wrong. It takes hard work and money, even if someone did have a legitimate "bright idea". Sometimes it takes the resources beyond the capacity of a single person. Even Michelango needed money.

Re:Explain to Me...

[sphealey]

..why Orville and Wilbur should have gone to all that trouble and then just given it all away? If you invest years of effort, labor, and money in creating something that didn't previously exist, why aren't you entitled to reap the benefits?

Which is pretty much how O&W felt. And when you dig into how they accomplished what they did, you can understand why they felt that way. Their achievement was tremendous.

Problem was, O&W wanted to control all future aircraft developments. Their licensing terms were onerous and they tried to kill any parallel development. That might not have been totally bad if, like Thomas Edison, they were able to build an entire industry to keep up with demand. But they couldn't: O&W were inventors, not businessmen.

So as a result the Wright patents were choking off all development and innovation in the field. And eventually something had to give way.

sPh

Re:Explain to Me...

[Just Another Perl Ha]

Many would argue that the term "commercial artist" is nothing but an oxymoron.

Also, the idea that our current patent system promotes the progress of science and useful arts falls flat on its face in this day and age where greed is considered the only viable motivation for any endeavor.

The only true solution is a major paradigm shift in the way western society (especially American) view the pursuit of wealth... and that will take a very long time indeed.

Re:Explain to Me...

[reallocate]

>> Many would argue that the term "commercial artist" is nothing but an oxymoron.

You're implying that writing, creating music, etc., is some kind of mystical process engaged in by a very few indivduals informed, sporadically, by supernatural muses. In other words, you're putting "art" on an undeserved pedestal, and denying that an artist can be paid and still remain an artist. To the contrary, if an artist can't produce on a regular and sustained basis, they're just someone who had one good idea.

>> the idea that our current patent system promotes the progress of science and useful arts falls flat on its face in this day and age where greed is considered the only viable motivation for any endeavor.

Evidence? And what would you suggest to replace the patent system that would not entail inventors losing control of their inventions?

>> ...only true solution is a major paradigm shift in the way western society (especially American) view the pursuit of wealth...

That's utopian. People everywhere work in their own best interest. Some societies are better than others at balancing the inevitable conflicting demands. Call that greed if you wish, but it's the way the human race works.

Re:Explain to Me...

[Just Another Perl Ha]

Thank you for putting words in my mouth... but your interpretation of my initial statement is hardly accurate. I was merely stating that there are many who refuse to believe that the words "professional" and "best" are far from synonymous (and that artists, by definition, create to the best of their ability). Such an association can only be true in a society that accepts the meme that the only reason anyone would ever do anything is for the pursuit of wealth... and that any other motivation is nothing but a lie.

Secondly, I never said anything about eliminating patents. It is farely evident, however, that the current state of the US patent system is terribly flawed. Some years ago the policy of the USPTO was changed to grant patents primarily on their legal merit (IOW, as long as the I's were dotted and T's crossed) and much less so on the true inventiveness of the request... thus placing the burden of proving the true validity of the patent on the courts. Allthewhile, the courts have long standing precident which hold that if the USPTO has granted the patent, then there must be some merit to it... thus leaving a huge hole through which way too many frivolous patents have been pushed. In the end, the only ones who win are the lawyers (and those who can afford to pay them).

Finally, I don't subscribe to the Randian philosophy that everyone is nothing but selfish... nor do I believe that the term "utopian" should be used in such a condescending and pajorative manner. Rather, utopia should be considered as an asymptotic pursuit wherein it is understood to be unacheivable but strived for nonetheless.

Re:Explain to Me...

[Chris Johnson]

If you cannot understand the language of scientific inquiry and discovery, or if your world consists entirely of exchange value and nothing else, naturally you wouldn't see any point to the sharing of ideas.

I could go, "But doing it would avoid stultifying science, and everybody progresses more rapidly", but if your ONLY yardstick is how much you're stomping your immediate competitor, why would you care?

Welcome to the new Dark Ages. Thanks a lot for your contribution.

Re:Explain to Me...

[Chris Johnson]

Check your premises, Ayn. Game theory is full of abundant evidence that direct pursuit of self-interest can be catastrophic. Essentially, selfishness is dangerous because it leads to many undesirable effects, most notably the weakening of the societal infrastructure that people tend to rely on. It benefits you to get rid of the workers' health plan to save money until they all DIE and you're hosed. It benefits corporations to patent everything in the world until scientific progress is completely hobbled and the only groundbreaking work is happening in places like China which don't necessarily respect those rules. Currently, what's being set up is the hobbling of Western Civilisation- it could become impossible to do any new work, either scientific or artistic, because of the stridency of intellectual property challenging any new works that might bear some resemblance to something patented or copyrighted.

In that case, none of the IP holders (they think like you- at least the corporations do, because they are legal fictions sociopathic by design) will budge, and the next Reinassance will have to take place in what we now laughably call the 'third world'. Possibly this will lead to war, and the stultified 'first world' will actively try to kill citizens of the 'third world' since they're unable to prevent 'em from thinking and creating. At the very least, severe trade sanctions would be expected.

All because 'intellectual property' isn't intrinsically limited- if someone can get a patent on 'having an idea', for instance, and ENFORCE it, selfishness would imply that they would take no thought of the impact on society, but just enforce it and bring other people's progress to a standstill. In order to value 'overall societal progress' one has to take into account the development of one's fellows, even to encourage it. A rising tide floats all boats. Note the avoidance of the word 'competitors'. Not everything is a freakin' market, Ayn.

Re:Explain to Me...

[reallocate]

Good grief. I've never had a reason to read Ayn Rand, and know zip about game theory. (I gave up looking for a one-size-fits-all ideology of human behavior a long time ago. None of them work and the "true believers" always resort to attempting to impose their beliefs on the poor, wretched unbelievers.)

I was just pointing out that people tend to act in what they see as their own self-interest. Sometimes that leads to altruistic behavior, sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not defending or supporting the current status of the U.S. patent and copyright systems. It seems to be in rather a mess, thanks to corporate pressure on the courts and Congress. I am, however, disagreeing with those who want to fix the problem by eliminating patents and copyrights altogether, an argument that appears frequently here. They imply or assert that invention and creation of art and entertainment would continue unabated sans a mechanism to incentivize inventors/creators by granting them temporary exclusivity. Some have argued that "true" inventors and artists create only for the sheer love of it, and that if you expect some reward you cannot, by definition, be an inventor or artist. That strikes me as being just a tad idealistic, like believing your mother would never have sex.

We usually want something in return for our efforts -- money, food, fame, praise, personal satisfaction, whatever. To believe that humans will change is, in my book, tantamount to waiting for utopia to arrive. The law can change corporate behavior, and that's a lot easier than building a perfect society.

Re:Explain to Me...

[reallocate]

Who said anything about not sharing ideas? As I've said elsewhere, people usually want to receive some benefit from their efforts. That's a l-o-n-g way from arguing that the only value inherent in an idea is what the market will pay for it. Human behavior is fuzzy. Why try to take things to the literal extreme?

From my perspective, you seem to be arguing for a revolutionary change in human society, not just adjustments to patent and copyright law. I'm sorry, but at this point in my life I don't trust revolutionaries, no matter how well intentioned.

Harold Pitcairn

[richieb]

You should read about Harold Pitcairn. He had a number of patents on autogyro and helicopter technology. When WW II started the Pitcairn allow the US goverment the use of his patents. The goverment let a guy name Sikorsky build helicopters as Pitcairn was busy with other war material production.

After the war, the patents were not returned and Pitcairn sued the goverment. The case lasted for over 20 years and eventually (after Harold Pitcairn's death) the Pitcairns won.

Meanwhile, think of the largest companies that build helicopters today.

The Wright brothers actually figured out how airplanes turn and developed a system to control the flight of an airplane. Curtiss just used their results and ideas, improved the implementation but did not do his own research.

"the first to receive a U.S. pilot license"

[Gerv]

If he was the first to receive a U.S. pilot license... who was his examiner?

Gerv

Re:"the first to receive a U.S. pilot license"

[sphealey]

Orville Wright signed the first few hundred US licenses. There used to be a few people wandering around who still had one of those, although I suspect they are all gone now.

I doubt, however, that Orville signed Glenn Curtiss' license! Probably one of the Army pilots that Wright trained granted that one.

sPh

Fathers of modern airplanes?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be Santos Dumond, a Brazilian scientist that was living in Paris at the beginning of the 20th Century. In 1906 he flew the first "modern" airplane. Self-propelled, sustained flight. That's the airplane that started it all. A real airplane.

And before I forget, right about that time he went to Cartier and ordered a special watch with a leather strap that he could attach to his wrist. That's right, the first wrist-watch was his idea. How else would he keep the time while flying his airplanes?

The turning point: war with Antarctica

[Anonymous Coward]

The nation's inventors and technocrats will come together when the War on Antarctica commences.

so whatcha gonna do about it?

[blastedtokyo]

Great story but all it does is reinforce what everyone on this site already knows and believes. Today, please, do something about it!

-Send the story to a coworker who doesn't agree with you,

-send a copy to your congressman,

-update your sig to reflect your beliefs,

-get a Free the Mouse bumpersticker and wear it,

-give money to the EFF,

-release a piece of music, writing, photo, idea you came up with to Creative Commons.

-Send a thoughtful letter to the editor to 3 different publications you read.

C'mon people, we don't need more witty remarks.

FREE THE MOUSE!!!!

The main difference between then and now

[ch-chuck]

is before wwi wars were just starting to be mechanized, with still a lot of rifles and calvary - now we (and 'them') have the bomb! About the worst thing that could happen then (very bad no doubt) was trenchfoot and mustard gas, and produced some hero's like Baron Von Richthofen and Eddie Rickenbacker. Now we put up for risk vast civilian areas of Bhagdad and Chicago, live in fear of genetically engineered killer virusus, and, gasp, script kiddiez!

Aliens are the key...

[maxconfus]

Ronald Reagan once quipped while in office that, 'if aliens landed on this planet and attacked people of the world would lay down their grudges and join forces to defeat the aliens'.

Re:Aliens are the key...

[mwjlewis]

If alien's attacked the world, I belive that there is a lot more to worry about then patents and DRM.
Yes, I belive that the world would come together.

Look at the support that the US got on 9/11/02. Maybe we can team up with the aliens and have them attack Al Quada. (sp)

Re:Aliens are the key...

[mwjlewis]

Correction: 9/11/01.

Re:Aliens are the key...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa. That sounds like a GREAT plot for a GREAT movie!!!! I wonder if Hollywood was listening...

Re:Aliens are the key...

[Anonymous Coward]

He must have seen The Lathe of Heaven. Good movie, btw,

ac

I could see it happening.

[mwjlewis]

1)The USA Nukes Iraq.
2) Oil Prices Go Sky HIgh
3) Competing Car/Engine manufactors Partner/team up (share trade secrets/patents) to produce REAL WORLD alternitive fuel engines
4) Profit.

Hollywood...

[mbogosian]

Actually, this kind of thing was not limited to the (then to become) airline industry. Movie production was done largely in New York, until producers realized they would be much more likely to get away with using Thomas Edison's patented motion picture camera without paying exorbitant licensing fees (which Edision was fanatical about enforcing) if they were on a different coast.

And Hollywood was born....

hmm, not sure MP3 vs Ogg would effect WWIII

[iamethan]

How would MP3, JPG and crap like pop-ups help us in the war? annoy the enemy to death with banner ads?

airplanes were required for the war effort...

"Catastrophic Event" == WTC

[thewiz]

Some catastrophic event brings everyone together and the locking up of ideas with overly broad patents finally ends?

Shouldn't the "Catastrophic Event" have been the terrorist attacks on the WTC?

Regardless whether it's Linux vs. MS, US vs. Saddam/bin Laden, etc everyone seems to want to protect and promote themselves as being the only "real" answer to the problem at hand. Until we all learn to respect each other and care more about the common good than just our own turf, we'll continue to have people creating stupid patents.

Where's Ben Franklin when we need him?

Send in the Zentraedi..

[phrackwulf]

We need a good, old-school alien armada to show up in orbit in my opinion. With the U.S. at the top of the geopolitical heap right now, who else is going to force us to throw out the padlocks and unite for everlasting peace and love and all that other good Megaman type crap? Iraq? Osama? Yeah right! I suppose the "Grey's" might work if they dropped the occasional "anal-probe and cattle mutilation" gig and started terrorizing cities like in XCOM.

[-)

First License . . . NOT

[HenryWirz]

The way I heard it Orville told the CAA to go take a flying leap through a donut hole when they offered him Pilot's License #000001

Only NPR would be thrilled to learn of who was the first person regulated to do something.

Re:First License . . . NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Give that man a cigar!

Indeed, Orville refused pilot certificate #1.

Re:First License . . . NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Robie's detailed research [see below] observed that the first N pilot license numbers were administered at the same time, in alphabetical order, to members of the Aero Club of America.

Curtiss (and the Wrights and others) were all brilliant inventors, but there was no special distinction in Curtiss being the "first licensed".

reference: Bill Robie, For the Greatest Achievement: A History of the Aero Club of America and the National Aeronautic Association (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993), p. ix. The federal government took over pilot licensing from the club (at the club's urging) in 1926.

Question about patents

[1000101]

I really don't know too much about patents and was wondering if somebody could explain this to me. If I am an inventor, what incentive do I have to work day and night if someone else will just use it and profit once my product is released. I always thought patents (again I don't know much about them) were designed to give the inventor a specific amount of time where he/she/company would be rewarded for their efforts and once that expired everyone could join? Is this not the case?

Re:Question about patents

[Just Another Perl Ha]

In a perfect and simple world... yes, that would be the case.

Unfortunately, our world is neather perfect nor simple. Very few contemporary patents are issued for true inventions... but rather, the patent systems has been twisted and conjoled into a weapon of the filthy rich to gain even further riches (which in turn gives them power to twist and cajole other parts of the government to increase and maintain their wealth and power).

The most immediate way to break this viscious cycle is real campaign finance reform that would put an end to the status quo of enormous, multi-national corporations (many of which have power on par with major nations) being able to purchase those laws which do nothing but shore up their wealth at the expense of the citizenry.

Of course... a more long term need is for our representitives in Washington to stop thinking of "The People" as merely consumers and remember that we are really citizens (which may behoove them to finally act in our best interest instead of just pandering to the highest bidder).

The only alternative is for the United States to truely become a nation of the company, by the company and for the company.

Re:Question about patents

[Chris Johnson]

It sounds like you're not an inventor, so isn't it a moot point?

Also, isn't what patents were 'intended' for also a moot point?

I know how to solve this problem once and for all!

[Weaselmancer]

I know how to do away with all of this patent nonsense from here on out.

I'll make a machine that will approve or reject patents, and store them on microfilm. I'd like it to look like something Terry Gilliam would animate. A huge throw switch for accept/reject. An elephant on a treadmill for a source of power. Two rubber stamps, one for approved and one for rejected. A huge bellows to dry the ink. A massive series of lenses, mirrors and candles to reduce the image down to microfilm size.

Then, I'll patent it. If it gets rejected, I'll keep changing components until it passes. Replace the bellows with a cage of pigeons and a box of popcorn and resubmit.

Once I get my shiny new patent, I'll wait one week. Then I'll tack on the words "with a computer" and resubmit. We all know that the magic phrase "with a computer" makes a new patent. Ask Jeff Bezos - he'll tell ya.

Now - it'll be illegal to use a computer to store or approve patents. It's my idea now. The entire process will have to be done by hand. If you want a patent search...well the patents number around the 4,700,000 range. If it takes a minute to read a patent, then it'll take about 20 man years to prove it's original. By then it won't matter.

And just in case the government gets any funny ideas about "prior art" - well we know those lawsuits aren't ever won. Look at Wizards of the Coast. They managed to patent card games for chrissakes. Even though prior art of all kinds exists *cough cough* Steve Jackson *cough*.

But, I'm a reasonable guy. If they press their case strongly enough I'd be willing to settle out of court. Just pay me a nickel royalty for every patent in your database and I'll be okay with that.

Weaselmancer

Basic gist of this to take home with you

[sielwolf]

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

I love stories like this so it can end the apocolyptic talk (in the topic of "blah blah") right now. Today is no worse than yesterday. Well, execpt that we have the opportunity to learn from the past...

All Things Considered, September 25, 2002

[Anonymous Coward]

The broadcast is available for purchase at Audible.com

They don't a direct link available yet but you can find it through Catalog->New Titles->New Daily Subcription

First powered aeroplane? England, 1848.

[Alranor]

Just to confuse things a bit more ;) - would it surprise you lot to hear that the first powered plane flew in England in 1848? (see this page)

The Wright brothers may have been the first to manage MANNED flight on a powered plane, and that's a huge achievement, but it does bug me a little when people claim they produced the first powered plane.

Re:First powered aeroplane? England, 1848.

[ptomblin]

Nobody claimed the Wrights produced the first powered plane. I think one of the ancient Greeks did that.

What the Wrights did first, was they produced the first sustained controlled manned heavier than air powered aircraft flight. And they did it in a way that was repeatable, controllable, and so could be incrementally improved to the point where a few short years later they were demonstrating flights of an hour or more and carrying a passenger. And that's the difference between the Wrights and all those others who claimed to fly first, like this guy in England or the Eole or the guy in New Zealand - that their aircraft led to further, better aircraft and even further aircraft, whereas the other pretenders to the throne built one or two failures or uncontrolled short hop planes and then retired from the field.

Re:First powered aeroplane? England, 1848.

[leandrod]

> the other pretenders to the throne built one or two failures or uncontrolled short hop planes and then retired from the field.

Nothing could be further from the truth. 14-bis gradually improved, and the Demoiselle was used practically for individual aerial transportation with full steering over several kilometers, being the first widely-used (for the time) light aircraft.

Well I'll be damned!

[(v)Jargon(v)]

I truly hope that JvMatthe isn't try to imply that only a war can SAVE THE PATENTS! Killing other people during WWI didn't solve the patent problem for good now did it. The problem lies with the American gov't, and how the Patent Offices work. Solve Those Problems. Instead of constant complaints -- Do Something, that is what everyone in America should tell themselves for the Patent issue to be resloved.
Thank You.

Its a bit more complicated than that

[gnalre]

From what I can remember the problems started when the government sponsored project crashed and burned due to lack of aeronautical knowledge(On some river I think). A bit later the wright brothers did there historic flight and attempted to patent there ideas.

Later still Curtis using the well known principle of hindsight totally redesigned the first plane, took off in it and then with government backing tried to prove therefore prior art. This carried on for many years. The Smithsonian even had the original flyer up for many years claiming it was the original flying machine.

The wright brothers deserved there patents because they were the first to get all the bits together. It also a story of the plucky amateur beating the big sponsored governmet.

I don't think MS is the problem

[tkrotchko]

The problem is congress and the administration are convinced they can protect American interests with these ridiculous IP laws. I believe congress thinks they can: (1) Keep American "domininance" in technology fields (2) Make American companies more profitable over the long term.

On the surface, it has a lot of appeal; there's the oft repeated mantra that "If I engage in research I should be rewarded; if I don't get rewarded, why would I engage in research. Therefore strong IP are the best way to ensure companies have a reason to innovate".

The problem is, there doesn't appear to be any evidence this is true, and based on stories like this (and my own experience in the computer field), I think this is exactly wrong. Innovation comes about from the unrestricted sharing of ideas.

I only hope the US doesn't become a 3rd world technology nation before Congress and the Administration (Clinton, Bush, and future administrations) understands they're destroying what they're trying to protect.

Re:I don't think MS is the problem

[WNight]

This is because computer programming is fundamentally different than heavy industry. In industry if you come up with a new idea it could take billions (new X-Ray lithography idea or something) to exploit it. In programming ideas are much easier to implement.

But software patents wouldn't even be so bad at two year lengths. If you did patent something it'd pretty much guarantee you made it to market first (Unless it was Daikatana or Duke Nukem Forever) but it wouldn't delay a competitor's product for long. The idea of patenting discoveries would still suck, but at least it wouldn't suck for long.

Hell, it'd clean up industry a lot if they'd make predatory tactics illegal, either offering a free license to everyone you tried to torpedo (is that what you do with a submarine patent? :) or simply revoking the patent of anyone who plays games with it.

Yes, but...

[tkrotchko]

"It might frighten you to learn this, but making a profit on your work is not evil."

It might be interesting to learn that making a profit on your work in not guaranteed.

The Moral

[booch]

The poster seems to have missed the moral of the story. The guest said that there were some studies done that showed that strong patents might actually slow scientific progress. The Wright brothers incident shows a good example of such. They also gave several examples of competitors agreeing (implicitly, explicitly, or being forced to) not to obtain or enforce patents, and the resultant explosion of technological advancement. Examples include the semiconductor industry in the 70s and 80s, the airplane business in the 50s and 60s, and the PC revolution of the 80s and 90s.

MODs on CRACK. MOD PARENT UP!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what we need to do. Stop debating semantics and start acting!

Doing it better is not always an option

[NetWurkGuy]

Unfortunately sometimes what is being patented is so basic that it practically amounts to patenting the Pythagorean Theorem. The XOR blinking cursor patent comes to mind as an example. The only possible work arounds are neccessarily inferior.

Re: It's always nice to listen to NPR...

[dpilot]

From the Burlington Free Press last week, quoting from the N.Y. Times New Service:

"Christian radio stations oust NPR in Lousiana"

A growing Christian Radio network dislikes the "distinctly liberal and secular perspective" of NPR, and decided to do something about it by knocking the stations off the air. "The Federal Communications Commision considers them squatters on the far left side of the FM dial, and anyone who is granted a full-power license can legally run them out of town." The "them" in the quoted sentence refers to low-power repeater stations, often used by NPR affiliates.

I was thinking of submitting this to /. under YRO or Almighty Buck, but it isn't really news. After all, I saw it in a newspaper last week.

Ailerons, fuselage, nacelle,...

[dpbsmith]

Even though the aeroplane was "invented" right here in the good old U. S. of A, a lot of the technical language describing it is French.

This should remind us that there were many contributions to the development of aviation. But it is also an indication of how things stagnated in the U.S.

While the Wright Brothers were, initially, keeping their invention quiet--and later, battling over patents--on the Continent aviation was continuing on its own path. Millions of people believed Santos-Dumont was the first to fly because his flight was so public (and well-publicized). Aviation, and the (French) language of aviation captured the public consciousness...

By the first world war, it's even arguable that the U. S. had fallen behind.

Re:Ailerons, fuselage, nacelle,...

[Balinares]

Even though the aeroplane was "invented" right here in the good old U. S. of A, a lot of the technical language describing it is French.

For a good reason, my friend...
Prior art. :)

If you ever get a chance to go to Paris, be sure to spend some time at the Arts et Metiers Museum. Clement Ader's Avion III is still exposed there, hanging from a ceiling, and it's an extremely impressive sight to behold. It's very humbling to think that this guy spent decades inventing that machine, and tried it, and actually managed to fly in it. Damn, that makes look our daily bickering on /. so petty.

Re:Ailerons, fuselage, nacelle,...

[LJPeixoto]

Millions of people believe Santos Dumont is the father of aviation because he was the first to fly a self-propeling heavier than air machine. The Wrights machine wasnt much more than a catapult.
Only Americans really believe that could be called an airplane ...

Yeah, right.

[thechuckbenz]

Let's see now - how can we argue that the war on terrorism and the Axis of Evil requires Hollywood to put aside it's interest in infinitely extending copyrights and preventing the consumer from using their product in any way behind their narrow ideas ? Troop moral requires the use of Mickey Mouse in porn cartoons ? Troops need to be able to sample records for instant deployment without arranging for licensing ?

Or perhaps Bill Gates will see that Microsoft should become a government department (hmmm, he could become Secretary of Information...).

Catastrophe?

[tunabomber]

Hows this for a catastrophe? And some companies are unwilling to avert it to protect their precious IP. Oh wait- that's all happening in Africa, so it can't matter.

Somehow, I don't think it's the lack of a catastrophe that's the problem- I think its the general public's ignorance of the impact of IP laws that is.

Santos-Dumont

[falameufilho]

Interesting bit of trivia: here in Brazil people do not recognize the Wright Brothers as the fathers of heavier-than-air flight, but rather our own Alberto Santos-Dumont (link, link). Never dug inside the story properly to know who's right and who's wrong.

Re:Santos-Dumont

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr]

Never dug inside the story properly to know who's right and who's wrong.

I have. Just consider that the Americans will be celebrating 100 years of flight next year while we (in Brazil but also possibly a few people in Europe) will have to wait until 2006.

The usual claims that the Wrights faked it (since they didn't have a crowd of witnesses for their first flight. Yet before Dumont's flight the US Army had bought a few of their planes and hired them to train new pilots) or cheated (since they used a catapult for launching. But they only built that in 1904 and so didn't used it for their first flights) are plain silly.

On the other hand, did US aviation matter at all in WW1? It seems to me that all famous planes from that era were German, French or English.

Re:Santos-Dumont

[rednaxel]

I think the main issue is: Dumont's device was a plane as we know today, with takeoff, flying and landing. Wright's device was not able to takeoff with its own means, needing external support.

Re:Santos-Dumont

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr]

No - as I pointed out that is a myth. The 1903 flights used no external support at all. The catapult was added the next year but it was not needed: using it just reduced the risk of damage to their ski-like landing gear.

Their October 4, 1905 flight did not use a catapult and lasted 38 minutes

Re:Santos-Dumont

[Anonymous Coward]

That is incorrect. The original Wright Flyer used a track to keep its skids from bogging down in the sand at Kittyhawk. But it did take off under its own power without the use of a 'catapult'. In fact, the Wright's first flights that day were longer than Santos Dumont's first heavier than air flights. The Wright's catapult came into use several years later, after the Wright's decided that there might indeed be a use for the areoplane.

Where Santos Dumont easily deserves credit is in forseeing that the internal combustion engine was applicable for aircraft. That stroke of genius enabled him to win the de la Muerthe prize in 1900 (or 1901?) by circling Dirigible No.6 around the Eiffel Tower and back to his starting place. A round trip of 7 miles (IIRC). After that he did turn his attention to heavier than air flight but was not very succesful. Even his well publicized fight of the 14-bis did not occur until 1906. And the aforementioned Demosielle, though an elegant craft, was unstable and difficult to fly. Another area where Santos Dumont excelled was in proposing flight for the common man. He was extremely giving in his time, efforts and money in promoting flight for everyone. He was heartbroken by the use of aircraft in war and died regretting his involvement in the air industry because of it.

Where the Wright's deserve credit was in their technical research. They were far ahead of the rest when it came to understanding how things fly. Even though they built their theories on the works of earlier theorists they rightly deserve the credit for being the first to fly a powered, controlled, man-carring airplane. They did it primarily because they thought they could, not because they thought there was profit in it. They did not really do it in secret, they did it in the location which they thought was the best to get an airplane off the ground. The fact that the press ignored them and most people thought that they were just weird should not be used as a sign that they were driven by patent greed. The only real application that they foresaw for the airplane was military. When the US army turned them down they really just hung up the project for several years.

It wasn't until the French (mostly Santos Dumont) started to claim that they were the first to fly that the Wright's decided that they should push their claim. Thus, in 1908 when they exhibited their abilities in France is when the world at large became aware of them.

The patent scuffle with Curtiss was primarily over the control systems of airplanes. Whereas the Wrights used wing-warping and control levers, Curtiss worked with ailerons and a steering wheel. It was left up to Louis Bleriot to put together the system most used today, the joystick, elevator, rudder and ailerons. But the Wright/Curtiss squabble definatley delayed the US's development of aircraft.

The real aviation leaders at the time of WWI were the French. Every Allied nation used French planes in the war.

Re:Santos-Dumont

[JhAgA]

And I created the first micro processor a few years ago, when I was still in high school. Too bad I didn't show it to anyone.

Sounds like Tesla...

[Warshadow]

This reminds me of Thomas Edison and how he did everything within his power to keep Nikola Tesla's AC generators from becoming mainstream.

Or maybe the US Patent Office not wanting to award Tesla for inventing the radio.

Or even today the Smithsonian not crediting Tesla for anything he did?

Pfft.

Santos Dumont was not the first

[alienmole]

thanks to this flight the "Archdecon Prize" was awarded to Santos Dumont, who had thus, solved the problem of making a heavier-than-air machine take off by its own means."

so, why would they write this if he wasn't the first to fly?

I've replied to you elsewhere, but for the benefit of others reading:

The Wright Brothers were the first to achieve sustained, controlled, powered flight (with an engine), in December of 1903. It's true that they launched by catapult, so possibly Santos Dumont was the first to perform a self-powered takeoff. However, you claimed Dumont as "the real inventor" who "invented the airplane". That's misleading, at best.

Re:Santos Dumont was not the first

[Tellarin]

and i've replied to you in:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40738&cid=43 37 039

for me the wright brothers were great inventors, but what they created was not a real airplane (for the ones who didn't read my comment linked above, please do so before replying)

IP doesn't apply to the government

[ProfessorPuke]

(I haven't listened to the story, but have heard the background...)

The US government in general, and the Department of Defense in particular, are able to bypass most any information-property law, if they can make a good case for it. Something like eminent domain, where they can force you to sell something at a price THEY deem fair, not what you're holding out for.

The first major use of this was in The Great War. Fixed Wing Aircraft had been invented about a decade earlier by the Wrights, who envisioned the horror that aerial bombardment could cause, and barred any use of their invention by the military. Of course, the patent was no good oversees, so the German and British militaries were developing FWA for survelliance, communication, and even air-superiority.

At this point, to enter the war, the US army HAD to get FWA. If they'd been forced to use the open market and abide the patent laws, the Wright's could've held out for an astronomical sum- they probably would've agreed to license for $1 billion or so. (Which would've turned into $1 trillion by today, making their family the undisputed wealthiest people in the world).

Since then, other kinds of compulsory licensing regulations (for some classes of patents) have been created. But still, this case has many uses in anti-IP arguments.

Yeah, but the irony is in the ending

[Cobalt Jacket]

The story mentions this anyway, but the merger that ended the squabbles produced the Curtiss-Wright company, which was instrumental in aviation, particularly with World War II aircraft engines. I think they later became part of North American, which is now a unit of Boeing. Of course, Curtiss-Wright still exists, but in name only. The name was applied to a division that was purchased and spun off.

Playing in the Wright Archives

[reallocate]

I grew up in southwest Ohio near Dayton, so had access to a lot of Wright lore. Once upon a time, I had a rare opportunity to research the Wrights at the archives at Wright State University outside Dayton. Fascinating stuff. including their personal correspondence and glass-plate originals of the famous Kitty Hawk photography. After plowing through that material, I came to the same conclusion as you. Odd pair of fellows.

One especially compelling piece of material was the advertising pamphlet they prepared after returning to Dayton. A well done, color, presentation of several variations of their original biplane. The selling price, I believe, was $5000. They'd sell you flying lessons, too.

There's also a beer-drinking song penned by the brothers locked away in the archives. :-)

What makes explanation difficult

[NetWurkGuy]

is that we do not know how the Wrights would have fared without patent protection. They would still have had their knowledge, expertise and reputation to commercially exploit. Would that have brought them a fair return on the hard work and/or inspiration and/or money invested by them? What would they have gotten? What would be "fair"? Noone knows. Non-inventors also invest money and/or effort. Does IP put them at an unfair disadvantage to inventors?

I think the justifications for IP depend critically on the alledged benefits to society rather than to the inventors since noone really knows what is fair for the inventors.

Re:What makes explanation difficult

[reallocate]

Absent patents, there's no guarantee that the Wrights, or anyone else, would have gone to all that trouble. Patents are an incentive; lack of patents is a disincentive. The Wrights were aggressive in defending their patents, perhaps too aggressive, but they also licensed their technology.

Frankly, all this fuss about patents, copyrights, etc., on /. seems to come from folks who have just discovered that people are selfish. Corporations are using patent and copyright law to their own selfish, geedy advantage? Sure. Why would you expect otherwise. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, though.

Dumont X Wright controversy

[Anonymous Coward]

I am posting these message in response to many comments ( mostly by Brazilians ) regarding Santos Dumont and the Wright Brothers.

By reading the posts and some of the comments by both Brazilians and Americans, you can see how passionate this subject can be.

I am a Brazilian myself, and an aviation passionate, so let me pass on the information I have.

First, let's not miss the perspective of the discussion here. Though the article mentioned is quite interesting in showing the Wright Bros.' "I want to patent the airplane" position, their real enemies, at least in those early times, were in Europe.

Now, some information:

1) The Wright Bros. did not use a catapult in their first flight. They used some sort of monorail, that guided the plane down, so that it would help the plane gain speed and take off

2) The Wright Bros. plane was more advanced than Santos Dumont's plane, in a sense that it could remain longer in the air, and turn ( later, Santos Dumont and others developed planes that could turn as well ).

3) Santos Dumont did have ailerons in his first plane. However, they were built in order to keep the plane from turning ( or if you prefer, to mantain a balanced wing position ). Because he used his hands to steer the plane, he tied the aileron controls to his shoulders, and he would turn his body to compensate when the plane started to lower a wing.

4) Santos Dumont did build better planes later. His flight record was 20km with the Demoiselle, which could be considered the first ultralight plane ever built. He had full control of this plane, including turns, and he used it to visit his friends that lived just outside Paris, landing in grass fields.

5) Santos Dumont's first flight was a mere 60 meters. That's about 65 yards. So small that many people considered it a jump, not a real flight. It was on Sep 13, 1906. On his second flight, on Oct 23, 1906 that he reached the 250m mark. This is almost 3 years after the Wright Bros. First flight, and 1 year after their second flight. For his flights, Santos Dumont received a money prize, offered in Europe for the first man to fly a heavier than air machine that would take of and land through its own means.

6) The Wright Bros. experiences had been heard in Europe at that time. When invited to come to Paris and claim the prize, they refused. Their first flights were not accepted because they were not in public and because the prize stipulated that a plane had to take off by its own means. This was quite important at that time, since experiences with gliders had already shown that heavier than air machines could fly. However, it was hoped that one of the engine powered machines could not only sustain flight, but take off by its own means. The use of a rail or a catapult to help gain speed was not an accepted condition to claim the prize ( though it can be argued that if the Wright Bros. wanted to claim it, they could just add wheels to their plane ).

7) Once Santos Dumont gained his prize, he quickly became famous worldwide. He was received in the US by President Roosevelt ( I think ) where he received honors and medals. Other aviators started making progress in Europe. In 1908, finally, the Wright Bros. came to Europe. They astonished everyone by their vastly superior airplane, that could fly, turn and remain in the air for very long time. Slowly, people all over started to accept that they had indeed flied before everyone else. Brazilians however, still consider him the Father of Aviation, and he did was the first to take off by his own means. And the French, with their own native Blériot, give Santos Dumont a lot of credit as the pioneer of aviation.

8) All Santos Dumont inventions were left unpatented, In fact, the flight pioneers in Europe colaborated with each other, and showed their inventions in public. Santos Dumont is to the Wright Bros. what Linus is to Bill Gates. Even if he wasn't the first, he was the good guy.

9) On his book "What I saw, what we will see", Santos Dumont writes:

- "In the next year ( after his 1906 flight ) Furman did some flight that made him famous. He was the first to do a two-way flight. After him, came Blériot and only 2 years later did the Wright Bros. fly. It is true that they claim to have made other flights, but in hiding.
- I don't want to demerit the Wright Bros., because I admire them a lot. But no one can deny that only later they showed their machine, superior to ours, claiming it was a copy of something they had built earlier.
- What would Edison, Bell or Marconi say if after they presented in public their electric bulb, telephone or wireless telegraph another inventor came and presented something better, saying it was built before?
- To whom does humanity owes heavier than air flight navegation? To the Wright Bros. experiences, done in hiding ( as they claim themselves ) ... or to Farman, Blériot and myself, who did all our experiences in public and in face of the scientific comission?"

My conclusion is actually a request. Let's not forget what Santos Dumont did, nor forget to mention his quite relevant experiences. I was quite shocked when I was at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington to see that all that was said about him was that he flew balloons in Europe ( He was also the first to control a balloon in the air, in other words, he was the inventor of the dirigible ).

Besides, he has a passionant story, he created many things, none of them patented and he always defended not to do it.

And, of course, let's do the opposite in Brazil. Most people don't even know that the Wright Bros. existed. We learn at school that Santos Dumont was the first and only to fly ( at least when I learned ) and therefore, in Brazil, he is considered the Father of Aviation.

Cheers everyone,
A Brazilian guy!!!

Sure, right after the...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear apocalypse.

**AA won't be touched by this, unless...

[Crash Culligan]

Great! Then all we need is some sort of disaster that convinces everybody... that music and movies should be shared.

Does anyone else see a problem with this idea?

The sad thing is not how unlikely it is (it is, really), but that I can think of a case: if the people become so unwilling to pursue culture (music becomes unavailable except on specific devices at specific times, television can't be recorded and must be watched when scheduled, etc.) that they learn to do without, and sink into a sort of modern-day sociopathic barbarism.

Yes, it's unlikely, but we have the makings of such a disaster in play already. Some could say it's already started:

Then: William Shakespeare. Beethoven. René Descartes.

Now: Dean Koonz. Britney Spears. Dan Rather

Yes, feel free to argue that there still quality producers of content out there now. But how many of them can you name? I can't because I haven't been buying much music lately, and culture just seems irrelevant these days since few people actually seem to be paying attention to it...

Part of me actually wishes this would happen, except that I'd be stuck in the middle of it myself too.

On the existence of the American Continent

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, tell me, where is there a continent called "America"?

It is there, between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Dude, you REALLY have to brush up on your geography.

Saying there's no continent called America is like saying there's no continent called Eurasia.

tmegapscm

Re: It's always nice to listen to NPR...

[Anonymous Coward]

Each of the following statements holds some truth.

NPR has worthwhile content but at times is interested in pushing an agenda (liberal) over seeking out the actual truth.

FoxNews has worthwhile content but at times is interested in pushing an agenda (conservative) over seeking out the actual truth.

Slashdot has worthwhile content but at times is interested in pushing an agenda (patents are bad) over seeking out the actual truth.

I have never seen an actual discussion on /. concerning any of the incredibly interesting published reports that attempt to actually measure the effect of our patent system on innovation.

Until I do see such a legitimate discussion, I will appreciated these "patents are bad" threads for what they are.

Re: It's always nice to listen to NPR...

[gotvim]

But of course you'll never receive an honorable "score" from /. by making comments like this! Without they're approval, where can you ever expect to go in life?

Yeah, just replace "war" with "economy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Life will find a way! Jeff Goldblum.

Re:The more things change... A war will solve all.

[Tungbo]

I get it.

GWBush will solve all our problems here.
By start a war in the middle east that will culminate in the third world war, we'll solve the problem with our Patent processs. WHAT A RELIEVE.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. (_8(|)

Re: It's always nice to listen to NPR...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it about the right wing and squelching the voice of anybody who disagrees with them? I mean, you have lots of liberals who don't care much for Rush Limbaugh or the Fox News Channel or WorldNetDaily, but rarely do you ever see them actively campaigning to have them taken off the air or the Internet. But with the right, it's always "we've got to get NPR taken off the air" or "we've got to get NYPD Blue taken off the air" or "we've got to get Bill Maher taken off the air." And so on and so forth.

Don't these folks care for the First Amendment? And if they were as secure and confident in their beliefs as they claim, it seems to me that they would have nothing to fear by having contrary opinions voiced.

By the way, NPR is a lot more balanced than a lot of righties would have you believe.

Glory to facts!

[alienmole]

I wonder why only First-World Westerners are allowed any glories. Even former Pres. Clinton admitted to Santos-Dumont's merits. Your aggressiveness and arrogance shows you are a mostly insecure person.

I'm not the person you were responding to, but having been born and raised in Africa, I'd like to point out that for me, the issue is not a nationalistic desire to see my own countrymen "glorified" (what a primitive notion!), but rather that when facts are presented, that they be as accurate as possible. This whole thread started with the claim that Dumont was "the real inventor" of the airplane, which clearly is an untrue claim, and also quite clearly provocative, so it's no surprise that it provoked a response from others.

It is no "glory" to anybody if something is claimed for Dumont that is not true. If you wish to promote Dumont, do so with accurate facts and claims.

Re:Glory to facts!

[leandrod]

> This whole thread started with the claim that Dumont was "the real inventor" of the airplane, which clearly is an untrue claim, and also quite clearly provocative

Let us see.

Two groups independently invent something. One donates his findings to humankind, widely publicising it. The other tries to keep it secret, patents it, and try to hinder the general availability and use of its invention. BTW, the former created the aileron, the second tried to use flexible wings.

I said nothing about glory. But now that you mention it, who's the more glorious of the two?

Re:Glory to facts!

[alienmole]

I said nothing about glory.

You used the plural of "glory", in the following sentence:

I wonder why only First-World Westerners are allowed any glories.

And the point of my post was to say I don't care about your notion of glory or glories, I care about people misstating or overstating facts, and thus misleading others, presumably to make themselves feel better about their heritage, or whatever. You thus begin a pointless contest with the Americans, which I now realize is probably your real goal. You don't care about truth or facts, you care about some notion of nationalistic or even racial pride, and "glories".

I couldn't care less about which of Dumont or the Wrights are more glorious, since I consider that a primitive and highly subjective notion, but I don't think it's accurate to say that either of them are "the real inventor" or "invented the airplane". Anyone who examines history with even the slightest degree of objectivity will realize that these are simplistic and trivial claims.

Re:Glory to facts!

[leandrod]

> You used the plural of "glory", in the following sentence: I wonder why only First-World Westerners are allowed any glories.

Oh, yes. That phrase. Tip: it was intended to be ironic, because not only the poster I responded to defended the Wright brothers, he also dismissed Alberto Santos-Dumont works with derisive words. So I was questioning his exclusiveness to the point of debasing his opponents.

> You thus begin a pointless contest with the Americans, which I now realize is probably your real goal.

I do not think it was pointless. Have you noticed that in defending the Wright brothers all these people from USA not only overlook the moral and scientific implications of secrecy and patents, they also tried to deny all of other peoples contributions? Just to name one, present in 14-bis 1.906 flights, the aileron.

> I don't think it's accurate to say that either of them are "the real inventor" or "invented the airplane". Anyone who examines history with even the slightest degree of objectivity will realize that these are simplistic and trivial claims.

In another quote I said that, just like with the automobile, there was not one inventor to the airplane, but several. Now, trying to make either Mr Curtiss or the Wright brothers the sole inventor(s) is ridiculous and shows how much the USA as a whole is ignorant of the rest of the World and History.

So if the war is the answer to current IP problems

[2000 Britneys]

why don't we start war with Iraq and send all the lawyers to fight for America?

We would probably lose this war but we would at least get rid off the lawyer scum.

Amazon?

[youngsd]

I think it is interesting that in a story submission about the problems with patents there is a link to Amazon. Not only did they sue Barnes and Noble over the 1-Click patent, but we recently found out that they are still actively patenting all kinds of obvious stuff.

I would have much preferred the link point to the book on the Barnes and Noble site. I don't know for a fact that they aren't engaging in the same kind of ridiculous patenting, but as the target of the 1-Click suit, they get all of my on-line book and music business. I had been a regular customer of Amazon's before the suit, and can gladly report that I have never bought from them since.

-Steve

Re: It's always nice to listen to NPR...

[MsGeek]

This is not just going on in Louisiana. Rather, it is also going on right here in Los Angeles, CA. KXLU, a free-form College radio station based at Loyola Marymount University in Westchester, CA (near LAX) is battling KTLW, a religious broadcasting station with studios in Van Nuys and transmitter in Palmdale. KTLW has been basically drowning out KXLU's signal by installing repeater stations all over town.

Here's a great article about the full story: New Times LA: Holy Crap!

For good of all

[carlton]

So you say that they stopped bickering over copyrights because America needed planes for WW1? So how does that impact most of our problems today? Ok, here we go ... Bush decides the best way to oust Sadam is to play Britney Spears all over Iraq's loudspeakers, and that forces all of the music industry to realize they are holding back "American industry" and for national security reasons they give up their copyrights. See what I'm saying? Airplanes are far more important to our country, from the military uses to transportation, and most of the items under dispute now don't have any hard built-in value - our society is not going to suffer from the lack of their current use, and there is no broader use for them. So no, a tragedy or war will not cause the modern-day bickering over copyrights to cease.

Too bad Africa can't pay the pharma industry off

[SethJohnson]

There are bigger patent issues than who controls one-click shopping.

Currently 25 million Africans are infected with HIV. If a vaccine is found for AIDS, or even some kind of cure, it is unlikely these people will receive it. Patents held by the developer(s) of such drugs will prevent the mass distribution neccessary to avert the crisis going on in these dirt-poor countries. Sure, the costs of R & D for AIDS medicine are huge. If there wasn't a profit opportunity out there, most of this research wouldn't be performed in the first place. So it's quite a catch-22. Perhaps the World Bank can pay off the pharmaceutical company that develops a cure so the drug can be freely available. Or maybe the cure will only be available to wealthy San Franciscans.

Seth

not ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Once more with feeling! You can not patent an idea. You can only patent an object or a process.

Patents are not abstract. They are concrete.

Re: It's always nice to listen to NPR...

[gotvim]

What do those "Jesus Freaks" have to do with my argument? I agree with you, just because i'm not liberal and think NPR is a poor source of news doesn't mean I think they should be shut down. Freedom of speech is more important than mine or anyone elses opinion. That situation is silly, NPR f'd up and admitted to it. It should be over with now. This all started by me opening my mouth and letting out my opinion towards NPR. If I can look past their descrepencies, I could only hope that you would not group people with a moderate or less-liberal view than your own with those of extreme conservatism. Thanks

As if AIDS and cancer aren't catastrophic enough..

[bani]

..yet we STILL have unethical companies burdening the medical system with ridiculous and frivolous patents, thus putting the entire population at grave risk.

if a patent causes the loss of life, it's a bad patent and MUST be rejected if the patent system is ever to regain even a sliver of respectability.

Re:Too bad Africa can't pay the pharma industry of

[Chris Johnson]

I'd say it's also a major problem that there's less incentive to produce a cure than there is to produce 'treatments' that postpone death without curing. Healthy people don't buy more drugs. As long as the pharmaceutical industry is committed to profit above all else, and does not value human life in its own right, it will ACTIVELY avoid even looking for solutions that are 'too effective', should any exist.

The R&D doesn't even WANT to find a cure- a cure would mean people would use it and then stop buying medicine. That is every bit as large of a problem. It would be as if your family doctor carefully avoided healing you, preferring to keep you in a state of precarious health and expensively visiting him all the time. The difference is, doctors can be sued for malpractice. Pharmaceutical corporations cannot be sued for malpractice- under the current rules of capitalization they are required to maximize profit, even though they pursue a medical function.

please.

[Anonymous Coward]

"heaver-than-air-flight"

Learn how to proofread, you monkeys.

Patents Have Benefits too...

[zungu]

Software Patents have benefits that will be realized in the long run. Let's take Acrobat as an example. A number of patents cover the Acrobat. Without patents all these ideas would be hid as a trade-secret by Adobe. Patents force companies to make their ideas public in return for 20 years of protection. That is the simple deal. What is the use of this? Well competitors can start improving the patented product right away. Believe me, no other method will make this companies expose their trade secrets. Also, nature of software a compiled product makes it difficult for a competitior to reverse engineer a product. One more reason that we need software patents.

Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn.

vaccines are a bit different...

[SethJohnson]

I have heard this argument before, and it makes a lot of sense. Chris Rock even offers it in his HBO special. But I'm not entirely convinced there isn't incentive to find a vaccine. The reason I am suspicious is because there is plenty of competition in providing medicines that 'treat' an ongoing illness. The profit opportunity here is limited by distribution, advertizing, effectiveness, etc compared to competing treatments. But a vaccine... you've immediately got an audience of > 5 billion people. And you'll keep selling that vaccine to new humans until there is no more aids. That will be several generations.

Research for a cure is more prone to your argument. The target market is anyone who gets infected, which is the same market the treatments are soliciting. The profit models are one injection vs. a subscription for the remainder of the patient's life...

Re:As if AIDS and cancer aren't catastrophic enoug

[geekee]

Without patents there would be no research into new drugs, and therefore, a far greater loss of life. You can't afford to spend a decade and a millions of dollars on research without some protection against reverse engineering by your competitors.

There is only one small problem...

[TygerFish]

The problem with all of this, as at least one poster pointed out already, is that it was a different world back then. The government was more concerned with the welfare of a large entity called 'the Nation' and less with the interests of whichever corporation(s) had the most money for lobbyists.

The article that the slashdot piece points to reveals a glaring contrast between then and now. At the opening of the first world war, the government realized that the nation would require aircraft to fight a modern war and it stepped in to say that the perceived economic interests of the Wright family occupied a back seat to national security. By contrast, Microsoft has spent much of a decade demonstrating that the security standards of computer systems used by government and industry could be such that fifteen-year-olds could enter or break them and have this fact pass with little comment and few consequences.

Today, we live in a media gestalt in which political contributions for advertising mean election and reelection for politicians, irrespective of what or whom their acts as politicians represent. That simply wasn't true in the time of the Wright/Curtis conflict and its resolution.

Basically, don't look for hope here.

But you can't have your tea...either

[ackthpt]

Ridiculous trademark stops Rooibus Tea at the border, since someone (reads like a squatter, to me) retistered an indigenous tea bush name.

the owner of the trademark is not willing to let the name go either: "The name Rooibos was totally unknown in the US in 1992. No-one was aware of Rooibos tea or the benefits that went with it," says Virginia Burke-Watkins, who is based in Dallas.

Funny, I don't think she's exactly done anything for the name, either. The first I heard of it was on the BBC.

The good of it, govenments will have to come together to keep a database of indigenous names and prevent their trademarking.

Wright's pulled a Gates.

[srelan]

From what I understand from reading a lot on the subject of the Wright brothers they were very patent/business savvy like our buddy Bill Gates (and Edison) As opposed to simple visionary engineering types who made a giant discovery. Their wing design breakthrough was actually attributed to a Frenchman (even though they were the first to fly it successfully), and much of their design elements were taken (some suspiciously) from the myriad of other air flight pioneers who were all rushing for the same goal. There was a law suit and big story a long time ago about a North Carolinian who claimed the Wright's were working with him but secretly stole his ideas and rushed to Kitty Hawk to make the historic test flight and were savvy enough with Patent office issues to get the first claim. If presented today, it probably wouldn't have held up based on these intellectual property theft issues. So, the moral? Just like the other big successful "inventors" and entrepeneurs, most were just better and the legal issues, not invention.

Why do you insist ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows who invented the airplane
http://educate.si.edu/scitech/impacto/graphic/avia tion/alberto.html

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these things!

[Anonymous Coward]

har har har

Richard Pearse's prior art

[NTDaley]

As it turns out there would have been prior art against them:
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pear se1.htm l

Re:Richard Pearse's prior art

[NTDaley]

Oops that should be http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.htm l

Re:Richard Pearse's prior art (Gaaah!)

[NTDaley]

Ok wierdness with pasting the URL.
There should be no space between 'htm' and 'l'.

But the Wright Bros were NOT the first to fly!!!

[glamb]

As much as it hurts me to say it, a New Zealander, Richard Pearse, actually flew about 9 months before the Wright Brothers. http://www.auckland-airport.co.nz/aviate.html
No one knows about it because the Wright Brothers had the benefit of the US media. Richard Pearse had a couple of sheep.

On patents

[richieb]

I stumbled upon this article on patents and drug companies from the New Republic. Take a look.

Last Post!

[alpg]

So as your consumer electronics adviser, I am advising you to donate your
current VCR to a grate resident, who will laugh sardonically and hurl it
into a dumpster. Then I want you to go out and purchase a vast array of
8-millimeter video equipment. ... OK! Got everything? Well, *too bad, sucker*, because while you were
gone the electronics industry came up with an even newer format that makes
your 8-millimeter VCR look as technologically advanced as toenail dirt.
This format is called "3.5 hectare" and it will not be made available until
it is outmoded, sometime early next week, by a format called "Elroy", so
*order yours now*.
-- Dave Barry, "No Surrender in the Electronics Revolution"

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...