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

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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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."

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.

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?

[argStyopa]

MODERATION: +1 erudite.

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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!

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.

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

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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).

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.)

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)

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.

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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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

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.

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!

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: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

[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: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".

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....

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: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".

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: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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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: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

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.

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: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: 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.

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 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.

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.

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. :-)

**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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

[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: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?

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.

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.

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: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

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.

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: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.

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.

On patents

[richieb]

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