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...

[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)

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: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.

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: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!

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.

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: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: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

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: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.