Comment Re:Scope of Patent Rights? (Score 1) 109
Without a doubt, the Wright brothers rightly deserve their place in history of aviation. But, had they won their suit against Glenn Hammond Curtiss and other aviators, we probably wouldn't have the diversity nor innovations that has propelled the development of aerospace technology as we know it today.
The suit hinged on their patent for mechanically warping the wing which allowed the pilot to control the longitudinal axis in flight. In contrast, Curtiss, believing that wing-warping was inefficient and inevitably would be unpractical for larger airplanes to come, had designed the aileron which achieved the same effect by hinged sections that moved up or down.
To block Curtiss and other competitors, they attempted to extend the patent's coverage, by demanding royalties even though they had employed other mechanical means such as ailerons. Their reasoning was that the patent covered the principle of altering a wing's profile to effect a roll.
In effect, they wanted to enforce the right to collect on anything that allows control input to the wings. That way anyone, regardless of the method of changing the wing's profile, was in effect infringing on their patent. This more than anything else put a damper on development in the US for the 8 years that it took for the courts to deny that broad claim. Meanwhile, development continued unabated in other countries, even though the Wright brothers tried to fight that as well.
As the courts saw it, the Wright brothers' patent was about twisting the wing, resulting in a desired effect of natural law, and not about causation. Can you imagine the mechanical and technological requirements necessary to bank a 747 by twisting it's wings? Not impossible, but unlikely.
Now jump forward about 9 decades and once again, we see debates about the use of some kind of "exclusive" concept. Patent laws do need reform, they were founded on the needs of the industrial revolution which is generally capital and labor intensive with regards to infrastructure and investments. But now, all it takes is a guy and a computer, and if he can get to the patent office first, he can take a free ride on the backs of others. Almost everyday, we hear about more nonsense that have nothing to do with revolutionizing and/or sustaining a digital world.
No need to repeat the Apple story, but didn't they almost go out of business suing clone makers? Now they want to sue makers of IMac look alikes, in which the only passing resemblance is a colorful translucent case.
If they win, maybe the company that made the first off-white case should jump on that gravy train. And maybe, I should go out and patent my wooden case, keyboard and flat panel monitor. That way if someone designs a wooden shell/housing for a mouse or any other hardware, I'll get a piece of that action!!!
The suit hinged on their patent for mechanically warping the wing which allowed the pilot to control the longitudinal axis in flight. In contrast, Curtiss, believing that wing-warping was inefficient and inevitably would be unpractical for larger airplanes to come, had designed the aileron which achieved the same effect by hinged sections that moved up or down.
To block Curtiss and other competitors, they attempted to extend the patent's coverage, by demanding royalties even though they had employed other mechanical means such as ailerons. Their reasoning was that the patent covered the principle of altering a wing's profile to effect a roll.
In effect, they wanted to enforce the right to collect on anything that allows control input to the wings. That way anyone, regardless of the method of changing the wing's profile, was in effect infringing on their patent. This more than anything else put a damper on development in the US for the 8 years that it took for the courts to deny that broad claim. Meanwhile, development continued unabated in other countries, even though the Wright brothers tried to fight that as well.
As the courts saw it, the Wright brothers' patent was about twisting the wing, resulting in a desired effect of natural law, and not about causation. Can you imagine the mechanical and technological requirements necessary to bank a 747 by twisting it's wings? Not impossible, but unlikely.
Now jump forward about 9 decades and once again, we see debates about the use of some kind of "exclusive" concept. Patent laws do need reform, they were founded on the needs of the industrial revolution which is generally capital and labor intensive with regards to infrastructure and investments. But now, all it takes is a guy and a computer, and if he can get to the patent office first, he can take a free ride on the backs of others. Almost everyday, we hear about more nonsense that have nothing to do with revolutionizing and/or sustaining a digital world.
No need to repeat the Apple story, but didn't they almost go out of business suing clone makers? Now they want to sue makers of IMac look alikes, in which the only passing resemblance is a colorful translucent case.
If they win, maybe the company that made the first off-white case should jump on that gravy train. And maybe, I should go out and patent my wooden case, keyboard and flat panel monitor. That way if someone designs a wooden shell/housing for a mouse or any other hardware, I'll get a piece of that action!!!
