Page:Open Source Philosophy and the Dawn of Aviation.pdf/21

Open Source Philosophy and the Dawn of Aviation The Patent war

In 1908, the brothers warned Glenn Curtiss not to infringe their patent by profiting from flying or selling aircraft that used ailerons (Santos-Dumont had already employed ailerons in its 14-bis configuration that flew in November 1906). Curtiss refused to pay license fees to the Wrights and sold a plane to the Aeronautic Society of New York, in 1909. The Wrights filed a lawsuit, beginning years of long legal conflict. They also sued foreign aviators who flew at the United States exhibitions. The brothers’ licensed European companies, which owned foreign patents the Wrights had received, sued manufacturers in their countries. The European lawsuits were only partly suecessful. Despite a pro-Wright ruling in France, legal maneuvering dragged on until the patent expired in 1917. A German court ruled the patent invalid due to prior disclosure in speeches by Wilbur Wright in 1901 and Octave Chanute in 1903. The Wrights made agreements with some USS. groups that sponsored air shows and collected license fees from them. They won their initial case against Curtiss in February 1913, but the decision was appealed.

From 1910 until his death from typhoid fever in 1912, Wilbur took the leading role in the patent struggle, traveling incessantly to consult with lawyers and to testify in what he felt was a moral cause, particularly against Curtiss, who was creating a large company to manufacture aircraft. The Wrights' worry with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircrafts were considered inferior to those made by other companies in Europe. Orville and Katharine Wright believed Curtiss was partially responsible for Wilbur’s premature death, which occurred in the wake of his exhausting travels and the stress of the legal battle.

The lawsuits against Americans companies that were trying to manufacture airplanes caused a huge setback to the North American aerospace industry. In the beginning of World War I the production of aircraft in Europe largely surpassed that in America; the American pilots in the battlefield of that period were sitting in more advanced European fighters.

In January 1914, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in favor of the Wrights against Curtiss, whose company continued to avoid penalties through legal tactics and because Orville was planning to sell the Wright company and did not follow-up the legal victory. In 1917, with World ‘War I underway, the U.S. goverment stepped in to supervise a cross-licensing organization in which member companies paid a blanket fee for using Aviation patents, including the original and subsequent from Wright. The Wright-Martin (successor to the Wright Company) and the Curtiss Companies (which held a number of its own patents) each received a US$ 2 million payment. The patent war ended, although side issues lingered in the courts until the 1920s. In a twist of irony, the Wright ‘Aeronautical company (another successor) and the Curtiss Airplane Company merged in 1929 to form the Curtiss-Wright corporation, which remains in business today producing high-technology components for the aerospace industry.

The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded as heroes. Critics said the brothers were greedy and unfair. Supporters said the brothers were protecting their interests and were justified in expecting fair compensation for secrets of their invention. The brothers long friendship with Octave Chanute collapsed after he publicly criticized their actions.

Demoiselle and Farman airplanes in the United States

The Demoiselle took part in some air shows in the United States (Fig. 16) in early 1910s. Most of the planes displayed in those events were French. They contributed to the development of the North American Aviation. When William Boeing witnessed an air show in 1910, where Farman airplanes played

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, Vol.4, No 3, pp. 355-379, Jul.-Sep., 2012 375