Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

siarchives.si.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

#31

Post by neutralid »

rst wrote: post #19
demarq wrote: post #14

" I wish to avail myself of all that is already known and then if possible add my mite to help on the future workers who will attain final success. " I think this also says a lot about Intellectual Property right here. Just think of how todays innovation is hindered with NDAs and patent trolls.

The Wrights might not be the best precedent to cite here -- after they got a patent on the airplane, they wouldn't license for years, until government pressure broke the logjam during World War I. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

Early on, Langley (and the Smithsonian Institute), who opposed the Wright brothers, was funded by the military early on failed flights whereas the Wright brothers were unable to secure funding even though they had a working prototype. Considering such opposition, it seems only natural that they would be careful about the licensing of their patents. Wright brothers certainly weren't patent trolls, since trolls typically don't even have a working prototype and are uninterested in commercializing the technology.

Re: Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

#32

Post by lordvon »

neutralid wrote: post #31
rst wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wrights might not be the best precedent to cite here -- after they got a patent on the airplane, they wouldn't license for years, until government pressure broke the logjam during World War I. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

Early on, Langley (and the Smithsonian Institute), who opposed the Wright brothers, was funded by the military early on failed flights whereas the Wright brothers were unable to secure funding even though they had a working prototype. Considering such opposition, it seems only natural that they would be careful about the licensing of their patents. Wright brothers certainly weren't patent trolls, since trolls typical…

I may be mistaken, but I don't think they ever sought "funding". In fact, they had been offered this by Octave Chanute but declined because they did not want to quit their regular business of selling bicycles. They actually tried to sell units of their fully-developed machine.

Re: Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

#33

Post by [deleted] »

neutralid wrote: post #31
rst wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wrights might not be the best precedent to cite here -- after they got a patent on the airplane, they wouldn't license for years, until government pressure broke the logjam during World War I. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

Early on, Langley (and the Smithsonian Institute), who opposed the Wright brothers, was funded by the military early on failed flights whereas the Wright brothers were unable to secure funding even though they had a working prototype. Considering such opposition, it seems only natural that they would be careful about the licensing of their patents. Wright brothers certainly weren't patent trolls, since trolls typical…

[deleted]

Re: Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

#34

Post by [deleted] »

finolex2 wrote: post #8

Wilbur Wright actually hoped to enroll at Yale and become a teacher, for which he enrolled in college prep courses. All that changed when he suffered a brutal injury during an ice hockey game, following which he retreated into a long depression and eventually opened a bicycle shop in 1992.

[deleted]

Re: Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

#35

Post by neutralid »

lordvon wrote: post #32
neutralid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early on, Langley (and the Smithsonian Institute), who opposed the Wright brothers, was funded by the military early on failed flights whereas the Wright brothers were unable to secure funding even though they had a working prototype. Considering such opposition, it seems only natural that they would be careful about the licensing of their patents. Wright brothers certainly weren't patent trolls, since trolls typical…

I may be mistaken, but I don't think they ever sought "funding". In fact, they had been offered this by Octave Chanute but declined because they did not want to quit their regular business of selling bicycles. They actually tried to sell units of their fully-developed machine.

http://wifcon.com/anal/analwright.htm

Re: Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

#36

Post by lordvon »

neutralid wrote: post #35
lordvon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think they ever sought "funding". In fact, they had been offered this by Octave Chanute but declined because they did not want to quit their regular business of selling bicycles. They actually tried to sell units of their fully-developed machine.

http://wifcon.com/anal/analwright.htm

What was the point of that link? It shows that even the government assumed they were asking for funding but they were trying to sell fully-developed machines, as I said.

Re: Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

#37

Post by neutralid »

lordvon wrote: post #36
neutralid wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://wifcon.com/anal/analwright.htm

What was the point of that link? It shows that even the government assumed they were asking for funding but they were trying to sell fully-developed machines, as I said.

> If the latter features are of interest to our Government, we shall be pleased to take up the matter either on a basis of providing machines of agreed specification, at a contract price, or, of furnishing all the scientific and practical information we have accumulated in these years of experience, together with a license to use our patents; thus putting the Government in a position to operate on its own account.

I took this to mean that they were inquiring whether the government would be interested in a system manufactured according to specifications agreed to by both parties (or just providing the IP according to a license agreement), not necessarily for a pre-existing system. Necessary modifications to a system do not make for a fully developed machine.

If you're implying that the Wright brothers are not looking for R&D funding like Langley, I agree. They made that explicit in a later letter to the government. It's too bad that the government gave funding to Langley yet somehow rejected contracts to complete a working system with the Wright brothers, despite their initial successes.

Re: Wilbur Wright's Letter to the Smithsonian (1899)

#38

Post by lordvon »

neutralid wrote: post #37
lordvon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the point of that link? It shows that even the government assumed they were asking for funding but they were trying to sell fully-developed machines, as I said.

> If the latter features are of interest to our Government, we shall be pleased to take up the matter either on a basis of providing machines of agreed specification, at a contract price, or, of furnishing all the scientific and practical information we have accumulated in these years of experience, together with a license to use our patents; thus putting the Government in a position to operate on its own account. I…

I was not implying they were not looking for funding, I explicitly stated so. They were principally interested in selling units, or, as in your cited text, the means to build them. Again this is clearly not funding for development. The qualitative difference is that, unlike contemporaries, the Wrights were out to provide what they had (or were easily capable of), not what they were yet to have if given money.
Post reply on HN