> The Wrights had earlier demanded and gotten 20% royalties, and had a history of liberally and repeatedly suing other aircraft manufacturers. Because all the

> The Wrights had earlier demanded and gotten 20% royalties, and had a history of liberally and repeatedly suing other aircraft manufacturers. Because all the manufacturers were using the technology they had invented, the very technology that made controlled heavier-than-air flight possible at a time when people were starting to doubt that it was possible. Many chose to fight the patent, but courts time and again found it to be valid and infringed. The Wrights may have gotten a bad rap for being litigious, but only because many like Curtiss tied them up in court for years to avoid paying royalties on technology they clearly owed. > It is also pretty clear, despite the paper's claims, that the leaders in manufacturing and innovation were in Europe. Not so sure about that. Most historical accounts still show America as being more innovative than Europe. Things like the seaplane were invented by Curtis in America. >... hard to see any evidence that such patents have promoted the arts and sciences in any way. There are a number of studies showing how patents help the arts and sciences. For instances, there are studies showing a direct increase in r&d expenditures and increase in strength of IP laws. Patents have been shown to increase the chance of finding from VCs and other sources. This has also been shown to apply to the tech and computer industries. It may be hard to see because few think of the huge role money plays in the vast majority of innovation.