3 ms·
Thing is, as the courts and the USPTO found time and again, pretty much all subsequent solutions to that problem were non-significant variations of the Wrights'
by throwawaykf05 13y ago
Thing is, as the courts and the USPTO found time and again, pretty much all subsequent solutions to that problem were non-significant variations of the Wrights' patent. Even Curtiss' own aileron patent was invalidated because the Wright patent was prior art.
- jwdunne 13y agoWhich is a shame because I don't see ailerons as a non-significant variation? Wing warping is as it says, which is pretty scary and went out fashion pretty quickly because of high rates of structural failure. Ailerons took its place because of this. When you're yay high in the sky, which sounds safer? The difference is pretty significant. I'm not saying what you say isn't true but it is pretty bizarre. That said the Wright Bros patent covered a wide area.