Question

Wright brothers (Wilbur Wright, 1867-1912, and Orville Wright, 1871-1948) invented the world’s first successful motorized, heavier-than-air plane in 1903. They are considered national heroes of the United States of America. Besides their great scientific and engineering achievements, Wright brothers were also good businessmen and they knew exactly how to protect their rights and interests. Their first (and probably the most important) U.S. patent did not claim invention of an airplane, but a general method of aerodynamic control that applied to not only their airplanes, but almost all the airplanes created after them. (So far this is still pretty much the only control method for heavier-than-air aircrafts.) This essentially means all the followers have to pay Wright brothers before they are allowed to produce their own airplane designs.

(1) Do you think Wright brothers’ claim of patent protection legitimate and reasonable?

(2) From the perspective of intellectual property protection, what do you think is the reason that in World War I, airplanes designed by Americans were worse than those by French?

(3) Learning from Wright brothers’ example, discuss why some intellectual products should be protected and some should not. Your discussion may involve the relation between morality and law.

Answer 1

1. As it is mention in this paragraph that wright brothers are not only good at invention but also good businessmen. one can find their technique of protecting their right. they have not to claim for the invention of the airplane as they know it very well that if they claim that the very next time anyone can change the model and claim a patent for that which is very obvious. but one thing is sure that whatever the invention one scientist will do, they have to use the general method of aerodynamic control that applied to not only their airplanes but almost all the airplanes created after them. so cleverly they claim a patent for the method so that they will get the royalty from a company that wants to make an airplane. Again they also know it very well that this type of travel mode will be used for commercial purpose so there is nothing harmful to get a royalty from a company that is going to earn a billion from this method. so their claim of patent protection legitimate and reasonable.

2.   Developments in aviation in the United States lagged far behind those in Europe. A battle over patent infringement between Orville Wright and Glenn Curtiss, especially, held back technological development in the United States, as did a limited market for airplanes. The Planes are only affordable for rich and governments for military purposes. France and other countries' air corps grew rapidly after Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination in Sarajevo. French aircraft could scout enemy positions, pursue enemy fighters, and bomb enemy positions, types of airplanes that did not exist before the war.

When the United States entered the war in April of 1917 it had about 200 airplanes, which a contemporary described as mostly training aircraft that were “nearly all obsolescent,” and less no. of pilots or mechanics. On the other hand, French forces lost nearly 300 airplanes to combat and accidents in April 1917 alone. So the requirement of 4,500 airplanes by 1918 and the French proposal became the basis for the American military aviation program. The U.S. government quickly ended the ongoing patent battle between the Wright and Curtiss corporate interests, creating a patent pool that licensed existing patents to manufacturers and allocated royalties to patent owners according to a set percentage. It also established the Aircraft Production Board to provide advice to the Signal Corps on aviation development and production.

3. Learning from Wright brother's patent issue we can come to the conclusion that having a patent is good for self-recognition protection when it comes to protecting humanity in terms of any vaccine or any other human serving invention should not be patent protected as the required people may or may not have the capacity to pay or it is not possible for the whole world to pay patent for a vaccine or any welfare invention. so welfare invention should not be patent protected.

there are some other precious and harmful inventions are there which are dangerous to human civilization like arms and ammunition, nuclear invention, these are very restricted and limited use invention so it needs to be IPR protected with high security.