piedmont727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 45 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 7271 times:
so with airbus making "sharkelets" for the a320s it got me thinking isnt it just copying boeing and aviation partners winglet design? if so wouldnt airbus be in trouble over the copy of winglets? or did airbus make the design first but boeing mass-equip them before airbus ? and last is there a actual diffrence beetween the sharklet and winglet besides the airplanes they fit on?
LimaFoxTango From Antigua and Barbuda, joined Jun 2004, 693 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7012 times:
I highly doubt Boeing "invented" the winglet, so Airbus is not copying anything. Yes they both look similar that's because they serve the same purpose. I'm sure there's differences in the design on both winglets, but at the end of the day, both are made to perform the same duty. "Sharklet" is just a marketing gimmick by Airbus, no?
You are said to be a good pilot when your take-off's equal your landings.
The Sharket can be seen as a 'next generation' type of blended winglet with a more refined aerodynamic shape. Superficially they look similar, but the improvement is in the detail.
In fact API is not suing Airbus; Airbus was suing API for a legal declaration that the API patent is invalid and that the Sharklet does not infringe the API patent. The API blended winglet patent has now been held substantially invalid (claim 1 - the broadest claim was revoked by the US patent office in re-examination). Whats left of the patent is very narrowly defined so obviously not much of a risk to anyone.
Winglets have been around for a very long time; improvements and refinements of winglets continue to be interesting for airframers. A fraction of a drag count improvement is more important these days than it was say 10 years ago given fuel prices.
Sharklet a marketing gimmick? Not quite. It has apparently shown improved drag characteristics as well as better low-speed handling. Airlines tend not to buy gimmicks - it's all about performance.
It is all in understanding each others formulation. You can of course try to patent everything between heaven and earth.
In the old days you had to show that a patent was new before you got it accepted.
Today you get the patent and than you find out later if it will hold.
What is left in your argument is, that you can not patent a winglet as covering all winglets, but just a certain design.
Than you can endless discuss if one design will be sufficiently different from the other to hold as a patent.
hb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, RR: 32 Reply 6, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6692 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5): It is all in understanding each others formulation. You can of course try to patent everything between heaven and earth.
In the old days you had to show that a patent was new before you got it accepted.
Today you get the patent and than you find out later if it will hold.
What is left in your argument is, that you can not patent a winglet as covering all winglets, but just a certain design.
Than you can endless discuss if one design will be sufficiently different from the other to hold as a patent.
We can all agree that winglets are nothing new.
It may be helpful to familiarize yourself with some patent law and in particular the requirements for getting a patent granted.
Also, folk-myths about patenting in the old days etc, are meaningless. I would suggest reading some proper commentary on the current use of the patent system (avoiding the hysteria over software patents and trolls). Google should help here.
Current winglet patents generally cover improvements and modifications. As I said in my post, the details are critical.
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6655 times:
Quoting hb88 (Reply 4): Sharklet a marketing gimmick? Not quite. It has apparently shown improved drag characteristics as well as better low-speed handling. Airlines tend not to buy gimmicks - it's all about performance.
No one is saying that sharklets themselves are a marketing gimmick- rather the name is. Airbus is only using the sharklet name because the term blended winglet (which you yourself admit earlier in the post the sharklet is) is associated with the 737.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6620 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting LimaFoxTango (Reply 1): I highly doubt Boeing "invented" the winglet, so Airbus is not copying anything.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 3): It can not be a patent issue as Boeing is not the first to use them.
That just shows your lack of understanding of patent law. It's not the winglet itself that's patented. You cannot simply patent a winglet as a whole, but you patent that specific winglet design which makes that particular winglet novel, inventive/innovative, non-obvious and useful. Neither Boeing nor AviationPartners invented the winglet; that much is true. But that doesn't make AviationPartner's patented blended winglet invalid.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5): What is left in your argument is, that you can not patent a winglet as covering all winglets, but just a certain design.
That's essentially how patents work. Patents cover a very, very specific area. They are never general.
Quoting hb88 (Reply 6): It may be helpful to familiarize yourself with some patent law and in particular the requirements for getting a patent granted.
I am running my own firm I have developed new things and hold patents.
I got my first patent more than forty years ago and the last up to now last year.
That is my own view on patents and how they hold.
It has nothing to do with hysterics but comes from the experience of holding a patent and trying to defend it.
And it is not an urban myth that the system has changed, to the better or worse is open to discussion.
817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1404 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6528 times:
While the Winglets used on the 737 look similar to the sharklets on the A320, they aren't an exact carbon copy. The most notable differences that ive seen between them is the position of the lights (father apart compared to the 737 winglet) and an extended leading edge (on the sharklet it appears thicker). This can be shown below:
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6530 times:
Quoting Polot (Reply 7): No one is saying that sharklets themselves are a marketing gimmick- rather the name is. Airbus is only using the sharklet name because the term blended winglet (which you yourself admit earlier in the post the sharklet is) is associated with the 737.
Most of this names are sales orientated.
All the above are wing tip fences. Not a nice name for an advertisement. Blended winglet sounds already much nicer.
I like the sharklet name what is the problem with it?
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6513 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 11): I like the sharklet name what is the problem with it?
Nothing. There are some people, however, who seem to think that because they are called a sharklets that they are fundamentally different from blended winglets when they are not, although all that does is make things amusing around here sometimes.
futureorthopod From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 52 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6086 times:
Quoting piedmont727 (Thread starter): For aviation enthusiasts you seem remarkably ill-informed (or simply unable to do some basic technical background research).
The Sharket can be seen as a 'next generation' type of blended winglet with a more refined aerodynamic shape. Superficially they look similar, but the improvement is in the detail.
In fact API is not suing Airbus; Airbus was suing API for a legal declaration that the API patent is invalid and that the Sharklet does not infringe the API patent. The API blended winglet patent has now been held substantially invalid (claim 1 - the broadest claim was revoked by the US patent office in re-examination). Whats left of the patent is very narrowly defined so obviously not much of a risk to anyone.
Winglets have been around for a very long time; improvements and refinements of winglets continue to be interesting for airframers. A fraction of a drag count improvement is more important these days than it was say 10 years ago given fuel prices.
Sharklet a marketing gimmick? Not quite. It has apparently shown improved drag characteristics as well as better low-speed handling. Airlines tend not to buy gimmicks - it's all about performance.
jumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3934 times:
pardon me for being thick but what is the difference between two airplane manufacturers both putting wings on their planes and both putting winglets/sharklets on their wings? Should the Wright brothers [or other early aviator] be suing any subsequent airplane builder who chose to use similar wings to theirs?
I can't wait for the howls of derision from you lawyers and aviation experts, but bring it on
Seriously though I am intrigued where the law differs to allow manufacturers to largely follow the same designs but for little tweaks there may be protection for the person who first thought of it.
Actually, Blended Winglets is not associated with the 737 per say. Aviation Partners Inc. (API) owns the trademark of "Blended Winglet", hence the 737, 757 and 767 all have Blended Winglets which are made by Aviation Partners Boeing (APB).
Airbus had to name there in house winglet something, hence "sharklets". Had Airbus chose to use the API Blended Winglets they tested back in 2009, they would have been called blended winglets.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2108 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 15): Seriously though I am intrigued where the law differs to allow manufacturers to largely follow the same designs but for little tweaks there may be protection for the person who first thought of it.
Patent law is largely universal. What may essentially be "the same designs" to the untrained eye all have subtle but significant differences in the design which allow them to work differently. By way of example, Ferpe's thread Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops) shows the different approaches both manufacturers use to design their wings, each of which could have hundreds of different patents attached.
Patents are very specific and each patent relates to a specific element of a specific design only. They are never general. You cannot patent a new computer, but if you invented certain computer components which are inventive/innovative, novel, non-obvious and useful, then it might be covered by a valid patent. Each piece of new technology or new design could potentially have hundreds or thousands of patents attached. Patents are also limited in duration and cannot be renewed.
As for winglets v sharklets, just because they look the same and perform the same function doesn't mean that they were designed the same way. They could both individually be patentable. I'm not a technically minded person so I wouldn't be able to go into any more detail than that.
hb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, RR: 32 Reply 20, posted (2 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 10): Though ill agree that Sharklets is a ridiculous name for them... I think that name should be used for the A350 winglets instead.
The A350 winglet *is* called a "shark"
Sharklet? You don't like it? It's simply branding and differentiates the Airbus winglet in the market. Judging from the order book and the media handling, this works just fine. I think it's a little corny, but no big deal.
Quoting Polot (Reply 12): Nothing. There are some people, however, who seem to think that because they are called a sharklets that they are fundamentally different from blended winglets when they are not, although all that does is make things amusing around here sometimes.
Um, they are. At least the market and the patent office think so. "Sharklet" is a brand name. The differences are technical - which is covered by a patent. Read the available technical literature - it's really interesting. I'd suggest starting with unblended winglets and working your way through the aerodynamic development of blended winglets (radial blend - ie API) to the Sharklet (discontinuous inflection in the blend region). Visual similarities are irrelevant, it's all in the shape. Read the patents or have a look at an API winglet and a Sharklet in the fore-to-aft direction. You can see the blend difference if you look carefully. If you want to really learn about the history of blended winglets, have a look at the API patent file. You can download it from the US patent office.
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 15): pardon me for being thick but what is the difference between two airplane manufacturers both putting wings on their planes and both putting winglets/sharklets on their wings? Should the Wright brothers [or other early aviator] be suing any subsequent airplane builder who chose to use similar wings to theirs?
I can't wait for the howls of derision from you lawyers and aviation experts, but bring it on
Seriously though I am intrigued where the law differs to allow manufacturers to largely follow the same designs but for little tweaks there may be protection for the person who first thought of it.
The difference? Let's say Handley Page and Airbus? I think Handley Page patented the first winglet. You are saying they are no different either in performance or value? I don't quite understand your question. It's all about the difference between new and old proprietary technology and who owns it. Your assessment of what you think is the same design simply isn't how the law or technology view the situation. The concepts "similar" or "same" are also not relevant, what is relevant is how the law of patent infringement is applied. This is based on a mix of legal doctrine and technical analysis.
As for protection for the first person who invents something, sure why not. That's what the patent system is based on. Otherwise I assume you're ok with someone copying B787 technology at zero cost (and of course benefiting from all the billions of R&D investment) and selling it in competition with Boeing?
hb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, RR: 32 Reply 22, posted (2 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1933 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 18): Patent law is largely universal. What may essentially be "the same designs" to the untrained eye all have subtle but significant differences in the design which allow them to work differently. By way of example, Ferpe's thread Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops) shows the different approaches both manufacturers use to design their wings, each of which could have hundreds of different patents attached.
Thanks for the link. An excellent technical discussion.
Thanks for the links, for some reason I have not read these patent applications but I have read the Boeing one for the raked tip.
The applications are quite different, the API one does the argumentation purely in the subsonic domain ie in classical subsonic aerodynamics and the claims are also in this domain. It surprises me that they are not in the all important transonic cruise condition of a modern airliner, in contrast the Airbus one does it's claims for improvement almost purely in minimizing the this kind of drag ( transonic wave drag) .
As to my understanding the winglets cooperation with the wing in the transonic region would be the most important aspect for a winglet function, I am surprised by the lack of such argumentation in the API text. One shall however note that the patent claims are from 1994 and it might be that the understanding of the transonic region (by e.g. use of CFD) was not deep at the time or they deemed they had not to go to that complication in the patent application. Knowing what I know today I would have made a patent which focused on drag reduction in this region with sub-claims that the optimal shape for this region can have modifications to not cause any disadvantages on other flight regimes, but that is ancillary arguments not primary. This is also how the Airbus application is made.
There might be other reasons why the API application is as it is, it seems clear the Airbus patent exploits this void to the full.
My reaction when I heard about API approaching Airbus to propose their winglet to the A320 was also that this must be dangerous, there is so much knowledge they do not have. In order for API to do a real fitting design to the A320, Airbus had to reveal a lot of their CFD based aerodynamic data so that the winglet can be designed to the wings pressure distribution and transonic shock pattern. I don't think Airbus revealed this, rather they listened to the API story and designed a better Airbus mousetrap based on the transonic focus and their superior information. It seems the Airbus application also describes and protects the A350 "real" sharklet .
I guess this describes an all to common situation, someone has a good idea, then the danger is that when trying to sell it to the giants they get triggered by the idea and designs something even better.
I can't say that the devices are very different, but the patent claims are, they argue very different improvements and I think this is what saves Airbus from any damages should this be the case.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (2 months 6 days ago) and read 1626 times:
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 15): Seriously though I am intrigued where the law differs to allow manufacturers to largely follow the same designs but for little tweaks there may be protection for the person who first thought of it.
Even if there was a patent for "a plane" it would be old and thus expired long ago. After that it's a free for all.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
hb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 810 posts, RR: 32 Reply 25, posted (2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 23): Thanks for the links, for some reason I have not read these patent applications but I have read the Boeing one for the raked tip.
The applications are quite different, the API one does the argumentation purely in the subsonic domain ie in classical subsonic aerodynamics and the claims are also in this domain. It surprises me that they are not in the all important transonic cruise condition of a modern airliner, in contrast the Airbus one does it's claims for improvement almost purely in minimizing the this kind of drag ( transonic wave drag) .
....
I can't say that the devices are very different, but the patent claims are, they argue very different improvements and I think this is what saves Airbus from any damages should this be the case.
The API patent is quite sparse on technical details and really seems to focus on geometrical definitions which are meant to have some beneficial effect.It's hard to tell. In any case, the main claim in APIs patent to the blended winglet was held invalid recently in a re-examination action at the USPTO. So I guess whatever they thought they had developed was not really new or inventive.
There is some really interesting background in the US patent office documentation which is a little difficult to find, but if you search on the USPTO patent public access system you can find it.
Have a look at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair and plug in 90/012,045 as application number. There is plenty of good stuff there for us armchair lawyers to mull over!
I think a lot of people (media included) have missed this as it's quite difficult to find, but the documents on the file reveal a lot of work which was done before the API patent was filed and which obviously pre-empts it.
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 26, posted (2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 15): Should the Wright brothers [or other early aviator] be suing any subsequent airplane builder who chose to use similar wings to theirs?
Actually, that's exactly what the Wright brothers did do: They patented their wing-warping technique of controlling roll during flight and then sued any aircraft builder who used any type of roll control including ailerons instead of wing warping for patent infringement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1315 posts, RR: 10 Reply 27, posted (2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1327 times:
I'm slightly amused that Boeing is going a generation further in winglets just after the Sharklets hit the fleet... The race goes on...
Lightsaber
I think this is the really ineteresting story. Both API and Boeing "seperately" came up with (near enough) identical mark 2 solutions. Again I can see no paternt conflict as in trith MD was playing around with "lower" secondary winglets way back for the MD11 as I recall.
If these double winglets "feathers?" really knock off another 1-2% then I would expect to see to be adopted by Airbus as well eventually.
It seem that when A or B design a wing from scratch (787/350) they can optimise it without going to such trouble. But when re designing older wings then there is more to be gained.
The next to get the treatment will be the 330 family as I recall. They will need this to try and keep the aircraft relevant against the 787.
But perhaps the most gain would come from the A380. The problem here is the 80Mtr "Box" for the aircraft. Whether it can be achieved within this or that they are given dispensation to excede it slightly -who knows. But this aircraft and the wing has (I think) the most to gain from this technology from a fuel consumption POV as well as reducing seperation distances on landings at busy airports.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 45 posts, 
From Antigua and Barbuda, joined Jun 2004, 693 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 414 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 361 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1404 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2010, 1774 posts, 
sharklet .
Printer friendly format 
