Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Trailing Edge Configuration Patent  
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 869 posts, RR: 9
Posted (3 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 4301 times:

This one may be of interest to anyone willing to wade through the text: Aircraft Trailing Edge Devices

This patent covers many of the features of the 787 moveable trailing edge configuration, including the hinge location, variable camber and control of the gap by drooping the spoilers.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3934 times:

They are trying to patent the hinged flap? That is... ridiculous. To say the least.

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6420 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 1):
They are trying to patent the hinged flap? That is... ridiculous. To say the least.

Aeah, well, the text is hard to read since it looks like having been manipulated by a dozen different technicians plus at least a hundred lawyers.

But to me it seems to be just a little more complicated - that they are trying to patent a hinged flap with a hinge line below and forward of the flap leading edge. Plus spoilers which combined with flap engagement drop below their stoved position, thereby giving also the fixed wing upper surface additional camber in high lift configuration. Plus allowing the flap to move upwards as well - as a combined flap and aileron (flapperon).

Still hard to believe that it can be patented today. I can't imagine any mechanical "wing twisting" like that which wasn't tried somewhere in the world already 30 or 40 years ago. But some countries are more liberal handing out patents than others.

Sure this setup would be (next to) prohibitively demanding in a non-FBW world. But FBW is also 40 years old technology. It is hard to imagine that it hasn't been described in a technical letter decades ago.

Maybe I missed something? If so, please help.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

When something like this comes up, Boeing always tell the story of the 727 S duct.
The story goes something like this:

Boeing developed the S duct for the 727. However, they never got around to protect the design. Someone (company) in Europe managed to patent the design. Boeing ended up having to pay royalties on all the 727 they sold.

So, even if it seems illogical, Boeing will try to patent everything they come up with. Cost of filing is cheap. It's up to the Patent Office to determine if its valid.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8998 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 3):
Someone (company) in Europe managed to patent the design. Boeing ended up having to pay royalties on all the 727 they sold.

Sounds like B/S, if something is already in common usage, a patent examiner will disqualify the application.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 3):
Boeing will try to patent everything they come up with.

They can try, does not mean it will be successful when challenged. Many birds have far more complex trailing edge configuration than humans can build. If something already exists in nature, it is pretty hard to patent the "idea" when it can be demonstrated that it already exists.

The whole idea of patents is that it is a novel idea, andf telling others how to build it.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinebri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
The whole idea of patents is that it is a novel idea

In theory this is true. In practice, "prior art" is the name of the game. Microsoft is famous for hiring students at universities all over the world to scour filing cabinets for anything they could cite as prior art when someone is unwilling to sell an invention to them at their initial asking price. If you can prove with a dated piece of art that you've invented something before someone else, you can claim infringement, even if the patent has been issued. However, it is up to you to pursue the matter, the patent office doesn't file the suit for you. That's cost prohibitive for most people, and the lawyers would take most of what you might win anyway.



Position and hold
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3500 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):

Sounds like B/S, if something is already in common usage,

Could be B/S. It did happened a long time ago. And the story has it that the European company was Dassault.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
If something already exists in nature, it is pretty hard to patent the "idea"

I agree with you. But there are pharmaceutical out there trying to patent all the drugs derived from stuff they find in the rain forest or bio-tech companies trying to do the same to gene sequences . . .

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 2):
But to me it seems to be just a little more complicated - that they are trying to patent a hinged flap with a hinge line below and forward of the flap leading edge. Plus spoilers which combined with flap engagement drop below their stoved position, thereby giving also the fixed wing upper surface additional camber in high lift configuration. Plus allowing the flap to move upwards as well - as a combined flap and aileron (flapperon).

None of those things is innovative and using them in the same application is an obvious use of existing technology.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 3):
So, even if it seems illogical, Boeing will try to patent everything they come up with. Cost of filing is cheap. It's up to the Patent Office to determine if its valid.

  
Sadly granting ridiculous patents is the norm and not the exception. This sort of grossly underhanded patent warfare is a horrible, horrible thing for the industry.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3373 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
Sounds like B/S, if something is already in common usage, a patent examiner will disqualify the application.

They're *supposed* to disqualify the application. That doesn't mean they will. Patent offices make mistakes to, sometimes to the benefit of others.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
If something already exists in nature, it is pretty hard to patent the "idea" when it can be demonstrated that it already exists.

As mentioned, the pharmaceutical companies (and the patent office) disagree with you. Just because the compound may exist in nature, you can patent a novel use of it. The biotech companies also disagree...they patent genes all the time, even though essentially all of them are pre-existing in nature.

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 7):
None of those things is innovative and using them in the same application is an obvious use of existing technology.

Novel combinations of existing technology are patentable, even if every single one of the contributing technologies is not.

Tom.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3348 times:

About once every five years I read on a.net that Lockheed had to pay royalties to Boeing for the use of the S-duct on the L-1011. Which of course is not true, Lockheed spent millions designing their own S-duct. You can patent the design but you can't patent the concept (idea).

Look a simple thing like a razor: About 40 years ago Bic makes a disposable razor. Within a year Gillette, Wilkerson and Schick all come out with their own disposable razor. If Bic holds the patent on the disposable how can the others infringe on the patent. Because they use the concept (idea) but change the design.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8998 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 6):

Could be B/S. It did happened a long time ago. And the story has it that the European company was Dassault.

Considering the first S-duct I remember flying was before the 727, on the Hawker Siddeley Trident, it does sounds a little fishy. Also the first Dassault aircraft with an S duct didn’t hit the market until about 10 years later, the Falcon 50.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Udo K. Haafke

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 6):
But there are pharmaceutical out there trying to patent all the drugs derived from stuff they find in the rain forest or bio-tech companies trying to do the same to gene sequences . . .

I think "derived" is the key term, you can patent modified stuff, but patents should only be granted to inventions not on something that is a “discovery” of nature. A patent could be issued, that does not mean a court will not overturn it at a later date.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
They're *supposed* to disqualify the application. That doesn't mean they will. Patent offices make mistakes to, sometimes to the benefit of others.

Does not mean it will hold up in court either.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
As mentioned, the pharmaceutical companies (and the patent office) disagree with you. Just because the compound may exist in nature, you can patent a novel use of it. The biotech companies also disagree...they patent genes all the time, even though essentially all of them are pre-existing in nature.

Are biotechs actually patenting the discovery of the compounds ? or the synthetic manufacture of them ? Also with gens are the patenting the discovery of genes, or are they patenting the equipment/process, drugs that act on particular genes, or genes that have been modified (like GM seed) ?

I fail to see how one can patent the "discovery" of something that exists in nature.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
Are biotechs actually patenting the discovery of the compounds ?

I don't think so...the patents I've heard of are all synthetics, so in that case you're patenting the compound itself (just like any other new thing you built).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
or the synthetic manufacture of them ?

The manufacturing process could also be patentable, separate from the compound itself.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
Also with gens are the patenting the discovery of genes, or are they patenting the equipment/process, drugs that act on particular genes, or genes that have been modified (like GM seed) ?

You can't patent the discovery of a gene, as far as I know, but you can patent all the other stuff. In GM seeds though, you're not introducing new genes, you're splicing existing genes into existing organisms to create new genomes (but no new genes). It's the combination that's patentable, as far as I can tell...it's a novel combination of existing "products".

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
I fail to see how one can patent the "discovery" of something that exists in nature.

I don't think you can patent the discovery...but if you built it, you can patent the thing you built, the combination of building blocks, the process you used to get it and, the use.

A Slinky is patentable, even though springs, and even specifically slinky springs, were around long before that.

Tom.


User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3126 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
Novel combinations of existing technology are patentable, even if every single one of the contributing technologies is not.

Only if the combination itself is not an obvious use of the existing technologies. For instance, someone patents "instant whipped cream", if I apply for a patent on "pie with instant whipped cream" I should be laughed out of the patent office. Sadly that is not the typical way things play out. It takes years, millions of dollars and dozens of lawyers to go back to the sanity of the obvious.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
but patents should only be granted to inventions not on something that is a “discovery” of nature.

True. Sounds so simple... but we have drifted far and wide from the actual application of that principle.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 787 Trailing Edge Configuration Patent
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Trailing Edge Wedge Again! posted Tue Mar 5 2002 21:43:33 by Musang
Trailing Edge Wedge posted Sat Apr 7 2001 21:26:24 by Musang
2-sets Of Trailing Edge Flaps... posted Mon Mar 12 2001 18:44:55 by Greeneyes53787
767/777/787 Exactly How Close Or Far Apart? posted Sat Aug 28 2010 20:17:00 by VC10er
EIS 787 Could Be 2011 After Trent 1000 Test posted Mon Aug 23 2010 03:48:31 by keesje
Future 787 Wing Flex Issues posted Sat Aug 7 2010 10:00:48 by mortkork
Question On 787 Undercarriage Mtow Limits posted Fri Aug 6 2010 10:13:01 by Stitch
Nose Shape Of 787 Vs. Traditional Shape posted Thu Aug 5 2010 12:18:03 by tsugambler
777 Or 787 Epas - Emergency Power Assist System posted Tue Aug 3 2010 14:59:04 by slimshady
Is The 787 More Quiet Than The A380 Both RR And GE posted Sun Aug 1 2010 20:59:53 by Aeroflot001

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format