flying machines-第26部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



so　as　to　present　to　the　atmosphere　different　angles

of　incidence；　and　means　for　so　moving　said　lateral　marginal

portions；　substantially　as　described。



Application　of　vertical　struts　near　the　ends　having

flexible　joints。



Means　for　simultaneously　imparting　such　movement

to　said　lateral　portions　to　different　angles　relatively　to

each　other。



Refers　to　the　movement　of　the　lateral　portions　on　the

same　side　to　the　same　angle。



Means　for　simultaneously　moving　vertical　rudder　so

as　to　present　to　the　wind　that　side　thereof　nearest　the

side　of　the　aeroplane　having　the　smallest　angle　of　incidence。



Lateral　stability　is　obtained　by　warping　the　end　wings

by　moving　the　lever　at　the　right　hand　of　the　operator；

connection　being　made　by　wires　from　the　lever　to　the

wing　tips。　The　rudder　may　also　be　curved　or　warped　in

similar　manner　by　lever　action。



Wrights　Obtain　an　Injunction。



In　January；　1910；　Judge　Hazel；　of　the　United　States

Circuit　Court；　granted　a　preliminary　injunction　restraining

the　Herring…Curtiss　Co。；　and　Glenn　H。　Curtiss；　from

manufacturing；　selling；　or　using　for　exhibition　purposes

the　machine　known　as　the　Curtiss　aeroplane。　The　injunction

was　obtained　on　the　ground　that　the　Curtiss

machine　is　an　infringement　upon　the　Wright　patents　in

the　matter　of　wing　warping　and　rudder　control。



It　is　not　the　purpose　of　the　authors　to　discuss　the

subject　pro　or　con。　Such　discussion　would　have　no　proper

place　in　a　volume　of　this　kind。　It　is　enough　to　say　that

Curtiss　stoutly　insists　that　his　machine　is　not　an

infringement　of　the　Wright　patents；　although　Judge　Hazel

evidently　thinks　differently。



What　the　Judge　Said。



In　granting　the　preliminary　injunction　the　judge　said：



〃Defendants　claim　generally　that　the　difference　in

construction　of　their　apparatus　causes　the　equilibrium　or

lateral　balance　to　be　maintained　and　its　aerial　movement

secured　upon　an　entirely　different　principle　from　that

of　complainant；　the　defendants'　aeroplanes　are　curved；

firmly　attached　to　the　stanchions　and　hence　are　incapable

of　twisting　or　turning　in　any　direction；　that　the

supplementary　planes　or　so…called　rudders　are　secured　to

the　forward　stanchion　at　the　extreme　lateral　ends　of

the　planes　and　are　adjusted　midway　between　the　upper

and　lower　planes　with　the　margins　extending　beyond　the

edges；　that　in　moving　the　supplementary　planes　equal

and　uniform　angles　of　incidence　are　presented　as

distinguished　from　fluctuating　angles　of　incidence。　Such

claimed　functional　effects；　however；　are　strongly

contradicted　by　the　expert　witness　for　complainant。



Similar　to　Plan　of　Wrights。



〃Upon　this　contention　it　is　sufficient　to　say　that　the

affidavits　for　the　complainant　so　clearly　define　the

principle　of　operation　of　the　flying　machines　in　question

that　I　am　reasonably　satisfied　that　there　is　a　variableness

of　the　angle　of　incidence　in　the　machine　of　defendants

which　is　produced　when　a　supplementary　plane　on　one

side　is　tilted　or　raised　and　the　other　stimultaneously

tilted　or　lowered。　I　am　also　satisfied　that　the　rear

rudder　is　turned　by　the　operator　to　the　side　having　the

least　angle　of　incidence　and　that　such　turning　is　done

at　the　time　the　supplementary　planes　are　raised

or　depressed　to　prevent　tilting　or　upsetting　the　machine。

On　the　papers　presented　I　incline　to　the　view；　as　already

indicated；　that　the　claims　of　the　patent　in　suit　should　be

broadly　construed；　and　when　given　such　construction；

the　elements　of　the　Wright　machine　are　found　in　defendants'

machine　performing　the　same　functional　result。

There　are　dissimilarities　in　the　defendants'　structure

changes　of　form　and　strengthening　of　partswhich　may

be　improvements；　but　such　dissimilarities　seem　to　me　to

have　no　bearing　upon　the　means　adopted　to　preserve　the

equilibrium；　which　means　are　the　equivalent　of　the　claims

in　suit　and　attain　an　identical　result。



Variance　From　Patent　Immaterial。



〃Defendants　further　contend　that　the　curved　or　arched

surfaces　of　the　Wright　aeroplanes　in　commercial　use　are

departures　from　the　patent；　which　describes　'substantially

flat　surfaces；'　and　that　such　a　construction　would

be　wholly　impracticable。　The　drawing；　Fig。　3；　however；

attached　to　the　specification；　shows　a　curved　line　inward

of　the　aeroplane　with　straight　lateral　edges；　and　considering

such　drawing　with　the　terminology　of　the　specification；

the　slight　arching　of　the　surface　is　not　thought

a　material　departure；　at　any　rate；　the　patent　in　issue

does　not　belong　to　the　class　of　patents　which　requires

narrowing　to　the　details　of　construction。〃



〃June　Bug〃　First　Infringement。



Referring　to　the　matter　of　priority；　the　judge　said：



〃Indeed；　no　one　interfered　with　the　rights　of　the

patentees　by　constructing　machines　similar　to　theirs　until

in　July；　1908；　when　Curtiss　exhibited　a　flying　machine

which　he　called　the　'June　Bug。'　He　was　immediately

notified　by　the　patentees　that　such　machine　with　its

movable　surfaces　at　the　tips　of　wings　infringed　the　patent

in　suit；　and　he　replied　that　he　did　not　intend　to　publicly

exhibit　the　machine　for　profit；　but　merely　was　engaged

in　exhibiting　it　for　scientific　purposes　as　a　member

of　the　Aerial　Experiment　Association。　To　this　the　patentees

did　not　object。　Subsequently；　however；　the　machine；

with　supplementary　planes　placed　midway　between

the　upper　and　lower　aeroplanes；　was　publicly　exhibited

by　the　defendant　corporation　and　used　by　Curtiss　in

aerial　flights　for　prizes　and　emoluments。　It　further　appears

that　the　defendants　now　threaten　to　continue　such

use　for　gain　and　profit；　and　to　engage　in　the　manufacture

and　sale　of　such　infringing　machines；　thereby　becoming

an　active　rival　of　complainant　in　the　business　of

constructing　flying　machines　embodying　the　claims　in　suit；

but　such　use　of　the　infringing　machines　it　is　the　duty

of　this　court；　on　the　papers　presented；　to　enjoin。



〃The　requirements　in　patent　causes　for　the　issuance

of　an　injunction　pendente　litethe　validity　of　the　patent；

general　acquiescence　by　the　public　and　infringement

by　the　defendantsare　so　reasonably　clear　that　I　believe

if　not　probable　the　complainant　may　succeed　at　final

hearing；　and　therefore；　status　quo　should　be　preserved

and　a　preliminary　injunction　granted。



〃So　ordered。〃



Points　Claimed　By　Curtiss。



That　the　Herring…Curtiss　Co。　will　appeal　is　a　certainty。

Mr。　Emerson　R。　Newell；　counsel　for　the　company；

states　its　case　as　follows：



〃The　Curtiss　machine　has　two　main　supporting　surfaces；

both　of　which　are　curved　*　*　*　and　are　absolutely

rigid　at　all　times　and　cannot　be　moved；　warped　or

distorted　in　any　manner。　The　front　horizontal　rudder　is

used　for　the　steering　up　or　down；　and　the　rear　vertical

rudder　is　used　only　for　steering　to　the　right　or　left；　in

the　same　manner　as　a　boat　is　steered　by　its　rudder。　The

machine　is　provided　at　the　rear　with　a　fixed　horizontal

surface；　which　is　not　present　in　the　machine　of　the　patent；

and　which　has　a　distinct　advantage　in　the　operation

of　defendants'　machine；　as　will　be　hereafter　discussed。



Does　Not　Warp　Main　Surface。



〃Defendants'　machine　does　not　use　the　warping　of　the

main　supporting　surfaces　in　restoring　the　lateral　equilibrium；

but　has　two　comparatively　small　pivoted　balancing

surfaces　or　rudders。　When　one　end　of　the　machine

is　tipped　up　or　down　from　the　normal；　these　planes　may

be　thrown　in　opposite　directions　by　the　operator；　and

so　steer　each　end　of　the　machine　up　or　down　to　its

normal　level；　at　which　time　tension　upon　them　is　released

and　they　are　moved　back　by　the　pressure　of　the

wind　to　their　normal　position。



Rudder　Used　Only　For　Steering。



〃When　defendants'　balancing　surfaces　are　moved　they

present　equal　angles　of　incidence　to　the　normal　rush

of　air　and　equal　resistances；　at　each　side　of　the　machine；

and　there　is　therefore　no　tendency　to　turn　around　a

vertical　axis　as　is　the　case　of　the　machine　of　the　patent；

consequently　no　reason　or　necessity　for　turning　the　vertical

rear　rudder　in　defendants'　machine　to　counteract　any

such　turning　tendency。　At　any　rate；　whatever　may　be

the　theories　in　regard　to　this　matter；　the　fact　is　that

the　operator　of　defendants'　machine　does　not　at　any

time　turn　his　vertical　rudder　to　counteract　any　turning

tendency　clue　to　the　side　balancing　surfaces；　but　only

uses　it　to　steer　the　machine　the　same　as　a　boat　is

steered。〃



Aero　Club　Recognizes　Wrights。



The　Aero　Club　of　America　has　officially　recognized

the　Wright　patents。　This　course　was　taken　following　a

conference　held　April　9th；　1910；　participated　in　by　William

Wright　and　Andrew　Freedman；　representing　the

Wright　Co。；　and　the　Aero　Club's　committee；　of　Philip

T。　Dodge；　W。　W。　Miller；　L。　L。　Gillespie；　Wm。　H。　Page

and　Cortlandt　F。　Bishop。



At　this　meeting　arrangements　were　made　by　which

the　Aero　Club　recognizes　the　Wright　patents　and　will

not　give　its　section　to　any　open　meet　where　the　promoters

thereof　have　not　secured　a　license　from　the

Wright　Company。



The　substance　of　the　agreement　was　that　the　Aero

Club　of　America　recognizes　the　rights　of　the　owners　of

the　Wright　patents　under　the　decisions　of　the　Federal

courts　and　refuses　to　countenance　the　infringement　of

those　patents　as　long　as　these　decisions　remain　in　force。



In　the　meantime；　in　order　to　encourage　aviation；　both

at　home　and　abroad；　and　in　order　to　permit　foreign

aviators　to　take　part　in　aviation　contests　in　this　country

it　was　agreed　that　the　Aero　Club　of　America；　as　the

American　representative　of　the　International　Aeronautic

Federation；　should　approve　only　such　public　contests

as　may　be　licensed　by　the　Wright　Company　and　that

the　Wright　Company；　on　the　other　hand；　should　encourage

the　holding　of　open　meets　or　contests　where　ever　approved　as

aforesaid　by　the　Aero　Club　of　America

by　granting　licenses　to　promoter