友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!阅读过程发现任何错误请告诉我们,谢谢!! 报告错误
飞读中文网 返回本书目录 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 进入书吧 加入书签

flying machines-第37章

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!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!




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
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0
未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!