GWS Cargotrans and intellectual property

[kensp]

Some people have said that by making the Cargotrans Kit that GWS has stolen Lockheed’s intellectual property. So lets look at who was the first user and therefore owns the intellectual property.

First multi engine Cargo Transport aircraft with a high wing, a fuselage large enough to carry motor vehicles and with and the wheels mounted on the side of the fuselage was the Me323 Gigant that first flew August 1942.

First high wing all wood twin engine Cargo Transport aircraft was the Cirtiss C76 Caravan. It had a large fuselage capable of carrying motor vehicles loaded through a large nose cargo door and a tricycle undercarriage. It first flew in January 1943

The C82 was designed by North American Aviation during WWII. It was an all-metal, high wing, twin engine aircraft with a tricycle undercarriage and a large fuselage capable of carrying motor vehicles. It had a Crew door on the port side in the front of the cargo compartment and two paratroop doors at the rear of the cargo compartment. There was a large cargo door in the rear of the fuselage. First flew 10 September 1944

The Bristol 170 Freighter first flew on December 2, 1945. It was all-metal, had twin engines, a high wing and a large fuselage capable of carrying a 3-ton truck. The cargo door was in the front.

The Fairchild C119 was a high wing twin engined aeroplane with a tricycle undercarriage and a large fuselage capable of carrying motor vehicles. It had a Crew door on the port side in the front of the cargo compartment and two paratroop doors at the rear of the cargo compartment. There was a large cargo door in the rear of the fuselage. First flew in November 1947

The Fairchild C123 was first flown on the 14 October 1949. It had a cockpit in front of the cargo compartment, a crew door on the port side at the front of the cargo compartment; two paratroop doors at the rear of the cargo compartment just behind the wheels. A two piece combined cargo door loading ramp was under the upward sloping rear fuselage. The undercarriage was of the tricycle type with the main wheels attached to the fuselage sides under the wing. Only the fact that it had twin piston engines distinguished it from the C130 with four turbine engines.

The Blackburn Beverley first flew on the 20 June 1950. It was all-metal, had four engines, a high wing and large fuselage capable of carrying motor vehicles.

We now have Seven Cargotrans aircraft each with more than one of the features of the C130. All of these aircraft flew years before the C130. This precludes Lockheed claiming prior use for these intellectual property features.

The only thing that was new about the C130 was that it had four gas turbine engines driving its propellers. So it would appear that the extent of Lockeeds intellectual property for the C130 is the use of gas turbine engines driving propellers.

Ken

[ltz400]

Ive been following this whole Cargo Trans thing in the other threads.WHO CARES!!!! Its just a flying model replica of an actual plane.An by the way "easytiger" from what im reading here your an "ass"!

[rcminiman]

What a twit you sound easytiger. Ken is a very clever man that has made a 100% better contribution to this forum than you ever have or ever will with remarks like that.
Get a grip of your life and let the GWS fans live in peace.

[kensp]

I have just discovered that the first aeroplane that had four gas turbines diving four propellers was the Vickers Vicount that first flew on 16 July 1948.

Ken

[GWS4CEO]

GWS never say foam airplane is our invention. But we just try to design more choice with good quality, nice flying performance at affordable price to help more new comers sucessful get into RC world.

There were so many sucessful examples of foam airplanes were made by many other poineer companies! I always appreciated those great designers made RC easy and less expensive.

Mid-West also made foam airplane during late '70.

When I run my father's company since early '70, I imported Mid-West Cessna 177, Super chipmunk, Attacker...

They were great models.

Kyosho also made a .049 gas poweredCessna for COX during '80.

MRC had Me109 with ENYA .09 engine.

IM model in Japan also made F16 with .049 engine powered.

Futaba also OEM many type of foam from Japanese foam maker.

Byron Originals also made so many types of big foam airplanes.

Sureflite also made more than 20 types of foam airplanes.

GWS is just a small part in the RC history, but we just try to help.

As I always said: Our sucess is your sucess! Because of what GWS made is always base on our flyers' opnion.

[GWS4CEO]

I feel shame that I know only so little about aviation.

Wish I can learn a little more like you, but still too far to be like your had learned..

[kensp]

I have been an aeroplane enthusist for more that 55 Years so I have had the time to learn. I also have a large number of books and magazines that go back to the 1960's

Edit; Just as important as knoledge is having the research skills to quickly fill any gaps in your current knowledge.

Ken

[rdeis]

Originally Posted by kensp

So lets look at who was the first user and therefore owns the intellectual property.

For goodness sake, why?

Talk about a trolling topic... Besides, the discussion is rather moot.

[GWS4CEO]

Originally Posted by easytiger

Funny how a little bit of google can make you sound like you actually KNOW something.

You really have no idea of what you are talking about. Maybe you should stop.

We like to hear from you if you actually KNOW something.

Are you sure that you have idea of what you are talking about?

[kensp]

Originally Posted by rdeis

For goodness sake, why?

Talk about a trolling topic... Besides, the discussion is rather moot.

This subject and allied subjects were taking up too much space in the thread titled "2005 GWS China factory". In that thread the subject was off topic so I have opened a thread where it is on topic. 10 posts in three hours does not sugest that the discussion is moot.

Ken

[rdeis]

This subject and allied subjects were taking up too much space in the thread titled "2005 GWS China factory".

Fair enough.

10 posts in three hours does not sugest that the discussion is moot.

Never in the history of man has a discussion stopped simply because it was pointless. That's one of hte reasons why we had to create the word "moot".

[GWS4CEO]

I just wounder RCGroup will allow a GWS competitor's distributor to step in GWS forum like easytiger did without get warnning?

or should we show him the door?

When easytiger even said:" I am now the distributor, kamdax told them they could only get them through ME!" in other forum.

I hope that I do not need to say this again and again.

Dear easytiger, I think it's time you should stop!

Or I will report to moderator to stop your behavior in GWS forum.

[rdeis]

Besides, all you have to do is take a look at the discussions in the forum to see what airplane this thing is clearly intended to model- there aren't any threads entitled "GWS Blackburn Beverley build tips?"

For Boeing, the supposed right is to the hump-back. Except for the hump it looks like one of several 4 engine jets.

The whole IP question as models relate to full scale aircraft revolves around what the thing looks like, and whether it makes any sense for full-scale manufacturers to hold IP rights over hunks of styrofoam that "look like" their products.

IMO that's a wholly different question than whether a copycat manufacturer is violating IP rights by duplicating the product with the intention of selling to the same customer.

Once GWS starts producing full size gas turbine powered CargoTrans and selling them to air forces then it would get interesting.

But of course, GWS would make them from foam, which would be a patentable innovation in itself. (-:

[NCC-1701]

Another interesting case study in IP rights occurred in the computer chip industry. In the 80's and early 90's, Intel was shouldering all the development costs of new 80x86 chips. They developed the 286, 386, and 486 chips and in each case, AMD and Cyrix reverse engineered (copied) the Intel design and marketed the same chip under the same name 286,386, 486 to the same market. The courts decided that Intel could not copyright a number, so AMD and Cyrix were legally able to copy Intel's product and sell it at a lower cost to the same customer base. That's why Intel named the 586 chip "Pentium", a name they were able to copyright and protect. AMD showed they had a robust in-house design capability and went their own way with their Athlon series chips. And, finally, Cyrix simply went away.

And, since C-130 is an MDS (Mission Designation Series) assigned by the Department of Defense it can't be copyrighted and is public domain. So, even if GWS called their airplane a C-130, I see any hypothetical Lockheed case against GWS being shaky at best.