Back In The Days When Skywriting Was Patented

from the glad-those-days-are-gone dept

Wed, Mar 23rd 2011 6:20am — Mike Masnick

Eric Goldman alerts us to the news that, back in the day, skywriting was patented (see patent below) and that there were advertisements warning people not to infringe. This particular ad was published in 1924 in Aviation Magazine.

If you can't read the warning, it states:

Warning: The process of forming Morse or written signals in the air by means of smoke or other visible trails emitted from an aircraft and the apparatus used in connection therewith are covered by Patents issued and pending in America and abroad. Vigorous action will be taken against infringers.

It seems some things just never change.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: patents, skywriting

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Richard (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 6:43am

Native Americans
They used smoke signals didn't they?

Wouldn't that have counted as prior art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rabbit80, 23 Mar 2011 @ 6:44am
  
  Re: Native Americans
  Dammit - you beat me to it :(
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 6:45am
    
    Re: Re: Native Americans
    Patents are all smoke an mirrors anyway ...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean T Henry (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:08am
  
  Re: Native Americans
  It said that "written signals in the air by means of smoke or other visible trails emitted from an aircraft" then just do not have it come from the aircraft but a tow behind smoke machine. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re: Native Americans
    The "aircraft" was their version of "on the Internet".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Billy Wenge-Murphy, 23 Mar 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: Native Americans
  Just another thing the white man took from them
  
  Too bad they had no concept of (intellectual) property
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 6:45am

Was innovatin hurt here?
What are you complaining about Mike? How exactly did a skywriting patent hurt innovation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial, 23 Mar 2011 @ 6:47am

Native Americans
Nope Smoke Signals don't count as prior art, they were not emitted from an Aircraft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:03am
  
  Re: Native Americans
  Exactly. All this post proves is that what is obvious today wasn't obvious at some point in the past.
  
  It's a good patent, and in it's day was innovative and unique.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:09am
    
    Re: Re: Native Americans
    No - it was an obvious patent even then.
    
    I think the idea that "it was not obvious then - even if it is obvious now" is incorrect. The point is that these things are obvious to anyone who has the right background knowledge (and remember the patent test requires the idea to be non-obvious even to someone "skilled in the art" - not just to Joe public).
    
    This patent is far too broad. A sensible application of the patent process would be to some of the details (eg the method of finding the correct height to do the skywriting - which must have required some thought and effort at the time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
      So what you are saying is that they should have applied for multiple patents, to create a patent thicket?
      
      Right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
        You must be bored today. Here, hace a nice cup of chai, to soother your mind and increase your brainpower.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
        So what you are saying is that they should have applied for multiple patents, to create a patent thicket?
        No - I'm saying that if they could have encapsulated their method for finding the right altitude into a device - then they could have patented the device - it would have been easy to work around - so no thicket.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
      It was obvious to Joe public even then. It's only non-obvious before the technology that makes it possible existed. Once airplanes with smoke trails exist, it's obvious. No R&D costs required to think up the idea.
      
      Aren't patents supposed to be on specific designs, not general ideas? I can sit around and come up with ideas all day long, why should someone a patent on every idea that anyone can possibly come up with? Ridiculous.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
        Why should someone get a patent on ... *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
        Here is a website that explains it a little better
        
        http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000061.html
        
        The problem is that the ability to create smoke trails was a new problem that arises with the advent of Airplanes. New solutions to new problems make for bad patents. A better patent would be if someone found a new solution to an old problem after many years were given to solve that problem. The question that should be asked is, how long has something been a problem and how long have people been looking for a solution. Smoke trails is a relatively new problem because the technology that enables them is new. Now, having a patent on an airplane maybe a different issue, but the airplane example itself is another example of how patents are harmful to innovation (ie: the wright brothers delaying advancement resulting in other countries advancing before us until the government decided to step in and prevent patents from delaying advancement).
        
        Overall, though, I tend to be mostly against patents, I think they're just another abuse that only hinder innovation and invention and serve to create more income inequality and lost jobs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
        I think the question that should be asked here is, would contrail signals likely have been invented if it weren't for patents? I think the answer is yes, so a patent shouldn't have been granted on it. If patents are to exist they should only be on things that wouldn't otherwise exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - CommonSense (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:29am
    
    Re: Re: Native Americans
    In it's day, it was innovative and unique.
    
    It is still not a good patent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Billy Wenge-Murphy, 23 Mar 2011 @ 11:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
      Innovative in the sense of "hey look at that isn't that neat" (unpatentable) not in the sense of "solves a legitimate technical problem that would have been unlikely to get a solution if we didn't have a system that grants temporary monopolies on such solutions"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:03am
  
  Re: Native Americans
  But if a group of Native Americans had patented smoke signals in (say) 1921 they could have used it to block the Skywriting Corporation - creating a patent thicket.
  
  Also I think that the amoke signal prior art would still have invalidated the rider about morse code etc - since that doesn't require the aircraft to manouevre in order to create the message - the aircraft is therefore irrelevant in that case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 6 (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Native Americans
    "creating a patent thicket."
    
    Somebody in this thread doesn't know what a patent thicket is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 6:47am

Was innovatin hurt here?
What are you complaining about Mike? How exactly did a skywriting patent hurt innovation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 6:47am

Was innovatin hurt here?
What are you complaining about Mike? How exactly did a skywriting patent hurt innovation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 6:53am

Today's jets emit a trail caused by the cooling. They would be infringing by spelling a long i. Or a double lowercase l
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:23am

I wonder if these guys sued the Wicked Witch of the West. She violated their patent when she sky wrote her threat to Dorothy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:30am
  
  Re:
  The Wicked Witch didn't use an aircraft. She flew on a broom. I think even a moron in a hurry would recognize the difference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Billy Wenge-Murphy, 23 Mar 2011 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    A broom is just an aircraft powered by magic and children's dreams
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 23 Mar 2011 @ 8:18am

What if they wrote it in C++?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skyhawker, 23 Mar 2011 @ 9:18am

Backwards message?
Lucky strike anyone...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 23 Mar 2011 @ 9:58am

Accidental infringement
So you the engine of the airplane billowing out smoke as it fails constitute a patent violation?

I mean, smoke pouring from your airplane engine is clearly saying "Help", "I'm crashing", or "Oops! Forgot the oil again.", so it is sending a message via smoke from an aircraft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:04pm

"So you the engine of the airplane billowing out smoke as it fails constitute a patent violation?"

Did anyone here tell you that it would be? Did you read the claims of the patents mentioned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 24 Mar 2011 @ 6:14am

It's a good thing that The Skywriting Corporation of America was issued that patent because it initiated an avalanche of innovation in the field of skywriting from which we have all benefited immensely. I don't know where we would be today if it weren't for this patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
staff, 24 Mar 2011 @ 8:49am

on notice
It puts infringers on notice which is required. Please leave these matters to those who understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]