1

The airplane as an open source invention

Peter B. Meyer, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics*

Creativity and Entrepreneurship ConferenceHarvard Business School,

Dec 7, 2007

*but findings and views expressed do not represent the agency or the US Dept of Labor

2

Open-source technologies Defn: Advanced through openly-shared

designs including by hobbyists, experimenters,

tinkerers, hackers Examples:

Open source software Early microcomputers at Homebrew Club, 1975 Development of first airplanes

Would like to infer who makes open source technology and how to model and support that

Airplane’s pre-history is documented and long term

3

Development of the airplane

1860s Aeronautical clubs start in Britain and France

a niche/crackpot activity maybe hopeless, useless, and/or dangerous

1894 Survey book by Chanute1903 Wright brothers’ powered glider flight1909 An industry is recognized

Documentation of this history is excellent

4

For 20+ years Otto Lilienthal studied birds and experimented on shapes in wind to test “lift” effect

Published Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation, 1889

After 20+ years of wing experiments, started to make hang gliders with bird-like curved (“cambered”) wings

Motivation:“. . . A desire takes possession of man. He

longs to soar upward and to glide, free as the bird . . .” -- Otto Lilienthal 1889

“The glory of a great discovery or an invention which is destined to benefit humanity [seemed] dazzling. . . . Enthusiasm seized [us] at an early age.” - Gustav Lilienthal

Lilienthal’s wing experiments

5

Lilienthal’s inspirational hang gliders1891-1896

6

Samuel Langley

Professor in Pittsburgh, then Director of Smithsonian Institution in DC

Published Experiments in Aerodynamics, 1891• shows his specialized equipment and his careful measures of the

effect of rectangular planes whirled on a 30-foot arm His 1896 powered gliders went over half a mileDecides that for safety:• aircraft must be intrinsically stable, and• pilot must sit up

7

Langley’s aerodrome Resulting aircraft is heavy, expensive, housed with

difficulty Steel materials Large wings Powerful engine Cost ~$50,000

Hard landings; lands on water => can't try twice easily

Operator is not too useful, like rocket, unlike gliderLangley's demonstrations are big & publicIn key demos in1903 it crashes earlyEmbarrassed, trustees asked him to stop research

8

Lawrence HargraveSydney, 1894Box kites experiments (and many others)

He patented nothing, on principle. Until something really worked, he thought it would be best if aerial navigation work were just published and shared for free. "Workers must root out the idea that by keeping the results of their labors to themselves a fortune will be assured to them. Patent fees are so much wasted money. The flying machine of the future will not be born fully fledged . . . Like everything else it must be evolved gradually. The first difficulty is to get a thing that will fly at all. When this is made, a full description should be published as an aid to others. Excellence of design and workmanship will always defy competition.“ –LH, 1893

9

Octave Chanute

Octave Chanute takes interest in flying machines in late 1880s

Wealthy former engineer in Chicago Ran experiments of his own on gliders Described previous work in 1894 book Progress in Flying

Machines. discusses a hundred individuals, from many countries,

professions and many experiments, devices, theories helps define “flying machines” work, focused on kites book supports network of information and interested

people Chanute corresponded actively with many experimenters.Chanute preferred that everyone’s findings be open.

10

Chanute’s 1894 overview book Progress in Flying Machines cites almost 200

experimentersExperimenter/ group Pages

location (background)

Maxim 33 Britain (US)

Lilienthal 31 Germany

Penaud 22 France

Mouillard 21 Algeria, Egypt (Fr)

Hargrave 19 Australia (Br)

Moy 19 Britain

Le Bris 17 France

Langley 16 US

Wenham 15 Britain

Phillips 14 Britain

Note: This activity is rare, but global.

The Wrights treated

Lilienthal, Langley, and Chanute as

central.

11

Counts of patents by people with more than two pre-1907 aircraft-related U.S. patents

Falconnet 6

Quinby 5

Beeson 3

Bell 3

Blackman 3Cairncros

s 3

Fest 3

O’Brate 3

Aircraft people with more than two German patents (including some on non-

aircraft topics):

Lilienthal, O. 25

Lilienthal, G. 9

Baumgarten 7

Gaebert 6

Lehmann 6

Hofmann 4

Ozeyowski 4

Wellner 4

Czygan 3

Fischer 3

Israel 3

Riedinger, A. 3(Zeppelin 2, Moy 1)

These are counts of patents collected by Simine Short which relate to aircraft,

excluding those from after 1907.

Key observation: this is quite different from the list of people in Chanute’s book or cited by the Wrights. Historians have judged most of these patent-filers to be

irrelevant to the development of the airplane.

12

Chanute’s list vs. patentees

There were many patents at least in the US and Germany Most patentees had one or two patents each. different distribution from Chanute’s list

Chanute wrote that many of the patents were “worthless”.

Chanute liked Hargrave’s attitude: publish everything, patent nothing.

Can compare the “success” of patenting versus open-source

In retrospect, it seems the patents were unimportant until the Wrights’ patent, which was expansively

interpreted and made them rich

13

Motivations and modes of experimenters analogous to

open-source Would like to fly Curiosity, interest in the problem Prestige, recognition Belief in making world a better place Make own nation safer Hoped-for profits

They vary in visions of what they are trying to make.

They work autonomously, not in hierarchies They form networks and share information They write and publish They specialize, technologically and/or in

evangelism

14

In micro-economic model Assume self motivated tinkerers want to progress

on some project (inherently rewarding, in utility function)

Assume they can’t see how to make a marketable product

Can show in model that They’d be willing to share information with others with

similar projects They’d be willing to specialize

to avoid duplication; focus skills and tools they’d be willing to standardize design design aspects

(code interfaces) so some progress by other tinkerers will snap right in

** Market processes are not necessary for these effects **

15

Role for author / moderator / evangelist

Chanute corresponded with, visited, introduced experimenters, and published book

In model: A tinkerer’s best opportunity for progress may be editing, writing, speeches, evangelism To welcome future tinkerers who could generate progress To avoid duplicate efforts, thru standards and specialization

authors/evangelists are another kind of specialist tinkerer Octave Chanute, 1894: “The writer’s object in preparing these articles was threefold: 1. To satisfy himself whether . . . men might reasonably hope eventually to fly . . . 2. To save . . . effort on the part of experimenters trying again devices which have already failed. 3. To . . . render it less chimerical . . . to experiment with a flying machine . . . .”

Analogously: Lilienthal’s public demonstrations; Felsenstein at Homebrew; open source programmers Stallman, Torvalds, etc.

16

Wright brothers 1900-1902Wilbur and Orville Wright ran a bicycle

shop in Dayton, Ohio.In 1899 Wilbur takes increased interest in

flying machines.

Motivations:"I am an enthusiast . . . I wish to . . . if possible add my mite to help on the future worker who will attain final success." -- Wilbur Wright, 1899"At the beginning we had no thought of recovering what we were expending, which was not great . . ." -- Orville Wright, How We Invented the Airplane, [1953] p. 87

Here, Wrights help test Octave Chanute’s triple-wing glider., October 1902

Advantages:They are skilled toolsmithsThey are in a workshop every day.

Open sourcing: They published, spoke at meetings, had visits from Chanute and others.

17

Kites, kite/gliders, then powered glider

(“rapid” testing and prototyping?)

They flew kites a long time, then made gliders. Didn’t try adding an engine till

they were pretty sure it would work

1902 glider can be still flown as kite

18

Wrights wind tunnel, new wings, propeller discovery

Wrights’ wind tunnel carefully tested for smooth air flow

Their balance device measured lift precisely

They tested many wings systematically and came to an ideal design for their craft.

What’s a propeller for an aircraft? Standard idea: like water propeller,

it would push air back. Having studied wings, Wrights’

experiment with propellers shaped like wings, with lift in forward direction

This produces 50% more pulling power from engine!

This idea lasts

19

First powered controlled flight,

Dec 17, 1903In late 1902 and

subsequently they were more

secretive, having succeeded so well with their

wings.They filed a

patent on their control

mechanism for the wings.

Analogously, Apple founders left Homebrew

Club; Red Hat is now a company

20

Alternative models of invention

(1) Network of tinkerers: a population of agents with interest in a problem (a0), worthwhile opportunities (p), information flows between them (f) experimentation and socially constructed “progress”No pool of information, nor incentives, nor technical measure of

improvement.

(2) Race to be first (space race; genome project)(3) Collective invention (Allen, 1983)

but those are (a) firms, (b) not paying costs to experiment

(4) To earn income or wealth indirectly Start company, or license patented invention signal to employers; get hired as engineer (Lerner and Tirole,

2002)

21

Possible lessons, conclusions, inferences, in

no particular order This generates inventions, as by: Hobbyists, “Skunkworks” inside organizations, basic researchers, and an industry can arise this way

Innovators need some capability and scope to operate, to figure out what they need

Useful innovators were closely tied to their tools and traditions

The inventor and the invention are remembered jointly until the invention becomes standard equipment.

22

Economic model

23

More inferences

some problems are too hard to solve by one hierarchical person/group but an open-source process can do it

experimentation may be necessary because one cannot see the end product during innovation process;

Inventors may appear if there is an opportunity to network. (not predictable, perhaps).

Innovation is all over the place. In the airplane case, many people were involved, informed, and helpful.

(I think) open source innovation is common but gets relabeled as the outcome of a formal project.

24

More possible inferences

It helps if the inventors can find one another

Thought experiment: suppose you wanted to slow the development of the airplane? It’s not possible to identify everyone who

might experiment at home. But it might be possible to prevent or restrict

publications, mailing;. raise the price of paper; shut down innovators once they self-identified, etc