1 Beyond computer exceptionalism: Open source aeronautics before 1903 Peter B. Meyer, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics * SHOT conference, Oct 21, 2007, Washington, DC *All views expressed in this paper are those of he authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2 Open-source technology advance  Defn: Advanced through openly-shared designs  Parallels between open source software projects and the gradual invention of the airplane: contributors are autonomous and geographically dispersed  with own objectives or projects  including hobbyists, experimenters, tinkerers, hackers some are drawn to the activity or technology  it has charisma, or dazzle, or potential they share information and progress without explicit payoff radical differences about intellectual property

3 Development of the airplane  early 1800s: George Cayley proposal for fixed wing, mechanically powered flying machines  1840s and on: experiments and demonstrations  1860s and on: aeronautical journals and books a niche activity maybe hopeless, useless, and/or dangerous  1894 – Octave Chanute’s great overview book  1903 – Wrights fly famous powered glider  1910 – an industry exists

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 Then made 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 gliders

6 Samuel Langley Professor in Pittsburgh, then Director of Smithsonian Institution in DC Published Experiments in Aerodynamics, 1891 which 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 mile Invited audiences to 1903 experiments on Potomac river

7 Lawrence Hargrave Sydney, 1894 Box 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

8 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.

9 Chanute’s 1894 overview book Progress in Flying Machines cites almost 200 experimenters Experimenter / group Pages location (background) Maxim33 Britain (US) Lilienthal31 Germany Penaud22 France Mouillard21 Algeria, Egypt (Fr) Hargrave19 Australia (Br) Moy19 Britain Le Bris17 France Langley16 US Wenham15 Britain Phillips14 Britain Note: This activity is rare, but global. The Wrights treated Lilienthal, Langley, and Chanute as central.

10 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 3 Cairncross 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 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.

11 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

12 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

13 Role for author / moderator / evangelist Chanute corresponded with, visited, introduced experimenters, and published survey book  To establish that there was some hope of success  To avoid duplicate efforts, thru shared knowledge And perhaps through standards and specialization  To welcome future tinkerers who could make progress Octave Chanute, 1894: “The writer’s object in preparing these articles was threefold: 1. To satisfy himself [that] men might reasonably hope eventually to fly 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....”

14 Wright brothers Wilbur 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 toolsmiths They are in a workshop every day. Open sourcing: They published, spoke at meetings, had visits from Chanute and others.

15 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

16 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

17 First powered controlled flight, Dec 17, 1903 In 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

18 Alternative models of invention (1) Network of tinkerers: a population of agents with i nterest in a problem, worthwhile opportunities, information flows between them  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)

19 Open source processes conclusion contributors are autonomous  with own objectives, projects, and tools  including hobbyists, experimenters, tinkerers, hackers  and geographically dispersed some are drawn to the activity or technology  it has charisma, or dazzle, or potential they share information and progress without explicit payoff some object to intellectual property claims This process generates inventions by: hobbyists, “skunkworks” inside organizations, basic researchers 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. some problems are too hard to solve by one hierarchical person/group but an open-source process can do it