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  by 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 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, 1912 Lilienthal’s wing experiments

5 Lilienthal’s inspirational hang gliders

6 Samuel Langley Professor, then Director of Smithsonian Institution 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 On principle he patented nothing, published all. Until something really worked, he thought it would be best if aerial navigation work were just published and shared for free. “Patent fees are so much wasted money. The flying machine of the future... 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.” – Hargrave, 1893

8 Octave Chanute Octave Chanute takes interest in flying machines in late 1880s Wealthy former engineer in Chicago Experimented on gliders Corresponded actively with many experimenters around the world, wrote and published Surveyed their work globally in 1894 book Progress in Flying Machines.  To establish that there was some hope of success  To save duplicate efforts of experimenters  To welcome future tinkerers who could make progress  Chanute preferred that everyone’s findings be open.  helps define “flying machines” work, drawing from kites  book supports two-way communication of interested people

9 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, but not usually a plan They work autonomously, not in hierarchies They form networks and share information They write and publish They specialize, technologically and/or in evangelism

10 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 Experimentors are not a local club, but international In retrospect, Wrights treated Lilienthal, Langley, and Chanute as central.

11 U.S. aircraft patents before 1907 Falconnet 6 Quinby 5 Beeson 3 Bell 3 Blackman 3 Cairncross 3 Fest 3 O’Brate 3 German patents before 1907by aerial navigation people (including non-aircraft patents) 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) Counts from list collected by Simine Short. Not much overlap with lists: in Chanute’s book cited by the Wrights published papers in histories of the development of the airplane. Patent counts

12 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.

13 Wrights wind tunnel, propeller discovery Wrights made high quality tools Wind tunnel made smooth air flow Balance device measured lift precisely They tested many wings systematically Having studied wings, they try propellers shaped like wings, with lift in forward direction This produces far more pulling power This idea lasts

14 Exiting the network 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. After their successes they started a company and manufactured. Analogously, open source companies spin off from a network of hobbyists. In the Wrights case it led to permanent conflicts with Chanute.

15 Open source processes conclusion The airplane’s invented through an open source process By autonomous, self-motivated, dispersed tinkerers Drawn to a certain subject  (by fun, use, charisma, challenge, or something else)  (with a variety of tools and projects) Who share technical information without explicit payoff This process generates inventions by: hobbyists, “skunkworks” inside organizations, basic researchers Alternatives: secrecy, hierarchy, intellectual property Open-source outperforms those sometimes, and vice versa An industry can arise this way

16 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

17 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)