"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
psyshrike wrote:

This _has_ to be in direct conflict with the USPTO. The only way you
can get a production certificate is if you already have a type
certificate. This means that _all_ new manufactured engines props or
aircraft have to be licensed, or designed from scratch. So every TC is
effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.

No, it isn't. You can make an absolute copy of a Continental engine and go
through the certification process. You then will have a type certificate for
that engine.


You are correct that you _can_ go through the whole process again. My
point is that this denies the right of the producer to the use of
prior art.

Safety of "production" and safety of "design" are two different
things. Presumably the FAA agrees becuase the type certificate and the
production certificate are different.

What the FAA doesn't do is differentiate between production and design
when it comes to the rights of the manufacturer. You must design,
_and_ produce in order to be airworthy. You can't get a PC without a
TC. The TC commits you to fully duplicate testing and engineering
right?

So getting a TC negates the benefits of prior art, thereby denying
your right to benefit from prior art, thereby effecting the exact same
outcome as a patent.

The only notable difference in effect is that the denial of a
Production Certificate dissolves your right to even have a product
safety-evaluated before selling it. So even if there was license
dispute you would never have the right to get sued by your competitor
for license infringement. This denies you even the right to settlement
in court.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do testing. I'm saying that manufacturing
an existing product does not require the same testing as designing a
new one. This lack of differentiation is implicitly requiring
licensing or complete reengineering of the part.

The thing that interests me, is why hasn't it been challenged? Or has
it? If it actually went to court, there could be all kinds of nasty
allegations and investigations. This does after all directly effect
market competion, and they ain't the SEC.

Simple. If you're going to build and sell a part for a plane, you have to prove
that it meets certain standards of quality and dependability. The process of
proving that is called the certification process. If you *did* take that to
court and claim that it interferes with competition, the government would simply
point out (correctly) that it ensures fair competition. Every manufacturer has
to jump through the same hoops.


I am not argueing about the rightness or wrongness of it, or even
safety. I am argueing about jurisdiction.

I have to disagree with you that this practice ensures fair
competition. "Fair competition" itself is really the jurisdiction of
intellecutal property and trade regulation anyway. "Fair competition"
shouldn't have anything to do with the FAA.

Everybody jumping through the same hoops isn't always a good thing. If
the town had to walk down to the creek to get a bucket of water, the
FAA's rules would say: "anyone bringing a mule to the creek to
increase operating efficiency will be required to reinvent the bucket,
or acquire a license from the bucket manufacturer, BEFORE we inspect
your bucket for holes."

Financial innovation is just as important as technological innovation.
New business's often choose to compete through superior production
techniques, financial management or systems integration. Product
innovation is NOT always required for a company to be competetive.

Thats why I said "price competition". None of the techniques above
are effective in GA, because everybody has to operate with a
-better-mousetrap- business model. Barrier to entry is SO high that
everything is a specialty business, not a commodity. Nothing is a
commodity because everyone is denied the right to be specialized
_solely_ in production. My interpretiation of 21.133 is that it does
precisely that.

Or something...

-Thanks
-Matt

Anybody agree with this assesment?

Not I.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.