In article ,
psyshrike wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote in message
. com...
psyshrike wrote:

SNIP

You make my point for me. The same engine built with same materials,
designs and quality assurance can't be sold in an intended market. If
everything safety related has been resolved, why should I not be able
sell to GA?

You _can_. All you have to do is *PROVE* that all those standards have
been met. With _your_ own data. When you _do_ prove that, to the FAA's
satisfaction, they will award *you* a type certificate of your very own.

You just can't use "somebody else's" test data to show that _your_ engine
meets the requirements.

Okay, so your 'design' is reverse engineered from the 'tested' design.

Two Simple Questions:
1) Was the _tested_ engine built from *your* design specifications?

If "no", then the testing shows *nothing* about _your_ actual
specifications.

2) How do you _know_ you haven't "overlooked something" in the specification
that renders the engine unreliable/unsafe?

Obviously, you _don't_. You *cannot* 'prove a negative'. Thus the
"test" requirement for _your_ engine, just as if it was a totally
untried design.

There's certainly lots of NON-FAA precedent out there as well. If you
think the FAA parts certification is full of crap, try getting a medical
device certified. The FAA paperwork process looks streamlined compared
to the FDA.


OK. So two regulatory agencies are drawing poorly defined boundaries
between oversight and right-of-manufacture.

Alternatively, two regulatory agencies are not compromising on the
assurances required in situations involving a high probability of
life-and-death risk to human life.

So every TC is effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.

Nope, it's not a patent.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Then your glasses need cleaning/adjusting. grin

A patent prevents somebody else from doing the _same_thing_ you did.
*Even*if* they come up with it 'independently'.

*Anybody* can 'do what you did' (*exactly*, every step) to get a TC, and
get their own TC for an identical product. The original TC 'owner' has
*zero* power to restrict them from doing so. There are *NO* barriers that
prevent them from doing so.

It is simply 'not easier' for that party to do so, because they cannot
use -your- work as a 'springboard' for their TC application.

"Not harder, not easier" -- sounds like 'fair to everyone', to me.

Sorry, nothing prevents them from using previuos art. I can steal
all the aspects of Lycoming or Continentals design to build a new engine.
Their design (which is what patents support) is free for me to pick and
choose from. What I don't get a free pass around is showing my new
engine is safe to the FAA's standard.

OK. Why no free pass?

Wrong question. Why *should* the Johnnie-come-lately be _entitled_ to
the 'free pass'?
Provided that you could get a production
certificate to have manufacturing facility inspected (Which you can't
without a TC) you could demonstrate empirically that there is no
difference.

"Empirical evidence" is not the same as "proof".

If you don't have access to the specifications/standards of the _original_
design, you cannot be _sure_ that yours is identical.

The _best_ you can say is that your design is 'consistent' with the 'samples
that were examined'. Plus/minus any error in the reverse-engineering process.

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.

It hasn't been challenged because there's no basis to challenge it.

How does this affect competition at all? There's no preferential structure
given to any entity. All are free to put their part through certification
(even if it is the same as before).


I would have to disagree. Your rights to federal protection from
competition dissipate with the expiration of your intellectual
property rights. Since none of this is under patent, and the products
are indestinguisable from one another, then redundant testing
orequirements should dissipaite too.

They may, or *may*not* be built to the 'same specifications'. From
'reverse engineering', you _cannot_ say with authority what the original
specifications are. At the absolute best, you can say that the *samples*
you tested 'fall within these limits'.

e.g., the original spec is 0.500+/- 0.005. The samples you reverse engineered
were all on the small side. Your set your manufacturing spec at 0.497+/-.002

BUT, suppose your reverse engineering is a little bit off, and you come up
with 0.497+/- 0.0025, or 0.496+/-0.002. Guess what?, some of your "same"
part are _not_ 'in spec' with the original manufacturer. And, thus, *NOT*
'indistinguishable' from the original.

Like it or not, these are *not* the 'same' part. It may be 'interchangeable',
(or, in the case of that margin error, *NOT* interchangeable) but it *is*
"built to different specifications".

Hence the requirement to go through the _full_ certification testing.

You can argue that it is an 'inconsequential' difference. Fine. Now go
_prove_ it.

After you've got the proof, you'll have no trouble getting your own TC.

Since they don't appear to, everybody having to jump through the same
hoops is preferential to the established manfufacturer.

Or, you can look at it as merely a truly 'level' playing field.
*Everybody* has to jump through *exactly* the same hoops.
Anybody who chooses to do so, _can_ do so. Nothing is preventing them from
doing so.

Yes, being _in_ the market is an advantage. The same is true in _any_ market.
The 'early bird' always enjoys an advantage.

However, _any_ other bird is free to come along, and do _exactly_ what
the first bird did.

Though the
hoops are the same, the baseline from which the manufacturer starts
their jump is supposed to move forward. It doesn't under the FAA regs.
Or at least thats my interpretation.

As a matter of fact your idea will most likely decrease competition. People
wouldn't want to be the FIRST to go through certification if they knew
that the
second guy is just going to steal the idea of the first.

Products have life cycles. The existing life cycle is stuck in
autorewind courtesy of redundant labor requirements. Per a previous
post, there are many ways to compete, not all require techical
innovation. Two companies can create exactly the same product and
still be competetive. Just look at the shelves of your grocery store.

So why can't I make a generic Lycoming, run my company with a superior
manufacturing system and better financial model? Because I can't price
compete due to fully redundant R & D costs.

Awww, shucks.
Apparently your 'superior manufacturing and better financial model' company
is *not* as good a company as Lycoming -- since they *did* manage to pay all
those R & D costs, *and* the costs of developing the design you're going to
use.

Looks to me like the the marketplace worked -- the 'most efficient/effective'
company is in business, and the 'inferior' one is lying in the dust.

Whether this is the way it works in practice I don't know. This whole
excercise sort of came from a question, "why it is there are a half
dozen companies trying to build new engines, when a new engines
already certified in dozens of aircraft are so expensive?"

It would make more sense to use modern manufacturing advancements to
cut costs, rather than go through the whole certification process over
again. Yet nobody seems to do this. The end result is that the
existing manufacturers can dictate prices without concern for
competition. Lycoming doesn't have to use monopolistic tactics do
control half the GA engine business. The FAA does it all for them. Or
at least thats the hypothosis.

"Everyone has the inalienable right to be wrong."

Glad to see you're exercising your rights.

The hypothesis is flawed. *anybody*else* can do _exactly_ what Lycoming
did to get into the market. They can even start with a (now public domain)
Lycoming design. *NOBODY* is discouraging them from doing so. Yeah, they
have to *prove* that _their_ implementation of the design is 'acceptably'
solid/reliable, before they can get a TC. No different from what any other
manufacturer in the market has _already_ gone through.

However, there are other considerations:
1) The marketplace is *tiny*, and approximating 'fixed' in size; you have
to capture a significant 'share' to have any hope of recouping your
start-up costs.
2) The buyers in that market are, in general, *conservative*. _VERY_
conservative. Those 'willing to take a risk' on a new manufacturer,
absent a *compelling* reason to do so, are a _tiny_ minority.
3) As a result of #2, just being 'better' is _not_enough_ to get you
significant sales. You have to be "enough better" that people will
switch. Demonstrated reliability of construction counts for a *lot*.
A 'clone', built to 'apparently' the same standards, will still take
a _long_ time to acquire the same degree of reputation for reliability.
4) 'Superior manufacturing and a better financial model' alone has *not*
been perceived as "*enough* better" to have any hope of capturing
enough market share to make the expenditure worth doing.
5) To be 'enough better' to have a hope of capturing enough share to
make the thing 'worth doing', major design changes are required.
Getting a 0.02% weight reduction for the same horsepower won't
get any attention. Get a 20% weight reduction, with the same horsepower,
and _lots_ of people will be knocking on your door, at least for
'evaluation' purposes. Get a demonstrated 20% weight reduction, and a
30% reduction in fuel consumption, and you can probably sell your entire
production line output for _years_ ahead, before the first customer
delivery has 100 hours on it.