The Washington herald., 1909-10-14


With Wilbur Wrights permission to go
as far as he liked, Emerson r. Newell,
Of New York, attorney for Glenn h Cur
tiss. who is being sued by the Wright
brothers for alleged infringement Of their
patents, yesterday put the biplane at Col
lege Park through a minute scrutiny and
made a sketch for use later. He has been
IN Washington since Sunday working on
the case, and will return to New York
tonight
The flexible wing tips. IN which lies
the heart and core OF the Wright idea,
came in for a particularly close inspec-
ton by Mr.. Newell Lieuts. Lahm and
! Humphreys worked the levers controll-
ing the wing tips and the rear vertical
rudders. and explained the relation OF
the two movements. Mr. Newell wanted
to know what would happen 81 the wing
tips were fexed without turning the rud-
der. what lifting power the curved sur
faces had. and how fast the machine
turned when one OF the tips was drawn
down In reply 10 the latter question,
Mr.. Wright's information was not very
definite. He said It depended on a good
many things. Ike the speed Of the ma
chine and the amount OF hexing. He
volunteered the remark that an aero
plane was apt 20 be about as contrary
as boarding-school girl. or words TO
that effect.
Curtiss' Attorney Complimentary.
In a short conversation between the
aviator and his opponents lawyer after
the inspection. Mr.. Newell compIimented
Mr.. Wright in the highest terms on what
he had done in aviation.
That is a fine machine you have
there" he said. Mr.. Curtiss and I give
you and your brother a great deal of
credit for developing It to its present
state"
That the Wrght-Curtiss controversy Is
not going 20 get into the class with the
( COOk-Peary fracas was one OF the points
emphasized by Mr. Newell.
"One thing want understood" he said
is that there is not going 10 be any
! mud singing IN this suit The Wrights
think the Curtiss biplane is an infringe
ment- We don't. 1t IS a large question
and an interesting one from the legal
L
case on its legal merits. and our method
VIII be 10 so right 10 the heart Of the
questionable matter Of the flexible wing
tips on the Wright machine and the hori-
I zOntal balance rudders on the machine OF
Mr.. Curtiss.
We are going 10 fight shy Of techni-
calities- l might have hung the case up
for six months, with a demurrer to the
original bill OF complaint OF the Wright
brothers. II I wanted TO resort to these
methods. The bnl OF complaint was
faulty in that IL named Mr.. Curtiss and
the Herring-Curtiss Company as defend
ants both individually and jointly. That
! is contrary TO patent-law practice. and
1 called the attention OF H A TOulmin.
OF New York, the Wrights' attorney, TO
the error. He has said the bill OF COM
plant Will be amended so that Mr.. Cur
tiss and the Herring-Curtiss Company
will be defendants jointly.
Two Suits Filed.
Two bills were fled by the Wright
brothers, one IN the Southwestern dis
trict Of New York. at Buffalo. against Mr..
Curtiss and the Herring Curtiss Company.
and the other in the Southern district.
at New York. against the Aeronautical
DDNiNA9 luL Bu1 AAe OIc OF MI. CQrIl9S
machines. In the former suit a preIimI-
nary Injunction has been asked for. NY
answer is due the first Monday IN No
vember. Following the usual routine in
such cases Mr.. Toulmin Will file a re-
plication. stating that our defense IS not
sufficient. Early in December the taking
of testimony will begin.
81 am, Of course. not ready yet 10 out
line our defense. further than 70 say we
do not believe the Curtiss machine e IN
any way an infringement on the Wright
patents. That does not apply to some
inventors. however. have seen photo
graphs and drawings Of some aeroplanes
that seem to be a perfect counterpart OF
the Wright machine. l should think they
would have started on those inventors
first
When asked what the effect would be
IL Mr.. Curtiss lost his case, Mr.. Newell