Icon Aircraft Descends Into A Dogfight

[aviatoreb]

18 hours ago, EricJ said:

This is done with great regularity in the US as well, and pretty much every country on the planet.    Wherever there are people, this happens.

I spent a lot of my career collaborating with researchers across the US and around the globe.   One of the large household-name technical companies that I worked for had a lab in Shanghai that I would visit and work with, and we often collaborated, sometimes through that lab, with researchers in other Chinese companies.   I also worked with researchers from European, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Canadian, Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, Indian, Israeli, et al companies, as well as US companies and universities around the world.

I didn't see any more threat to IP theft from Chinese collaborators than from anyone else.  Sometimes the US Universities are THE WORST in this regard.   You have to be careful about doing business or collaborating with anybody, and everybody will, understandably, work their own system to their own benefit.   Everybody here does that, too, and we tend to not like it when somebody else's system stops us from doing things we're used to, just like we get upset when somebody else does something that's ordinary to them that we're not used to.

 

I agree but I want to add a bit of my own spin.  I am in the university world, and I would say, that academics acting like sharks and stealing each others work most definitely does happen and we all carefully look over our shoulders when talking to competing groups, and certain groups are especially bad, but for the most part I think most are good players.  At its best, competing groups egg each other on all in good sport. At its worst it can be nasty.  I feel nasty is much less common, but I think all of us, me included have had bad experiences.  But lots of great experiences.  And I am agreeing, even when interacting with competing US universities or sometimes even between researchers at the same university!  Some fields are worse than others, some more friendly.

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I agree but I want to add a bit of my own spin.  I am in the university world, and I would say, that academics acting like sharks and stealing each others work most definitely does happen and we all carefully look over our shoulders when talking to competing groups, and certain groups are especially bad, but for the most part I think most are good players.  At its best, competing groups egg each other on all in good sport. At its worst it can be nasty.  I feel nasty is much less common, but I think all of us, me included have had bad experiences.  But lots of great experiences.  And I am agreeing, even when interacting with competing US universities or sometimes even between researchers at the same university!  Some fields are worse than others, some more friendly.

FWIW, I wasn't even thinking of that aspect, which definitely happens, but much of that is not protected by IP laws, just academic integrity (or lack thereof as the case may be).

What I had in mind was cases where industry companies fund University research, sometimes a lot of money for very long-term research, then the U gets patents from the funded research and licenses the resulting technology exclusively to the funder's competitors.   This happens more often than one would think.   Another twist on the same problem is U foundations asserting patents against funders in similar or same areas, or, worse yet, licensing patents to outside agents who then assert them against funders.

Since this pretty much makes the Us who do this the ultimate patent trolls, imho, it has led me to the opinion that academic institutions should not be allowed to own patents.

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by EricJ

[N201MKTurbo]

25 minutes ago, EricJ said:

FWIW, I wasn't even thinking of that aspect, which definitely happens, but much of that is not protected by IP laws, just academic integrity (or lack thereof as the case may be).

What I had in mind was cases where industry companies fund research, sometimes a lot of money for very long-term research, then the U gets patents from the funded research and licenses the resulting technology exclusively to the funder's competitors.   This happens more often than one would think.   Another twist on the same problem is U foundations asserting patents against funders in similar or same areas, or, worse yet, licensing patents to outside agents who then assert them against funders.

Since this pretty much makes the Us who do this the ultimate patent trolls, imho, it has led me to the opinion that academic institutions should not be allowed to own patents.

 

The big I patients a lot of stuff, they don’t patent their most important IP because you have to disclose the IP in the patent application. They just keep it secret, and sue anybody who gives it away. The power of the NDA.

I have to do contractor training AGAIN next week. They will explain the fire and brimstone that will descend on me if I give away their secrets.

It is funny, I mostly drive a computer when I’m there, but I have to be trained on ladder and tool safety like a construction worker. It’s OK, they are paying a steep hourly rate for me to sit in those classes.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

FWIW, I wasn't even thinking of that aspect, which definitely happens, but much of that is not protected by IP laws, just academic integrity (or lack thereof as the case may be).

What I had in mind was cases where industry companies fund University research, sometimes a lot of money for very long-term research, then the U gets patents from the funded research and licenses the resulting technology exclusively to the funder's competitors.   This happens more often than one would think.   Another twist on the same problem is U foundations asserting patents against funders in similar or same areas, or, worse yet, licensing patents to outside agents who then assert them against funders.

Since this pretty much makes the Us who do this the ultimate patent trolls, imho, it has led me to the opinion that academic institutions should not be allowed to own patents.

 

Ooooh...right we were not talking about the same thing at all.

Actually, I am not worried if a university, my university, owns patents or not.

Luckily I'm not in it for the money.  Pay my salary, and I'm good to go.  Bad attitude for someone who wants to make a Billion but that's not me.

I did find myself in an ugly situation once where my then university set me and another guy in engineering up to speak to some kind of investor, who then carried our "IP" to GE who then declined to be interested, but what do you know, a year later they had patented it!  They never invested in it, but they had patented it.  We never did anything with it either since we never managed to get funding to move on it, so nothing really lost but it did leave an ugly taste in my mouth for making that mistake again.

[GeeBee]

5 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I think they are after ownership for way less than if they bought out the other investors.

‘I’ve seen aircraft manufacturers go bankrupt and were bought for not much, and bought free and clear, the new owners didn’t owe the old debtors.

The real value of a Certified Aircraft manufacturing facility is its ability to manufacture aircraft, it’s process specs, procedures, quality control etc are all bought off by the FAA, so you could start building a different aircraft right away, if you try to stand up a manufacturing facility it’s years and millions of dollars and everything thing has to meet new standards etc. where older ones are Grandfathered in

I don’t know where an Icon falls into this, perhaps the majority holder wants to build other aircraft, I don’t believe the Icon has set any sales records, I think it’s way overpriced and way underperforming, at least compared to what was advertised.

If that were true, why have huge court hassle, when they could have bought Mooney. Oh wait they did and went broke.

 

 

[carusoam]

8 hours ago, GeeBee said:

 Oh wait they did and went broke.

 

 

Who is this they group you speak of?

The they that bought Mooney, wasn’t they a large, family owned, industrial group?

The kind that buys up companies for various reasons... some investments work, some don’t... some you just cut loose...

 

Which they went broke?  Certainly not the big industrial group...

 

PP thoughts only... my family’s calculator doesn’t have a billions button on it...  

And now my YouTube feed has a daily icon aircraft video asking to be watched... 

If you think we have gear up problems... watch the icon videos... where GUMPs has to be un-gumped when it comes to water...

Best regards,

-a-

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

This article has good explanation of the geopolitical mindset that yields this sort of result.  https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-is-china-smashing-its-tech-industry

[thinwing]

I saw my first ICON at a boat show aug 2009.It was trailered in with wings folded but didnt fly...too rough.They were sure they  would cert it in a few more months and sell for less than 100k.10 years later they finally cert it as a light sport,faa weight waiiver to 1500 lbs i think...not even part 23.....there is nothing ,technology wise ,other than basic design ,that can be found in a modern bass boat.Engine,avionics all avalible off the shelf...as far as composite mfding..they already aquired that when the bought cirrus.