psyshrike wrote:

How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
rights? For example: everything in an O-235 has been out of patent for
years now. Same with old aircraft designs. Is there any reason why
somebody couldn't tool up and start ripping out O-235s, and selling
them new?

It doesn't relate to the intellectual property rights, really. There's
nothing that keeps you from type certiciating a device you don't own the
rights to.

What the certification does is show that you have demonstrated via tests
and a preponderance of paperwork that your engine meets the FAA requirements
and your ancillary stuff: manufacturing, service tracking, etc... is up
to snuff.

Someone could start making 235 clones, but they couldn't use Lycoming's
certification to do it. The "proof" of the design is only one part of
the manufacturer's certification, they need to continually meet the other
regulatory standards as well.



Does the FAA type certification trump the USPTO when it comes to
patent law?

It doesn't have any affect on patent law, nor does patent law affect
the FAA type certification. Both patent law and certification are
in force independently and simoultaneously. You must have complied
with any patent requirements for the invention as WELL as gaining FAA
certs and approval for selling aircraft parts.

I'm not knocking the FAA's safety interests. But public domain is
public domain. If I can make a 1948 mousetrap and sell it, why not a
Continental Engine?

You are free to get your clone engine certificated. However, you can't
just go out and manufacture airplane parts because they are clones of some
approved part. As I said, there is more to the certification and manufacturing
authority than just "proof" of the design.


If anybody can refer me to documentation on this or the section of law
or regulation that pertains to it, I'd be quite appreciative. I can't
emagine such a law exists. But I also can't understand why there is so
much reinvention of the wheel.

Start by reading Part 21.