This was exactly my point. The patents were overly broad and designed to hinder competition. The overall result was negative for society, not positive. While the Wrights were "first in flight," I have zero confidence that flight wouldn't have been invented without the incentive of a monopoly on flight control.
Writing a double-negative like that forces me to do a double-take when trying to understand you. Or is it a triple-negative?
I'm going to go with, "there were so many inventors, its invention was inevitable" as my interpretation, which I believe is the most correct rendition of the story of flight as I know it.
