Yes, though ostensibly not in the same manner or to the same extent, but also extensively so and they do recognize this may be an issue depending on the investigation outcome on the Boeing side.
The 787 was, and the A350 is, plagued with delays. The market demanded that on the medium-widebody segment they come up with something more than just a “new and improved” version of an old reliable (contrast the narrowbodies, where everyone seems to be at peace with having yet one more generation of reengined/rewired 737 or A320 derivatives). Not that simple!
Do you have a link?
I was looking at the sketches for the concept that preceded the Dreamliner, the Sonic Cruiser, which used canards and a large wing at the tail. It occurred to me that, with all the primary control surfaces clustered at the back of the plane, one could situate the cockpit at the back as well, with ventral windows that would give a good view for landing, and the need for long hydraulic lines would be greatly reduced. The biggest problem with that would be insulating the cockpit sufficiently against engine noise.
I’m assuming you’re not kidding.
Business contract to prevent copying? Military b/c design parallels with Defense designs?
I do indeed:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/misc/787_arff_data.pdf (warning, obviously, a .pdf)
The NTSB has issued a final report on the battery problems: