INVENTOR-ENTREPRENEURS: PATENTS AND PATENT LICENSING IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC - Ingenta Connect
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Technology and Innovation, Vol. 22, pp. 55-63 2021 ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/21.4.2021.6
Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Inventors. www.technologyandinnovation.org
INVENTOR-ENTREPRENEURS: PATENTS AND PATENT
LICENSING IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC
Arthur Daemmrich
Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation, National Museum of American History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA
Independent inventors have limited routes to secure financial returns on the time and capital they
invest to develop and realize a new idea. Research into two centuries of inventors has identified
their options as licensing patents once they are issued, selling inventions (and patents) to existing
companies, forging consulting arrangements with operating firms, or raising funds and starting
a business. This article explores patent licensing as an entrepreneurial approach using a case
study of the largely unknown licensing program undertaken by Samuel Hopkins after receiving
the first U.S. patent. A license agreement signed between Hopkins and Eli Cogswell, a potash
manufacturer in Vermont, offers a case study of how an inventor-entrepreneur worked in the
early American republic. It also provides insights into the links between intellectual property
and entrepreneurship, the mindset of inventor-entrepreneurs, and the challenges of bringing
a new technology to market at a foundational moment in U.S. history.
Key words: Invention; Patents; Patent law; Licensing; Entrepreneurship; Samuel Hopkins
INTRODUCTION and then turn to the 1787 U.S. Constitution, which
Historians, economists, legal scholars, and oth- included a clause that democratized access to pat-
ers writing about invention and entrepreneurship enting (1). These laws were written in an effort to
frequently reference intellectual property (IP) rights overcome the tendency to keep new technologies as
as integral to functioning innovation ecosystems. trade secrets. However, patents are not self-enforcing,
They also commonly use patent files and records of and IP agencies historically never policed market-
IP litigation as primary sources. Regrettably, for the places. Ultimately, inventors have always needed the
majority of inventor-entrepreneurs from the 18th and support of an ecosystem of lawyers, entrepreneurs,
19th centuries, we have few records that document risk-taking financial backers, and others to ensure
how they used IP rights to make a living. For their that IP is respected and can be licensed, traded, or
part, histories of IP typically start with a patent statute sold (2).
enacted in 15th century Venice, reference British pat- Inventors, the people who create new materi-
ents granted under the 1624 Statute of Monopolies, als, technologies, and services, have been identified
_____________________
Accepted: March 1, 2021.
Address correspondence to Arthur Daemmrich, Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Lemelson Center, MRC 604, 12th and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20560-0001, Tel: +1-202-633-6396. USA. Email: daemmricha@si.edu
55
56 DAEMMRICH
and mostly celebrated throughout human history Throughout the Middle Ages, however, inventors
(3,4). Independent inventors had a striking rise in largely kept breakthroughs secret since they had no
the U.S. in the 19th century, supported by what the way to profit from disclosing new technology and
economic historian Zorina Khan has termed “the instead worried about provoking the guilds and gov-
democratization of invention” (5). Routes to suc- ernmental authorities that controlled manufacturing
cess for 19th and 20th century inventors included and trade. The emergence of organized systems to
building businesses, licensing IP, selling patents, protect IP was inextricably linked to concepts of fair-
and forming ongoing consulting relationships with ness and competition in commerce, shifting notably
larger firms (6,7). Entrepreneurs, likewise, have been in the late 18th century to a more formal bureaucratic
with us throughout human history, though—unlike review of invention claims.
‘inventor’—the meaning of ‘entrepreneur’ has evolved The first modern patent granted for an inven-
considerably (8). As described by the Irish-French tion was issued in 1421 by the Republic of Florence
economist Richard Cantillon in the mid-18th cen- to the noted architect Filippo Brunelleschi for a sea
tury, the entrepreneur was someone who exercised craft designed to transport marble and other heavy
business judgment in the face of uncertainty. English stone (12). Brunelleschi was motivated by the ambi-
classical economists, including Adam Smith, saw tious project to build the cathedral Santa Maria del
entrepreneurs as accumulators and suppliers of finan- Fiore in Florence, which he had designed. Called Il
cial capital (9). In the early 1940s, Josef Schumpeter Badalone (“sea-going monster”), the ship featured a
gave entrepreneurs a new conceptual framing as system of gears and paddles. Brunelleschi claimed
risk-takers, people integral to the rise and success his vessel could “bring in any merchandise and load
of capitalism (10). … for less money than usual, and with several other
This article focuses on the “Schumpeterian” entre- benefits.” In an assignment of rights often cited as
preneur, specifically an individual intending to use the precursor to modern patents, Florence’s ruling
new technology to gain an advantage in the market- council granted Brunelleschi three years of exclu-
place. It presents a case study of the licensing of the sivity in exchange for making the machine available
first U.S. patent, issued in 1790, to develop a new his- to the public. Specifically, no new “machine or ship
torical perspective on innovation finance. Specifically, or other instrument designed to import or ship or
I document the steps followed by the inventor-entre- transport on water any merchandise” was permitted
preneur Samuel Hopkins to undertake what appears without Brunelleschi’s consent (13). Machines violat-
to have been the nation’s first patent licensing pro- ing the patent were to be burned. Il Badalone appears
gram. The article begins with an institutional history not to have worked well in practice, as it sank and lost
of IP systems and then portrays the inventor-entre- a load of 100 tons of marble in 1428 at a significant
preneur Samuel Hopkins and the first U.S. patent financial cost to the architect-inventor-entrepreneur
granted in 1790 before analyzing the patent licens- Brunelleschi himself.
ing program that Hopkins undertook once his IP was An organized patent system that included appli-
secured. Additional details and context come from cations from individuals, a systematic review process
a focus on the license signed by the Vermont-based by authorities, and the granting of official patents was
businessman and entrepreneur Eli Cogswell. The established by the Venetian Republic in 1474. The rel-
article concludes with a summation of the strategies evant Act stated:
followed by Hopkins as he sought to build a licens- [E]ach person who will make in this city any
ing business. new ingenious contrivance, not made hereto-
fore in our dominion, as soon as it is reduced to
PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR INVENTIONS perfection, so that it can be used and exercised,
Royal privileges and franchises were granted shall give notice of the same to the office of our
throughout history, and IP histories often begin with Provisioners of Common. It being forbidden
Greek and Roman era resolutions to cases of liter- to any other in any territory and place of ours
ary piracy and other intangible property theft (11). to make any other contrivance in the form and
PATENT LICENSING IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC 57
resemblance thereof, without the consent and individual act. With rights granted to a person, not a
license of the author up to ten years. (14) corporation, patents were now owned by individuals
and could be more readily licensed, sold, or assigned
The resulting IP system established an incentive
to others.
mechanism for inventors and set punishments for
In 1790, the first U.S. Congress wrote the
unauthorized use or infringements. The Venetians
new nation’s first patent statute, building on the
also created the first public registry and had granted
Constitution’s Article 1, which stated that Congress
over 120 patents by 1550 (15).
had the power “to promote the progress of science
Venice’s patent system contrasted with long-
and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
standing controls by guilds over craft knowledge
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
and manufacturing practices. Interestingly, the
respective writings and discoveries” (21). The new
best-known historical example of stifling inventor-en-
statute allowed anyone to apply for a patent on “any
trepreneurs also comes from Venice, where municipal
useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device,
authorities enforced control over the famous Murano
or any improvement therein not before known or
glassmakers by prohibiting them from disclosing
used.” Inventors were to submit a written descrip-
their methods outside of the Republic. In a famous
tion and working model if possible. Sufficient detail
case, the glassmaker Petrus Caldera was banned from
was required so that any person skilled in the specific
the guild in 1313 for working outside of Venice; he
area could “make, construct, or use” the invention
was only readmitted after paying a significant fine
(22). However, the legislation did not create a patent
(16).
office proper. Inventors submitted their descrip-
Over the next century, grants of patents and
tions and models to the Secretary of State, who then
monopolies were used more to attract foreign busi-
determined, alongside the Secretary of War and the
ness or to reward friends of royalty than to spur
Attorney General, whether the invention merited a
invention and entrepreneurship. In many instances,
patent (23). Patents that were issued evolved into a
the first importer of a technology held rights to
form of property that could be licensed, traded, or
exclude others equivalent to a domestic inventor
sold. Yet, how quickly they did so and with what
(17). In fact, the term “invention” encompassed tech-
implications for creating a distinctive inventor–
nology imports; its definition shifted to refer only to
entrepreneur hybrid has not previously been widely
novel technologies in the 18th century. In other cases,
known.
monarchs used patent privileges as a fundraising
mechanism; James I notoriously granted supporters
SAMUEL HOPKINS AND THE FIRST U.S. PATENT
exclusive rights to import codfish or export calfskins,
The first patent issued in the U.S. was granted to
while Elizabeth I granted patents not only for new
Samuel Hopkins on July 31, 1790, for a new method
industrial inventions but also for exclusive privileges
of making potash and pearl ash. At the time, potash
of selling salt, iron, paper, currants, and playing cards,
was used in bulk as a fertilizer and as a detergent
among others (18,19).
for cleaning fibers in textile production. In smaller
The playing card monopoly led to a famous 1603
volumes, it was used to make soap, saltpeter for gun-
legal decision, Darcy v. Allen, which invalidated the
powder, and a variety of other products. Pearl ash
Queen’s grant of a monopoly. The English Parliament
was a finer material produced by removing impu-
built on the case when it asserted a more restric-
rities from potash; it was used in glassmaking and
tive approach to granting patents in 1623 under
as a colonial-era leavening agent. Signed by George
the Statute of Monopolies. Enacted in 1624, the law
Washington, the patent had the attesting signatures of
prohibited most royal monopolies but specifically
Attorney General Edmund Randolph and Secretary
preserved the right to grant “letters patent” for inven-
of State Thomas Jefferson.
tions of “new manufactures” for up to 14 years (20).
Hopkins himself left few historical records,
The Statute drew upon the legacy of the Venetian
resulting in some confusion about his identity (24).
patent system and notably anchored invention as an
Detailed archival work by the historian David Maxey58 DAEMMRICH
has identified him as a Philadelphia Quaker who in General Court of Massachusetts in 1787 for sharing
midlife left an established position and his wife and an improved kettle design (26). Demand was increas-
six children to spend several years in frontier areas of ing among the textile, soap, and glass industries in
Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont before return- Great Britain in the late 18th century, resulting in a
ing to the city (25). Born in 1743, Hopkins apprenticed ready market for otherwise cash-poor colonists. In
with the established merchant Robert Parrish before 1789, potash exports went for nearly $95 per ton,
working as a shopkeeper in Philadelphia. Details of while pearl ash paid some $115 per ton (27). Annual
how he came to invent an improved method for mak- exports when Hopkins secured his patent were 4,627
ing potash are lost to history, but in the course of his tons of potash and 2,024 tons of pearl ash (27). Of
several years away from Philadelphia in the 1780s, course, significant amounts of potash also were used
he appears to have developed practical knowledge locally as fertilizers and by local soap and glass pro-
about building and operating a brick and stone fur- ducers. Efforts to scale up production in the colonies,
nace and come up with a new method that increased however, often failed when new potash works caught
potash output. fire or novel processes failed to deliver results.
Hopkins’ invention of a new method for making The patent credited Hopkins for an improvement
potash came at a time when applied technology— to potash production that was “not known or used
especially in chemistry—had significantly outpaced before.” Specifically, the patent enumerated a four-
scientific knowledge, resulting in dozens of new com- step process. First, “raw Ashes” from the burning of
pounds that were poorly characterized. Potash, later wood underwent a second burning in a furnace. In
termed potassium carbonate (the element potassium the second step, the ashes were dissolved in boiling
was identified in 1807 and is named in part for pot- water (a shift from the prior practice of dissolving
ash), was one of several colonial-era extracts from them in cold water). Third, the “ley,” a lye-rich liquid
forest products. Tar, rosin, and turpentine were pro- composition of potassium hydroxide that included
duced through extraction and distillation. Potash and various semi-dissolved solids, was drawn off and
pearl ash, by contrast, were made by first burning allowed to cool, with impurities floating on the top
hardwood trees in the open and then reheating ashes or falling to the bottom. Fourth, the liquid mixture
in iron kettles or cauldrons to produce the carbonate was boiled, leaving behind potash or, with additional
form. Potash was manufactured at the edges of newly rounds of burning in a cast iron pot, pearl ash. In
cleared lands and offered an immediate, but largely language probably taken directly from Hopkins’
one-time, cash payout to settlers. Potash and pearl application, the patent noted that “burning the raw
ash production thus moved westward and northward Ashes in a Furnace, preparatory to their Dissolution
from Connecticut and Massachusetts throughout the and boiling in Water, is new, leaves little Residuum;
1780s and 1790s, following the ever-shifting frontier. and produces a much greater Quantity of Salt” (28).
Potash was known under several names and pro- Neither the furnace that Hopkins had developed
duced and marketed in a variety of formulations in for the secondary burning of ash nor the kettle used
the late 1700s, including caustic potash (KOH), vit- to boil the liquid is described in the patent, but
riol of potash (K2SO4), and muriate of potash (KCl). both were of great interest to potential licensees.
When produced at the edges of fields, the potash As part of his licensing strategy, Hopkins provided
typically contained a mixture of these potassium step-by-step descriptions of his process and detailed
compounds, resulting in marketplace confusion, plans for building a brick and stone furnace (also
especially for buyers seeking purer formulations. referred to in some places as an oven) in a self-pub-
Improvements to potash production consequently lished booklet, “An Address to the Manufacturers
were sought on both sides of the Atlantic. The London of Pot and Pearl Ash” (29). Hopkins offered up two
Society of Arts gave medals starting in the 1760s distinct processes, one for summer operations in
for practical treatises advising on improved meth- which water was used to create the “ley” for repeated
ods for potash production. In the colonies, Cale boiling and a separate dry process for wintertime
Wilder and William Frobisher were thanked by the that involved repeated burnings of ash without thePATENT LICENSING IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC 59
leaching process. Critically, the booklet details mate- entrepreneurial licensing program. First, he traveled
rials needed, including 1,500 salmon bricks (a less widely speaking about his method and distributing
expensive brick fired for a shorter time and typically his pamphlet. In addition to the detailed explana-
used in interior walls); 3,000 normal bricks; lime for tion of his method and instructions for building the
the exterior; a variety of metal plates, hooks, and furnace, the pamphlet reproduced both the 1790
doors (one to put wood into the furnace, another to Patent Act and the text of Hopkins’s issued patent
remove ash); two potash kettles 2½ feet in diameter (29). Second, he corresponded with and met lead-
with flat bottoms; and grates. The figures showed a ers seeking to develop the country’s industrial base,
floor plan and four perspective sketches (29). The including Thomas Jefferson and the influential mer-
furnace had three chimneys and would have been chant Henry Drinker. Hopkins shared information
on the order of 7½ feet wide, 3 to 4 feet deep, and 4 about his successes and sought endorsements for
to 5 feet tall (Hopkins’ plan involved digging out a his licensing business. Third, he employed his son-
foundation two feet below ground to avoid frost in in-law, the attorney William Shotwell, and other
winter). licensing agents. Fourth, in the spring of 1791,
In modern chemical parlance, Hopkins had Hopkins traveled to Canada to seek IP protection
improved the method for reacting potassium hydrox- for his invention in a region holding an abundance of
ide with carbon dioxide. The potassium hydroxide hardwood forests. His overtures to Lord Dorchester,
was obtained by pouring water over ashes from governor-in-chief of the colonies of Quebec, Nova
burned wood, a process that Hopkins improved Scotia, and New Brunswick, met with some success,
through a second burning of the ashes. When the and, alongside several other inventors of potash pro-
water was boiled off, the potassium hydroxide reacted duction methods, Hopkins was granted a six-year
with carbon dioxide to form the desired potassium privilege that excluded others from making potash
carbonate. Today, chemists would write the reaction except under his license (26).
as 2KOH + CO2 --> K2CO3 + H2O. Hopkins’ booklet was his primary form of adver-
tisement. The only surviving copy unfortunately lacks
LICENSING THE FIRST AMERICAN PATENT illustrations, but beyond its detailed description
Hopkins sought to make money from his inven- of the process to build and operate a potash fur-
tion and employed four strategies when launching his nace, it also offers insights into Hopkins as a hybrid
Figure 1. Original agreement from 1791 to license Hopkins’s patent.60 DAEMMRICH
inventor-entrepreneur. Specifically, he offered his potash or pearl ash should be branded. Every “barrel,
license for an initial payment of $50 (or a half-ton of cask or package” had to be marked with the patent
potash in casks) plus annual payments of $50 start- license number, Eli Cogswell’s name, and a sequen-
ing after three years until either $200 or two tons of tial number starting with the first package produced.
potash had been paid. The payment plan made it Furthermore, the building in which the potash and
affordable for a shopkeeper or other business leader to pearl ash were made had to have an exterior sign with
license the technology while also incentivizing them the patent license number that stated, “Pot and Pearl
to operate for many years. In addition, Hopkins stated Ash Works, licensed by Samuel Hopkins” (30).
that he had agents in Boston, Providence, Norwich, Although the license signed by Eli Cogswell is
Hartford, New London, New York, Hudson, Albany, number 310, it remains unknown how many actual
and Philadelphia ready to sign agreements and accept licensees Hopkins secured. Available evidence sug-
payments (29). gests it was far less than 310; had he done so at his
By early 1791, Hopkins had developed a pre- terms of $200 payable over five years, he would
printed agreement to license his U.S. patent. Only have netted $62,000, which was equivalent to $1.7
one original agreement has been found, marked at million in 2020. Hopkins’ later life does not offer evi-
the top of the first page as number 310, suggesting dence of his having achieved that degree of wealth.
that Hopkins intended to license his invention widely. Nonetheless, the approach of paying for the costs of
The agreement was discovered in 1957 in a metal box clearing land by selling potash was common, and
in the back of a chimney in Castleton, Vermont, the even in more settled communities, farmers would
town where the licensee lived in 1791. It then was sell ashes to a village shopkeeper that converted
kept in private hands for the next six decades. In them to potash. In 1794, the trader, politician, and
September 2019, the Smithsonian’s Lemelson Center Philadelphia-based writer Tench Coxe observed, “the
and the Division of Work and Industry at the National expense of clearing an acre of land is fully and com-
Museum of American History were able to secure pletely reimbursed by the net sales of the pot ashes or
and preserve this original patent license (30). pearl ashes” (33). Oddly, the Hopkins license agree-
The terms and conditions offered by Hopkins doc- ment does not include the payment terms. It also
ument a focus on quality and branding. The license makes no mention of territory or other exclusivity
begins by reiterating the core terms of the Hopkins for Cogswell. Today’s license agreements typically
patent, including its date of issue (July 31, 1790), term describe the full terms, including royalty payments;
(14 years), and details of the invention itself. It then if confidential provisions are necessary, they are nev-
authorizes Eli Cogswell of Castleton, Vermont, to ertheless referenced in the license (34).
build a single furnace according to Hopkins’s method Beyond its content, the three-page patent license
and to operate it for 7 ½ years, starting on September is historically interesting also for its printing tech-
1, 1791. Cogswell was a man of some wealth and nique. Printed prior to the invention of lithography,
standing according to the 1790 census, which reg- the document was most likely made through “inta-
istered his title as esquire and had him heading a glio,” in which a skilled craftsman etched the wording
household of 10, including his wife, two sons, and into metal plates. Unlike relief printing from move-
six other people, presumably workers or extended able type or letterpress, ink on the resulting prints
family members (31). Other records of Cogswell ref- is not pushed through the paper. The license mim-
erence him as Castleton’s first town clerk in 1777, a ics handwritten documents, which would have
merchant, and a “lister” in 1782, a colonial-era title been used for such agreements in previous decades.
for someone who kept a list of people being taxed It could have been printed in either Philadelphia
and their property (32). A long section of the agree- (where Hopkins lived) or New York City (where it
ment then outlines conditions under which Cogswell was signed and closer to Shotwell’s home in Rahway,
can dismantle and move the potash production and New Jersey); both cities had shops in the early 1790s
states that Hopkins will issue a new license if the facil- that could handle a print run of the license agree-
ity burns down. Next, the license specifies how the ments. Interestingly, the printer used non-script typePATENT LICENSING IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC 61
in several places, specifically when referring to “Pot Pittsburgh and Cincinnati gained market dominance.
and Pearl Ash” on the first page and “Pot and Pearl It remained a lively area for invention, with 1,811 pat-
Ash Works, licensed by Samuel Hopkins” on the third ents relating to potash granted in the 19th century
page, presumably to make them stand out. (5).
Within a few decades of Hopkins’s pioneer-
SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS ing licensing program, inventors regularly sold or
Although historical records are spotty, Eli Cogswell licensed their patents. Not all were successful. Eli
does not appear to have built a sustained business Whitney, for example, found little success when he
based on his license from Hopkins. According to one tried to license his 1794 patent for an improved cotton
source, Cogswell moved to Ohio in the early 19th cen- gin. Although he later won lawsuits against several
tury, where he owned a farm before he passed away operators that used a similar technology to separate
in 1831 (35). Others may have had greater success; a seeds from cotton fiber, he was left embittered by the
local history of Rutland county lists some 14 differ- experience (38). Other inventors had greater success.
ent entrepreneurial producers of potash in the 1780 In an 1827 report, Patent Office director William
to 1820 period, though most also worked as shop- Thornton recounted the inventor Gilbert Brewster
keepers or in other trades (36). selling his patents on improved machinery for spin-
Hopkins himself returned to Philadelphia by late ning wool immediately upon their issue for $10,000
1791 and was listed on city directories as a “pot-ash (equivalent to $256,000 in 2020) (24).
manufacturer” and after 1798 as a “gentleman” (26). By 1835, the Patent Office was issuing some 800
Historical records are spotty, but despite his acumen patents annually, but the Patent Act itself was criti-
at lining up prominent supporters, Hopkins does not cized for an overly complex process and for its failure
appear to have earned significant revenue from his to clearly mandate that new technologies be novel
licensing initiative or from his own manufacturing in order to be patented. As a result, adroit individu-
efforts in Philadelphia. For example, the maple sugar als were copying inventions on display in the patent
entrepreneur William Cooper noted the license terms model room, getting new patents, and then licens-
came at a “high price,” and prominent Quaker Henry ing these derivative inventions. According to Senator
Drinker warned Hopkins that his descriptions and John Ruggles, an inventor in his own right, unscru-
presentations confused potential licensees (26). In pulous actors were earning $500,000 annually by
the summer of 1793, Hopkins published a detailed copying other inventions (23). The 1836 Patent Act
explanation of how his process differed from other clarified that inventions must be novel, and that the
methods of potash production with supporting sig- Patent Office was responsible for examining prior
natures of the Philadelphia elite, including David art, thereby creating a system that has underpinned
Rittenhouse, Benjamin Rush, James Hutchinson, and the entrepreneur-based economy with minor modi-
Caspar Wistar. But by 1800, Hopkins and his wife fications to the present. Famous inventors of the 19th
were living in Rahway, New Jersey, with their daugh- century who licensed or sold their patents to other
ter and son-in-law William Shotwell. Nevertheless, entrepreneurs, including Charles Goodyear (vul-
Hopkins continued to invent, securing patents on the canized rubber), Samuel Morse (telegraph), Elias
production of “flour of mustard” in 1813 and 1817 Howe (sewing machine), and even Thomas Edison
(37). (over 20 of his inventions), all followed a path tread
British demand for North American potash and by Samuel Hopkins with the first U.S. patent (39).
pearl ash declined from the mid-1810s onward
as buyers switched first to potash produced from CONCLUSION
burning kelp in Scotland and then to soda ash man- Patent licensing is often considered a phenome-
ufactured by the emerging chemical industry via non of the 20th and 21st centuries and is sometimes
the Leblanc process (26). In the U.S., potash pro- criticized in policy circles as enabling “non-practicing
duction shifted to western New York, Pennsylvania, entities” or “trolls” to unfairly profit. Historians, econ-
and Ohio as glass and soap firms headquartered in omists, and legal scholars have identified numerous62 DAEMMRICH
cases of 19th century inventors who sought to license 7. Hintz ES. American independent inventors in an
their patents with varying degrees of success (2,39). era of corporate R&D. Cambridge (MA): MIT
By uncovering and analyzing the little-known his- Press; 2021.
tory of Samuel Hopkins’ patent licensing program, 8. Gough J. The rise of the entrepreneur. London
this article identifies antecedents to licensing prac- (UK): B.T. Batsford; 1969.
tices that became common practice years later. Acting 9. Hebert R, Link A. A history of entrepreneur-
as an inventor-entrepreneur, Hopkins promoted his ship. Milton Park (UK): Routledge; 2009.
own invention through a detailed pamphlet, traveled 10. Schumpeter J. Capitalism, socialism, and democ-
and gave talks about his improved potash production racy. New York (NY): Harper & Brothers; 1942.
method, lined up agents to sign licenses on his behalf, 11. Bugbee B. The genesis of American patent and
and sought out high-profile endorsements. While copyright law. Washington (DC): Public Affairs
neither invention nor entrepreneurship is unique or Press; 1967.
original to the U.S., Hopkins created a very American 12. Sabattini M. Filippo Brunelleschi, the Medici, the
hybrid of the two roles. Silicon Valley and intellectual property. Pulse.
2016 Feb 23 [accessed 2020 Jul 1]. https://www.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS linkedin.com/pulse/filippo-brunelleschi-medi-
The author gratefully acknowledges Curator ci-silicon-valley-property-matteo/.
of Graphic Arts Joan Boudreau at the National 13. Prager FD, Scaglia G. Brunnelleschi: studies
Museum of American History for insights on the of his technology and inventions. Cambridge
history of printing; Curator of Work and Industry (MA): MIT Press; 1970.
Peter Liebhold at the National Museum of American 14. Anderfelt U. International patent legislation and
History for collaborating to preserve the Cogswell developing countries. The Hague (NL): Martinus
patent license; Paul Carnahan and Marjorie Strong Nijhoff; 1971. p. 4.
of the Vermont Historical Society for scanning and 15. Wegner H. Patent harmonization. London (UK):
sending primary source materials; and two anony- Sweet & Maxwell; 1993. p. 2.
mous reviewers for comments on a previous version 16. Long PO. Invention, authorship, intellec-
of this article. tual property, and the origin of patents: notes
toward a conceptual history. Technol Cult.
REFERENCES 1991;32(4):846-884.
1. Sinnreich A. The essential guide to intellectual 17. Penrose E. The economics of the international
property. New Haven (CT): Yale University patent system. Westport (CT): Greenwood Press;
Press; 2019. 1974.
2. Mossoff A. Patent licensing and secondary mar- 18. Macleod C. Inventing the industrial revolu-
kets in the nineteenth century. Geo Mason L Rev. tion: the English patent system, 1660-1800.
2014; 22(4):959-971. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press;
3. Godin B. Innovation contested: the idea of inno- 1988.
vation over the centuries. Milton Park (UK): 19. Gomme A. Patents of inventions: origin and
Routledge; 2015. growth of the patent system in Britain. London
4. Temple R, Needham J. The genius of China: 3,000 (UK): Longman Greens; 1946.
years of science, discovery, and invention. New 20. Sherman B, Bently L. The making of modern
York (NY): Simon and Schuster; 1986. intellectual property law: the British experi-
5. Khan Z. The democratization of invention: ence, 1760-1911. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge
patents and copyrights in American economic University Press; 1999.
development, 1790-1920. Cambridge (UK): 21. US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph
Cambridge University Press; 2005. 8.
6. Carlson WB. Tesla: inventor of the electrical age. 22. US Congress. An act to promote the progress of
Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 2013. useful arts. April 10, 1790.PATENT LICENSING IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC 63
23. Dobyns K. The patent office pony. Boston (MA):
Docent Press; 1994.
24. Maxey D. Inventing history: the holder of
the first U.S. patent. J Patent Trademark.
1998;80(1):155-170.
25. Maxey D. Samuel Hopkins, the holder of
the first U.S. patent. Penn Mag Hist Biog.
1998;122(1):3-37.
26. Haynes W. American chemical industry. Volume
1, background and beginnings. New York (NY):
D. Van Nostrand; 1954. p. 160-162.
27. Browne C. Historical notes upon the domestic
potash industry. J Chem Educ. 1926;3(7):749.
28. Hopkins S, inventor. The making of pot ash and
pearl ashes. United States Patent X000001. 1790
July 31. [accessed 2020 Jul 1]. https://patents.
google.com/patent/USX1I1/en.
29. Hopkins S. An address to the manufacturers of
pot and pearl ash. New York (NY): Childs and
Swaine; 1791.
30. Hopkins S. Patent License 310. National
Museum of American History catalog number
2019.0253.1. [accessed 2020 Jul 13]. https://
americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/
object/nmah_1967698.
31. Bureau of the Census. Heads of families at
the first census of the United States: Vermont.
Washington (DC): Government Printing Office;
1907.
32. Smith H, Rann W. History of Rutland County,
Vermont. Syracuse (NY): D. Mason; 1886.
33. Coxe T. A view of the United States of America.
Philadelphia (PA): William Hall; 1794.
34. Key S. Sell your ideas with or without a patent.
Glenbrook (NV): Stephen Key Media; 2015.
35. Morgan M. Eli Cogswell. 19 June 2012 [accessed
2020 Jul 10]. Findagrave.com.
36. Smith H, Rann W. History of Rutland County,
Vermont. Syracuse (NY): D. Mason; 1886.
37. Burke E, editor. List of patents for inventions and
designs issued by the Unites States from 1790 to
1847. Washington (DC): Patent Office; 1847.
38. Lakwete A. Inventing the cotton gin: machine
and myth in antebellum America. Baltimore
(MD): John Hopkins University Press; 2003.
39. Lamoreaux N, Sokoloff K, Sutthiphisal D. Patent
Alchemy: the Market for Technology in U.S.
History. Bus Hist. 2013; 87: 3-38.You can also read
