Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-vpzxz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-09T09:51:08.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Patent Pools Encourage Innovation? Evidence from the Nineteenth-Century Sewing Machine Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2010

Ryan Lampe  and
Petra Moser
Ryan Lampe*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, DePaul University, 1 East Jackson Blvd., Suite 6200, Chicago, IL 60604-2287. E-mail: rlampe@depaul.edu.
Petra Moser*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; and NBER. E-mail: pmoser@stanford.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Members of a patent pool agree to use a set of patents as if they were jointly owned by all members and license them as a package to other firms. This article uses the example of the first patent pool in U.S. history, the Sewing Machine Combination (1856–1877) to perform the first empirical test of the effects of a patent pool on innovation. Contrary to theoretical predictions, the sewing machine pool appears to have discouraged patenting and innovation, in particular for the members of the pool. Data on stitches per minute, an objectively quantifiable measure of innovation, confirm these findings.

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 898 - 920
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

A Cradle of Inventions: British Patents from 1617 to 1894. Stevenage, UK: Metal Finishing Information Services Ltd., 2009.Google Scholar
Andrews, Matthew Page. The Women of the South in War Times. Baltimore, MD: Norman, Remington Co., 1920.Google Scholar
Bays, Carter. The Encyclopedia of Early American and Antique Sewing Machines: Identification and Values. Kentucky: Collector Books, 2007.Google Scholar
Bessen, James. “Patent Thickets: Strategic Patenting of Complex Technologies.” Working Paper, Research on Innovation, 2003, www.researchoninnovation.org.Google Scholar
Bessen, James. “Imperfect Property Rights.” Working Paper, Research on Innovation, 2009, www.researchoninnovation.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botti, Timothy. Envy of the World: A History of the U.S. Economy & Big Business. New York: Algora Publishing, 2006.Google Scholar
Choi, Jay Pil. “Patent Pools and Cross-Licensing in the Shadow of Patent Litigation.” Working Paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Jeanne, Piccolo, Joe, Stanton, Brian, et al. . “Patent Pools: A Solution to the Problem of Access in Biotechnology Patents?” Washington, DC: United States Patent Office, 2001.Google Scholar
Clarkson, Gavin. “Objective Identification of Patent Thickets: A Network Analytic Approach for Measuring the Density of Patent Space.” Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 2004.Google Scholar
Cohen, Wesley, Nelson, Richard, and Walsh, John. “Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (Or Not).” NBER Working Paper No. 7552, Cambridge, MA, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Grace Rogers. The Sewing Machine: Its Invention and Development. Washington, DC: The Smithsonian Press, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, Carl. The Great American Customer. New York: Ayer Publishing, 1970.Google Scholar
Depew, Chaunce M.One Hundred Years of American Commerce. New York, NY: D.O. Haynes and Co., 1968.Google Scholar
Dequiedt, Vianney, and Versaevel, Bruno. “Patent Pools and the Dynamic Incentives to R&D.” Working Paper No, 703, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Économique, Université de Lyon, Ecully, France, 2007.Google Scholar
Drew, Dennis, and Snow, Donald. The Eagle's Talons: The American Experience at War. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin Institute. Report of the Twenty-Seventh Exhibition of American Manufactures: Held in the City of Philadelphia, from October 6th, to November 12th. Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute, 1874.Google Scholar
Gaule, Patrick. “Towards Patent Pools in Biotechnology?” Innovation Strategy Today 2, no. 2 (1996): 123–34.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Richard. “Antitrust for Patent Pools: A Century of Policy Evaluation.” Stanford Technology Law Journal 2004, no. 3 (April 2004). Available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/04_STLR_3.Google Scholar
Godfrey, Frank P.International History of the Sewing Machine. London: Trans-Atlantic Publications, 1982.Google Scholar
Google Patents, www.google.com/patents.Google Scholar
Hall, Bronwyn, Jaffe, Adam, and Trajtenberg, Manuel. “The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lesson, Insights, and Methodological Tools.” NBER Working Paper No. 8498, Cambridge, MA, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Bronwyn, and Ziedonis, Rosemarie. “The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979—1995.” RAND Journal of Economics 32, no. 1 (2001): 101–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hounshell, David. From the American System to Mass Production, 1800—1932. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Oliver. Great Stories of American Businessmen, from American Heritage, the Magazine of History. New York: American Heritage Pub. Co., 1972.Google Scholar
Johnston, Louis D. and Williamson, Samuel H.. “What Was the U.S. GDP Then?” MeasuringWorth, 2008.Google Scholar
Kershen, Anne J.Uniting the Tailors: Trade Unionism Amongst the Tailoring Workers of London and Leeds, 1870—1939. Essex, England: Frank Cass, 1995.Google Scholar
Khan, B. Zorina. “Property Rights and Patent Litigation in Early-Nineteenth-Century America.” The Journal of Economic History 55, no. 1 (1995): 58–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Edward. Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary. New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1877.Google Scholar
Lampe, Ryan, and Moser, Petra. “Patent Pools and the Direction of Technical Change: Evidence from the Sewing Machine Combination, 1856—1877.” Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2009.Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, Anne, and Lerner, Josh. “To Join or Not to Join: Examining Patent Pool Participation and Rent Sharing Rules.” Working Paper, Harvard University, 2008.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark, and Shapiro, Carl. “Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking.” Texas Law Review 85 (2007): 1991–2049.Google Scholar
Lerner, Josh, Strojwas, Marcin, and Tirole, Jean. “The Design of Patent Pools: The Determinants of Licensing Rules.” RAND Journal of Economics 38, no. 3 (2007): 610–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Josh, and Tirole, Jean. “Efficient Patent Pools.” American Economic Review 94, no. 3 (2004): 691–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, E. B. and Long, Barbara. The Civil War Day by Day; An Almanac, 1861—1865. Garden City, NY: Double Day & Company, 1971.Google Scholar
McGrath, Kimberley, and Blachford, Stacey. The Gale Encyclopedia of Science: Phosphorus-Spectrum. Detroit, MI: Gale Group, 2001.Google Scholar
Merges, Robert. “Contracting Into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations.” California Law Review 84, no. 5 (1996): 1293–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merges, Robert. “Institutions for Intellectual Property Transactions: The Case of Patent Pools.” Working Paper, University of California at Berkeley, CA, 1999.Google Scholar
Moser, Petra. “How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs.” American Economic Review 95, no. 4 (2005): 1214–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, Petra. “Innovation Without Patents — Evidence from the World Fairs.” Working Paper, Stanford University, CA, 2010.Google Scholar
Mossoff, Adam. “A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket.” George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 09-19, Fairfax, VA, 2009.Google Scholar
National Museum of American History, Library of the Smithsonian Institution Libraries. Trade Literature Collection. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nuvolari, Alessandro. “Collective Invention During the British Industrial Revolution: The Case of the Cornish Pumping Engine.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 28 (2004): 347–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popp, David, Juhl, Ted, and Johnson, Daniel. “Time in Purgatory: Examining the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications.” Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy 4, no. 1 (2004): Article 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, Robert. “‘Liberalizers’ versus ‘Scientific Mean’ in the Antebellum Patent Office.” Technology and Culture 17, no. 1 (1976): 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, William. The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1890.Google Scholar
Scientific American, various dates.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Carl. “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting.” In Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1, edited by Jaffe, Adam, Lerner, Josh, and Stern, Scott, 118–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.Google Scholar
State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Papers of the Singer Manufacturing Company. Madison, WI.Google Scholar
The Textile American, various dates.Google Scholar
Thomson, Ross. “Learning by Selling and Invention: The Case of the Sewing Machine.” The Journal of Economic History 47, no. 2 (1987): 433–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Ross. The Path to Mechanized Shoe Production in the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Thomson, Ross. “The Continuity of Innovation: The Civil War Experience.” Enterprise & Society 11, no. 1 (2010): 128–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Ross. Tullidge's Histories, (volume II) Containing the History of All the Northern, Eastern and Western Counties of Utah: Also the Counties of Southern Idaho. Salt Lake City, UT: Press of the Juvenile Instructor, 1889.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of Labor. Thirteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor — Hand and Machine Labor. Washington, DC: GPO, 1899.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing: 1850—1890. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
U.S. Commission to the Paris Exposition, 1889. Report of the United States Commissioners to the Universal Exposition of 1889. Washington, DC: GPO, 1890.Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property. Washington, DC, 1995.Google Scholar
U.S. Patent Office. Annual Reports of the United States Patent Office: 1850—1885. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Floyd. The United States Patent System: Legal and Economic Conflicts in American Patent History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956.Google Scholar
Verbeure, Birgit, van Zimmeren, Esther, Matthijs, Gert, et al. . “Patent Pools and Diagnostic Testing.” Trends in Biotechnology 24, no. 3 (2006): 115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westlaw Pre-1945 Federal Courts Database.Google Scholar
Whitten, David O. and Emrick Whitten, Bessie. Handbook of American Business History. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000.Google Scholar
Williamson, Samuel. “Six Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1790 to Present.” MeasuringWorth, 2008.Google Scholar