Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:07:12.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Independent Invention in U.S. Technological Development, 1880–1930

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2010

Tom Nicholas
Tom Nicholas*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA 02163. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why did independent inventors account for over half of U.S. patents by 1930 and more than three times the number granted to R&D firms? Using new data on patents and historical patent citations, I show that independents supplied high-quality innovations to a geographically broad market for ideas. Those close to large urban centers developed some of the most significant technological advances. Demand for independent inventions remained high during the growth of the corporate economy as firms continued to acquire external innovations that complemented formal R&D. Despite their relative decline, independents remained central to the process of technological development.

“The statement sometimes is made that ‘the day of the genius in the garret is done.’ Nothing could be further from the truth.”

William A. Kinnan, First Assistant Patent Commissioner, New York Times, December 18th, 1927

Type
ARTICLES
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 57 - 82
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.)

References

REFERENCES

Astebro, Thomas “The Return to Independent Invention: Evidence of Risk Seeking, Extreme Optimism, or Skewness-Loving?” The Economic Journal 113, no. 1(2003): 226–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumol, WilliamThe Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth. Miracle of Capitalism Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, AlfredScale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, NormanLee, Preston “The Size Structure of the Largest Industrial Firms.” American Economic Review 51, no. 5(1961): 986–1011.Google Scholar
David, Paul A. “The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox.” American Economic Review 80, no. 2(1990) 352–61.Google Scholar
Fisk, Catherine “Removing the Fuel of Interest from the Fire of Genius: Law and the Employee-Inventor, 1830–1930.” University of Chicago Law Review 65, no. 4(1998) 1127–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Electric. Minutes of the Board of Director Meetings. August 1st, 1929 and April 28th, 1933. General Electric Archive, Schenectady, New York.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature 28, no. 4(1990) 1661–1707.Google Scholar
Hall, Bronwyn, Jaffe, Adam, and Trajtenberg, Manuel. “The NBER Patent-Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights, and Methodological Tools.” In Patents, Citation, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy, edited by Adam, Jaffe and Manuel, Trajtenberg, 403–59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Hall, Bronwyn, Jaffe, Adam, and Trajtenberg, Manuel. “Market Value and Patent Citations.” Rand Journal of Economics 36, no. 1(2005):16–38.Google Scholar
Hill, Roger B. “Early Work on Dial Telephone Systems.” Bell Laboratories Record 31, no. 1(1953): 22–29.Google Scholar
Hughes, Thomas P.American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870–1970 Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2004Google Scholar
Jaffe, Adam “Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of Research and Development: Evidence from Firms’ Patents Profits and Market Value.” American Economic Review 76, no. 5(1986): 984–1001.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, Boyan, and Rousseau, Peter “General Purpose Technologies.” In Handbook of Economic Growth, edited by Philippe, Aghion and Steven, Durlauf, 1181–1224. North-Holland: Elsevier, 2005.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, Boyan, and Nyarko, Yaw “Learning by Doing and the Choice of Technology.” Econometrica 64 no. 6(1996): 1299–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, B. Zorina. The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790–1920 Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2005Google Scholar
Khan, B. Zorina, and Kenneth, Sokoloff “Institutions and Democratic Invention in Nineteenth-Century America: Evidence from Great Inventors 1790–1930.” American Economic Review 94, no. 2(2004): 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sukkoo “Expansion of Markets and the Geographic Distribution of Economic Activities: The Trends in U.S. Regional Manufacturing Structure, 1860–1987.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 no. 4(1995): 881–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sukkoo “Urban Development in the United States, 1690 – 1990.” Southern Economic Journal 66, no. 4(2000): 855–80.Google Scholar
Kim, Sukkoo, and Margo, Robert “Historical Perspectives on U.S. Economic Geography.” In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edited by J. Vernon Henderson and Thisse, J. F.2981–3019Holland: Elsevier, 2004.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi, Levenstein, Margaret, and Sokoloff, Kenneth. “Financing Invention During the Second Industrial Revolution: Cleveland, Ohio, 1870–1920.” In Financing Innovation in the United States 1870 to the Present, edited by Naomi, Lamoreaux and Kenneth, Sokoloff, 39–84. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi, and Sokoloff, Kenneth. “Inventors, Firms, and the Market for Technology in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries.” In Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms, and Countries, edited by Naomi, Lamoreaux, Daniel, Raff, and Peter, Temin, 19–58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi, and Sokoloff, Kenneth. “Intermediaries in the U.S. Market for Technology, 1870–1920. NBER Working Paper No. 9017, Cambridge, MA, June 2002.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi, and Sokoloff, Kenneth. “The Decline of the Independent Inventor: A Schumpterian Story?” NBER Working Paper No. 11654, Cambridge, MA, October 2005.Google Scholar
Lerner, Josh “150 Years of Patent Protection.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 92, no. 2(2002): 221–25.Google Scholar
MacGarvie, Megan “The Determinants of International Knowledge Diffusion as Measured by Patent Citations.” Economics Letters 87, no. 1(2005): 121–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacGarvie, Megan, and Furman, Jeffrey L.. “Early Academic Science and the Birth of Industrial Research Laboratories in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63, no. 4(2007): 756–76.Google Scholar
Merges, Robert “The Law and Economics of Employee Inventions.” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 13, no. 1(1999): 2–53.Google Scholar
Mokyr, JoelThe Lever of Riches Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990Google Scholar
Mokyr, JoelThe Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002Google Scholar
Mowery, David, and Rosenberg, NathanPaths of Innovation: Technological Change in Twentieth-Century America Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, Willard F. “The Origins of the Basic Inventions Underlying DuPont's Major Product and Process Innovations, 1920 to 1950.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, edited by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 323–58. Cambridge, MA: UMI, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. Industrial Research Laboratories of the United States Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1921–1946.Google Scholar
Navin, Thomas R. “The 500 Largest American Industrials in 1917.” The Business History Review 44, no. 3(1970): 360–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, Tom “Does Innovation Cause Stock Market Run-ups? Evidence from the Great Crash.” American Economic Review 98, no. 4(2008): 1370–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, Tom “Spatial Diversity in Invention: Evidence from the Early R&D Labs.” Journal of Economic Geography 9, no. 1(2009): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Leonard C. “Industrial Research and the Pursuit of Corporate Security: The Early Years of Bell Labs.” Business History Review 54, no. 4(1980): 504–29.Google Scholar
Reich, Leonard C.The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876–1926 Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2002Google Scholar
Schmookler, Jacob “Inventors Past and Present.” Review of Economics and Statistics 39, no. 3(1957): 321–33.Google Scholar
Schmookler, JacobInvention and Economic Growth Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, JosephCapitalism, Socialism, and Democracy New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1942Google Scholar
Simonds, WilliamManual of Patent Law: With an Appendix Upon the Sale of Patents Hartford, CT: Published by the author, 1874Google Scholar
Sobel, RobertRCA New York: Stein and Day, 1986Google Scholar
Sokoloff, Kenneth “Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence from Patent Records, 1790–1846.” This Journal 48, no. 4 (1988): 813–50.Google Scholar
Streb, Jochen, Baten, Jörg, and Yin, Shuxi. “Technological and Geographical Knowledge Spillover in the German Empire, 1877–1918.” Economic History Review 59, no. 2(2006): 347–73.Google Scholar
United States Patent and Trademark Office. Official Gazette Washington, DC: GPO, 1900–1930.Google Scholar
United States Patent and Trademark Office. “Independent Inventor Patents.” Washington, DC: GPO, 2005.Google Scholar