Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:19:10.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inventors, Patents, and Inventive Activities in the English Brewing Industry, 1634–1850

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2013

Alessandro Nuvolari  and
James Sumner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between patents, appropriability strategies, and market for technology in the English brewing industry before 1850. Previous research has pointed to the apparent paradox that large-scale brewing in this period showed both a self-aware culture of rapid technological innovation and a remarkably low propensity to patent. Our study records how brewery innovators pursued a wide variety of highly distinct appropriability strategies, including secrecy, selective revealing, open innovation and knowledge-sharing for reputational reasons, and patenting. All these strategies could co-exist, although some brewery insiders maintained a suspicion of the promoters of patent technologies, which faded only in the nineteenth century. Furthermore, we find evidence that sophisticated strategies of selective revealing could support trade in inventions even without the use of the patent system.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 87 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Markets for Innovation , Spring 2013 , pp. 95 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2013 

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

1 Mathias, Peter, The Brewing Industry in England, 1700–1830 (Cambridge, UK, 1959), 542–43Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., 12–21.

3 MacLeod, Christine, Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660–1800 (Cambridge, UK, 1988), 108–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Ibid, 147–49; Khan, B. Zorina and Sokoloff, Kenneth, “Patent Institutions, Industrial Organization, and Early Technological Change: Britain and the United States, 1790–1850,” in Technological Revolutions in Europe: Historical Perspectives, ed. Berg, Maxine and Bruland, Kristine (Cheltenham, 1998), 292–313Google Scholar.

5 Arora, Ashish, Fosfuri, Andrea, and Gambardella, Alfonso, Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (Cambridge, MA, 2001)Google Scholar.

6 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, ed. Lamoreaux, Naomi, Raff, Daniel M. G., and Temin, Peter (Chicago, 1999)Google Scholar; Lamoreaux, Naomi and Sokoloff, Kenneth, “Market Trade in Patents and the Rise of a Class of Specialized Inventors in the Nineteenth-Century United States,” American Economic Review 91 (2001): 39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lamoreaux, Naomi and Sokoloff, Kenneth, “Intermediaries in the US Market for Technology, 1870–1920,” NBER Working Paper no. 9017 (2002), quotation on 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see also Khan, B. Zorina, The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790–1920 (Cambridge, UK, 2005)Google Scholar; Arora, , Fosfuri, and Gambardella, , Markets for Technology, discuss the contributions of Lamoreaux and Sokoloff on pp. 23–27Google Scholar.

7 Khan, and Sokoloff, , “Patent Institutions,” 309–13Google Scholar; Khan, , Democratization, 37–39Google Scholar.

8 Dutton, Harold, The Patent System and Inventive Activity during the Industrial Revolution, 1750–1852 (Manchester, 1984), 112–17Google Scholar.

9 Dutton, , Patent System, 122–42Google Scholar. See also Bottomley, Sean, “The British Patent System during the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1852,” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2012, 101–54Google Scholar.

10 For a general discussion of “appropriability strategies” for innovations in different business contexts, including weak intellectual property rights, see Teece, David, “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing, and Public Policy,” Research Policy 15 (1986): 285–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anton, James and Yao, Dennis, “Expropriation and Inventions: Appropriable Rents in the Absence of Property Rights,” American Economic Review 84 (1994): 190–209Google Scholar, provides a theoretical discussion of effective appropriability strategies in the absence of intellectual property rights. The historical relevance of “appropriability strategies” alternative to patents during the British Industrial Revolution has also been discussed by Landes, David, “What Do Bosses Really Do?” Journal of Economic History 46 (1986): 585–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In particular, Landes points to “first mover advantage” as a particularly effective strategy in that historical context. For a discussion of the “first mover advantage” literature, see Suarez, Fernando and Lanzolla, Gianvito, “The Role of Environmental Dynamics in Building a First Mover Advantage Theory,” Academy of Management Review 32 (2007): 377–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Woodcroft, Bennet, Subject-Matter Index of Patents of Invention, vol. 1 (London, 1854), 85–97Google Scholar.

12 Hewish, John, Rooms Near Chancery Lane: The Patent Office under the Commissioners, 1852–1883 (London, 2000), 41–44Google Scholar.

13 Lack, H. Reader, Patents of Inventions: Abridgments of Specifications Related to Brewing, Wine-making, and Distilling Alcoholic Liquids (London, 1881)Google Scholar.

14 Brewers' Journal 5 (1869): 33–34, and subsequent issuesGoogle Scholar.

15 Pearson, Lynn, British Breweries: An Architectural History (London, 1999), 192–94Google Scholar, and see for instance Brewers' Journal 16 (1880): 375–76Google Scholar.

16 Stopes, Henry, Malt and Malting (London, 1885), 568–607Google Scholar.

17 In the list constructed by Lack, patent 10973 is mistakenly reported as patent 10963.

18 Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 94–95Google Scholar.

19 Ibid., 466–70. An early case of vertical integration at the highest level of production is that of the Calvert family, for whom see Sumner, James, “Status, Scale, and Secret Ingredients: The Retrospective Invention of London Porter,” History and Technology 24 (2008): 289–306, on 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Ford, William, An Historical Account of the Malt Trade and Laws (London, 1849), 68–70Google Scholar; Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 420–23Google Scholar. For Wheeler's difficulties see the report of Wheeler v. Malins, Court of Chancery, 1818, reported in the Times, 19 Aug. 1818; and Rex v. Wheeler, Court of King's Bench, 1819, reported in Carpmael, William, Law Reports of Patent Cases, vol. 1 (London, 1843), 394–400Google Scholar.

21 Stopes, , Malt and Malting, 409Google Scholar.

22 Woodcroft, , Subject-Matter Index, vol. 1, 31, 85Google Scholar; Shaw, John P., “Meikle, Andrew (1719–1811)” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18516, accessed 3 Feb. 2013Google Scholar.

23 For instance, Stopes includes Walter Taylor's 1786 patent as describing a “Malt-mill.” Woodcroft excludes the same patent from the brewing category, elsewhere deeming it to refer to “Machines for grinding grain” or “grinding starch for hair-powder.”

24 Mathias, Brewing Industry; Pearson, British Breweries; Gourvish, Terry and Wilson, Richard, The British Brewing Industry, 1830–1980 (Cambridge, UK, 1994)Google Scholar; Corran, H. S., A History of Brewing (Newton Abbott, 1975)Google Scholar; Donnachie, Ian, A History of the Brewing Industry in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979)Google Scholar; Clark, Christine, The British Malting Industry since 1830 (London, 1998)Google Scholar; Sumner, James, Brewing Science, Technology, and Print, 1700–1880 (London, forthcoming 2013)Google Scholar.

25 Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 68–69Google Scholar; Ashworth, William, Customs and Excise (Oxford, 2003), 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 420Google Scholar.

27 Woodcroft, Bennet, Titles of Patents of Invention Chronologically Arranged, 1617–1852 (London, 1854)Google Scholar. The 89 brewing patents we have identified in Tables 1 and 2 were taken by 112 patentees.

28 MacLeod, , Inventing, 117Google Scholar.

29 [Boys, Jeffrey], Directions for Brewing Malt Liquors (London, 1700)Google Scholar; [Ellis, William], The London and Country Brewer, 1st ed. (London, [1735?]), 36–49Google Scholar.

30 Unger, Richard, Beer in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Philadelphia, 2004), 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar; [Ellis, ], London and Country Brewer, 35Google Scholar; A General Description of all Trades, Digested in Alphabetical Order (London, 1747), 34–36Google Scholar.

31 The standard account is Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 12–16, 53–62Google Scholar; see also the modification proposed in James Sumner, “Status.” Not surveyed in this article is an important primary source on storage vessels: Victualling Commissioners to Philip Stephens, 24 Jan. 1774, in Navy Board Victualling Office out-letters, ADM 110/26 folios 101–15, the National Archives, Kew, Richmond, UK.

32 For instance, Watkins, George, The Compleat English Brewer (London, 1767), 122Google Scholar; Gentleman's, Magazine 60 (1790): 801Google Scholar.

33 Sumner, , “Status,” 297–99Google Scholar; Cornell, Martyn, Beer: The Story of the Pint (London, 2003), 92–95Google Scholar.

34 [Reid, Robert], Glasgow: Past and Present, vol. 3 (Glasgow, 1856), 415–19Google Scholar.

35 Morrice, Alexander, A Treatise on Brewing, 1st ed. (London, 1802)Google Scholar, appendix; Tuck, John, The Private Brewer's Guide, 2d ed. (London, 1822), 32, 60Google Scholar; Loftus, William, The Brewer: A Familiar Treatise (London, 1863), 143Google Scholar.

36 Brakspear papers, II/i/1, passim, and II/i/3, Oxfordshire History Centre, Oxford, UK. See also Sheppard, Francis, Brakspear's Brewery, Henley on Thames, 1779–1979 (Henley on Thames, 1979)Google Scholar.

37 Serocold, Walter Pearce, The Story of Watney's (London, 1949), 19Google Scholar.

38 London Chronicle, 22 Dec. 1760, 603Google Scholar.

39 Humphrey Jackson, “Proposals for Communicating and Explaining the Real Causes of Cloudyness in Malt Liquors,” printed circular, June 1762, papers of James Best of Chatham, U480/B874, Medway Archives, Strood, Kent, UK (hereafter, Best papers).

40 The Distiller of London (London, 1639)Google Scholar; The Distiller of London, with the Clavis to Unlock the Deepest Secrets of that Mysterious Art (London, 1652)Google Scholar.

41 Humphrey Jackson to James Best, 21 July 1770, Best papers.

42 Worthington, George Lloyd, The Brewer's Guide: A New Work (London, 1812)Google Scholar; cf. Morrice, Alexander, A Treatise on Brewing, 2d ed. (London, 1802)Google Scholar.

43 Wigney, George Adolphus, A Practical and Theoretical Treatise on Malting and Brewing (Brighton, 1835)Google Scholar; circular announcements, EK-U1453/B2/40/588, at Kent History and Library Centre, Maidstone, Kent, UK. The rise of cheap print was no barrier to the recurrence of this strategy: see Amsinck, George Stewart, Practical Brewings: A Series of Fifty Brewings (London, 1868)Google Scholar, priced twelve guineas.

44 For a discussion of openness and knowledge sharing among inventors in different historical contexts, see Bessen, James and Nuvolari, Alessandro, “Knowledge Sharing among Inventors: Some Historical Perspectives” in Revolutionizing Innovation: Users, Communities, and Open Innovation, ed. Harhoff, Dietmar and Lakhani, Karim (Cambridge, MA, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

45 Michael Combrune to James Best, 17 Aug. 1762, Best papers; Combrune, Michael, Essay on Brewing (London, 1758), [v]–[vi]Google Scholar.

46 Combrune, Essay; Combrune, Michael, The Theory and Practice of Brewing (London, 1762)Google Scholar.

47 Combrune to Best, 17 Aug. 1762, Best papers; Council minute book entries for 25 June and 16 July 1772, Royal Dublin Society Archives, Dublin, Ireland.

48 Baverstock, James, Hydrometrical Observations and Experiments in the Brewery (London, 1785)Google Scholar; Baverstock, James, Treatises on Brewing (London, 1824), xvi–xix, 299–306Google Scholar.

49 Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 89–90Google Scholar.

50 For the only notably successful—and yet short-lived—project to breach this capital barrier, see Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 243–51Google Scholar.

51 Richardson, John, Theoretic Hints on an Improved Practice of Brewing Malt-Liquors (London, 1777)Google Scholar.

52 Richardson, John, Statical Estimates of the Materials for Brewing, or a Treatise on the Application and Use of the Saccharometer (London, 1784)Google Scholar.

53 Clarke, Richard, Notice Is Hereby Given, to all Dealers in Brandy, Rum, Malt, or Melasses-spirits, Arrack, &c. that the Hydrometer, or Brandy-Prover, Being the Production of many Years Study and Experiments, is now Brought to its Utmost Perfection (London, [1746])Google Scholar; Baverstock, James, Hydrometrical Observations and Experiments in the Brewery (London, 1785)Google Scholar.

54 Sumner, James, “John Richardson, Saccharometry and the Pounds-per-Barrel Extract: The Construction of a Quantity,” British Journal for the History of Science 34 (2001): 255–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Richardson, , Statical Estimates, 3, 30Google Scholar; and cf. Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 69, no. 2Google Scholar; Dicas, John. Patent 1259, 27 June 1780. The date given for all patents cited is the date in which the patent was granted (“sealed”).

56 Richardson, , Theoretic Hints, 1–2Google Scholar.

57 Richardson, , Statical Estimates, 241Google Scholar; [Booth, David], The Art of Brewing (London, 1829), [33]Google Scholar.

58 Keith, George Skene, “Observations on the Papers Presented to the House of Commons,” Farmer's Magazine (1807), 476–500, on 487–88Google Scholar; Accum, Friedrich, A Treatise on the Art of Brewing (London, 1820), 104Google Scholar.

59 [Booth, ], Art of Brewing, 11–15Google Scholar; Black, William, A Practical Treatise on Brewing, 1st ed. (London, 1835), 37Google Scholar; Aldabella, Pat and Barnard, Robert, Hull and East Riding Breweries (Beverley, 1997), 80–81Google Scholar.

60 Black, , Practical Treatise, 11–14, 29–31, 94–97Google Scholar.

61 Crosse, Andrew. Patent 11604. 2 Mar. 1847; Van Kempen, Peter, communicating an invention of Gerrit Abraham Cramer. Patent 14015. 8 Mar. 1852.

62 Wood, Matthew. Patent 2625. 31 May 1802.

63 Jackson, Humphrey. Patent 749. 26 Mar. 1760.

64 Dossie, Robert, Memoirs of Agriculture, vol. 1 (London, 1768), 275–77Google Scholar. See also Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 51–53Google Scholar.

65 Jackson, Humphrey. Patent 910. 9 Dec. 1768; Jackson, Humphrey, New Art of Hardening and Preserving Wood (London, 1770)Google Scholar; Appleby, John, “Humphrey Jackson, F.R.S., 1717–1801: A Pioneering Chemist,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society 40 (1986): 147–68, on 152–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Balderston, Katharine, ed., Thraliana: The Diary of Mrs. Hester Lynch Thrale, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Oxford, 1951), 53 and 312Google Scholar; Hayward, Abraham, ed., Autobiography, Letters and Literary Remains of Mrs. Piozzi, 1st ed., vol. 1 (London, 1861), 257–58Google Scholar; Clifford, James, ed., Dr. Campbell's Diary of a Visit to England in 1775 (Cambridge, UK, 1947), 51Google Scholar.

66 Long, John. Patent 1754. 4 June 1790; Long, John, and Thomas Harris. Patent 1769. 28 July 1790. The second patent, registered jointly with a distiller, consolidates the specification of wort-cooling apparatus described in general terms in the first. For biographical details see Monthly Magazine 24 (1807): 413Google Scholar.

67 Votes of the [Irish] House of Commons (Dublin, [1792]), 365–66, 446–47Google Scholar; Parliamentary Register, or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons of Ireland 12 (1793): 259–60, 299Google Scholar; Long, John, A Treatise on Malting (Dublin, 1800)Google Scholar, title page.

68 Shannon, Richard. Patent 2212. 1 Feb. 1798.

69 Shannon, Richard, A Practical Treatise on Brewing, Distilling, and Rectification (London, 1805)Google Scholar.

70 Balderston, , Thraliana, 1: 53, 312Google Scholar; Hayward, , Autobiography, 1: 257–58Google Scholar; Piozzi, Hester, ed., Letters to and from the Late Samuel Johnson, vol. 1 (London, 1788), 78–79Google Scholar.

71 [Richardson, John], Observations on the Art of Brewing Malt Liquors, in a Series of Strictures on a Secret System (London, 1775)Google Scholar.

72 Blake, George, Strictures on a New Mode of Brewing (London, 1791)Google Scholar.

73 Blake, George, Theoretical and Practical Remarks on G. Blake's System of Malting and Brewing (London, 1817)Google Scholar.

74 Shannon, , Practical Treatise, [xxvii]–xxxiiGoogle Scholar.

75 Wood, Sutton Thomas. Patent 1455. 17 Nov. 1784.

76 Wood, Sutton Thomas. Patent 1447. 20 Aug. 1784; Wood, Sutton Thomas. Patent 1492. 27 July 1785; Wood, Sutton Thomas. Patent 1860. 15 Mar. 1792.

77 MacLeod, , Inventing, 178Google Scholar.

78 Richard Hare to Boulton and Watt, 11 Jan. 1785. In “Industrial Revolution: A Documentary History” (microfilm series. Marlborough: Adam Matthew Publications, 1993 onwards), series 1, part 13, reel 243, 3/392, item 16.

79 Ker, William. Patent 1641. 4 Mar. 1788; Sinclair, John, ed., The Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. 12 (Edinburgh, 1794), 8Google Scholar.

80 Bayley, Paul, “An Evaluation of the Number and Distribution of Burton Unions,” Brewery History 129 (2008): 39–72Google Scholar; Walker, Peter. Patent 7658. 31 May 1838; “Apparatus for Clearing Beer,” Transactions of the Society, Instituted at London, for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce 42 (1823): 23–25Google Scholar.

81 Pennant, Thomas, Of London (London, 1790), 279Google Scholar.

82 Repertory of Arts, 2d ser. 3 (1803): 232–35Google Scholar. A subsequent action confirmed Hare's right to the money already paid out: New Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Common Pleas [ from 1804 to 1807] vol. 1 (1826), 260–63Google Scholar.

83 Report from the Select Committee on the Law Relative to Patents, 12 June 1829, 195Google Scholar.

84 Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 95Google Scholar.

85 For the origins of the tied trade in London see Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 117–38Google Scholar; and for its subsequent growth, Gourvish, and Wilson, , British Brewing Industry, 128–46Google Scholar.

86 Dickinson, Henry and Jenkins, Rhys, James Watt and the Steam Engine (Oxford, 1927), 69, 307Google Scholar.

87 Mathias, , Brewing Industry, 95–96Google Scholar.

88 “Description of an Apparatus for Heating Water by Waste Steam, Invented by Mr. Arthur Woolf,” Journal of Natural Philosophy 1 (1802): 203–4Google Scholar, and see Harris, Thomas, Arthur Woolf: The Cornish Engineer, 1766–1837 (Truro, 1966)Google Scholar.

89 “On Mr. Arthur Woolf's Improved Apparatus, Applicable to Steam Engines and Other Purposes of Art and Manufacture; Including a Description of Two Boilers Now Erecting at Messrs. Meux's Brewery,” Philosophical Magazine 17 (1803): 40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woolf, Arthur. Patent 2726. 29 July 1803.

90 Tizard, William. Patent 8921. 5 Apr. 1841.

91 Tizard, William, The Theory and Practice of Brewing Illustrated, 1st ed. (London, 1843)Google Scholar. Further editions followed in 1846, 1850, and 1857.

92 Wesley Cohen, Richard Nelson, and John Walsh, “Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)” NBER Working Paper no. 7552 (2000). For some nineteenth century evidence, see Moser, Petra, “Innovation without Patents: Evidence from World's Fairs,” Journal of Law and Economics 55 (2012): 43–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 For an insightful discussion of the persistent heterogeneity of innovation strategies within industrial sectors, see Shrolec, Martin and Verspagen, Bart, “The Voyage of the Beagle into Innovation: Explorations on Heterogeneity, Selection, and Sectors,” Industrial and Corporate Change 21 (2012): 1221–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.