¹ Barney, Jay B., “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management 17, no. 1 (1991): 99–120Google Scholar; Teece, David J., Pisano, Gary, and Shuen, Amy, “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal 18, no. 7 (1997)Google Scholar; cf. Järvinen, Joonas et al. , “Alternative Paths to Competitive Advantage: A Fuzzy-Set Analysis of the Origins of Large Firms,” Industry and Innovation 16, no. 6 (2009): 545Google Scholar.

² North, Douglass C., Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (New York, 1990)Google Scholar; Nelson, Richard R., “Capitalism as an Engine of Progress,” Research Policy 19, no. 3 (1990)Google Scholar; Nelson, Richard R., “The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions,” Industrial and Corporate Change 3, no. 1 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nelson, Richard R., “What Enables Rapid Economic Progress: What Are the Needed Institutions?” Research Policy 37, no. 1 (2008)Google Scholar; Mowery, David C., “Alfred Chandler and Knowledge Management within the Firm,” Industrial and Corporate Change 19, no. 2 (2010)Google Scholar.

³ Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., 1962)Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr. and Hikino, Takashi, Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass., 1990)Google Scholar; Cassis, Youssef, Big Business: The European Experience in the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 1999)Google Scholar.

⁴ Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Shaping the Industrial Century: The Remarkable Story of the Modern Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industries (Cambridge, Mass., 2005)Google Scholar.

⁵ Cantwell, John, “The Globalisation of Technology: What Remains of the Product Cycle Model?” Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, no. 1 (1995): 155–74Google Scholar.

⁶ Mowery, “Alfred Chandler,” 502; Kyle Bruce, review of Shaping the Industrial Century, by Chandler, EH.net, Jan. 2007, http://eh.net/book_reviews/shaping-the-industrial-century-the-remarkable-story-of-the-evolution-of-the-modern-chemical-and-pharmaceutical-industries/, accessed Nov. 2013.

⁷ Nelson, Richard R. and Winter, Sidney G., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, Mass., 1982)Google Scholar; Nelson, Richard R., National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (New York, 1993)Google Scholar; Freeman, Chris, “The ‘National System of Innovation’ in Historical Perspective,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, no. 1 (1995): 1Google Scholar.

⁸ Woojin, Yoon and Eunjung, Hyun, “How Relevant and Useful Is the Concept of National Systems of Innovation?” Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 4, no. 3 (2009): 9Google Scholar. For evolutionary economics and institutional theory, see Dosi, Giovanni and Winter, Sidney G., “Interpreting Economic Change: Evolution, Structures and Games,” in The Economics of Choice, Change and Organization: Essays in Memory of Richard M. Cyert, ed. Augier, Mie, March, James G., and Cyert, Richard Michael (Cheltenham, 2002)Google Scholar.

⁹ Nelson, Richard R. and Sampat, B. N., “Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shaping Economic Performance,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 44, no. 1 (2001)Google Scholar; Nelson, “What Enables Rapid Economic Progress.”

¹⁰ Murmann, Johann Peter, Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions (Cambridge, U.K., 2003)Google Scholar.

¹¹ The argument is, briefly, that Germany had a superior higher-education system in organic chemistry, which generated a plethora of skilled chemists who established start-ups. A fierce competition (high exit frequency) followed, whereby only the best companies survived. Furthermore, the absence of a patent law (before 1877) helped the industry to grow, and when it achieved maturity, patent protection ensured its interests. See Murmann, Knowledge and Competitive Advantage, 51, 85, 212.

¹² In a recent publication, Johann Peter Murmann emphasizes three mechanisms that drive the coevolution of the dye industry and academic chemistry: exchange of personnel, commercial ties, and lobbying. See Murmann, “The Coevolution of Industries and Important Features of Their Environments,” Organization Science 24, no. 1 (2013)Google Scholar.

¹³ Regarding research, Carsten Burhop emphasizes the connections of both branches in “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany: The Case of E. Merck,” Business History Review 83, no. 3 (2009)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ My design is in accordance with Murmann's recent categories (see note 12 above).

¹⁵ According to Wilhelm Bartmann, world export shares in 1913 were approximately (in percent), 36 (Germany), 25 (Great Britain), 15 (U.S.), 15 (France), 4 (Switzerland). See Bartmann, Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt: Aus der Geschichte der Pharmabereiche von Bayer, Hoechst und Schering von 1935–1975 (Stuttgart, 2003), 316Google Scholar. For later years see Broadberry, Stephen N., “The Performance of Manufacturing,” in The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain, vol. 3, Structural Change and Growth, 1939–2000, ed. Floud, Roderick and Johnson, Paul (Cambridge, U.K., 2004), 76Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Bartmann, Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt, 20, my translation.

¹⁷ Recent works include Burhop, “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany”; Jones, Geoffrey and Lubinski, Christina, “Managing Political Risk in Global Business: Beiersdorf, 1914–1990,” Enterprise and Society 13, no. 1 (2012)Google Scholar; Vollmann, Hansjörg W., Eigenständigkeit und Konzernintegration: Die Cassella, ihre Eigentümer und ihr Führungspersonal (Darmstadt, 2011)Google Scholar; Ziegler, Volker, Die Familie Jobst und das Chinin: Materialwarenhandel und Alkaloidproduktion in Stuttgart, 1806–1927 (Berlin, 2003)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Previously, no data at all existed on these four firms: Heyden, Zimmer, Kalle, and AGFA.

¹⁹ See Merck, Johann Heinrich, Entwicklung und Stand der pharmazeutischen Großindustrie Deutschlands (Berlin, 1923), 14Google Scholar.

²⁰ See Table 3, which excludes the unavailable data of three firms. Overall specialty sales were still higher.

²¹ Bartmann, Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt, 316; Schmitt, Robert, Die pharmazeutische Industrie und ihre Stellung in der Weltwirtschaft (Munich, 1932), 167Google Scholar; Merk, Fritz, Die Absatzgestaltung der Erzeugnisse der deutschen chemisch-pharmazeutischen Industrie (Cologne, 1939), 93Google Scholar; Broadberry, “Performance of Manufacturing,” 76.

²² Foreign currencies have been converted using annual average exchange rates from Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt, ed., Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich (Berlin, 1915), 296Google Scholar. Due to the gold standard, exchange rates remained nearly constant throughout the German Empire, at 4.2 marks per U.S. dollar and 20.4 marks per British pound sterling. Cramer, Tobias, Der geborene Markenartikel: Eine komparative Unternehmensgeschichte des Arzneimittelmarketings und dessen Regulierung in Deutschland vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (Berlin, 2014), 68Google Scholar.

²³ Unfortunately, sales numbers of Smith-Kline, Mallinckrodt, Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Abbott were unavailable for 1913. The share of U.S. companies is, thus, significantly higher than it appears in Table 1.

²⁴ Before World War I, BASF only temporarily produced medicines (1885–1894), and Cassella began its drug production in 1918. Both are excluded here but are discussed in detail in Cramer, Der geborene Markenartikel.

²⁵ Burhop, “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany,” 480; Galambos, Louis and Sturchio, Jeffrey, “Transnational Investment: The Merck Experience, 1891–1925,” in Transnational Investment from the Nineteenth Century to the Present, ed. Pohl, Hans (Stuttgart, 1994), 228Google Scholar.

²⁶ Report by Mr. Wilhelm Conzen, F6/7, 24, Merck Archives, Darmstadt (hereafter MA); Annual Report, 1898–1899, F3/3a, MA. Merck listed ten thousand products in its 1890 price list. Bernschneider-Reif, Sabine, Huber, Walter T., and Possehl, Ingunn, “Was der Mensch thun kann . . .”: History of the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Company Merck, 3rd ed. (Darmstadt, 2002), 53Google Scholar.

²⁷ Bartmann calls Merck a “large pharmacy” (“Großapotheke”) in Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt, 102. For a list of Merck's specialties, see Rinsema, Thijs J., De natuur voorbij: Het begin van de productie van synthetische geneesmiddelen (Meppel, Netherlands, 2000), 282Google Scholar.

²⁸ For the history of the competitor, Trommsdorff, see Huhle-Kreutzer, Gabriele, Die Entwicklung arzneilicher Produktionsstätten aus Apothekenlaboratorien: Dargestellt an ausgewählten Beispielen (Stuttgart, 1989), 151–71Google Scholar.

²⁹ Rinsema, De natuur voorbij, 266.

³⁰ Huhle-Kreutzer, Die Entwicklung arzneilicher Produktionsstätten, 173.

³¹ Notes on corporate history written by the chairman of the board, Ernst v. Eynern, 1/5.2, 100, Bayer Archives, Leverkusen (hereafter BAL).

³² For a detailed history, see Huhle-Kreutzer, Die Entwicklung arzneilicher Produktionsstätten, 172–83.

³³ For a list of Riedel's specialties, see Riedel, J. D. AG, Riedels Berichte: Riedels Mentor (Berlin, 1914)Google Scholar, part 4.

³⁴ Huhle-Kreutzer, Die Entwicklung arzneilicher Produktionsstätten, 185ff. Medicines represented a smaller part of the product portfolio.

³⁵ Bayer developed another process to manufacture Piperazin so that both companies formed a cartel. For a list of Schering's specialties, see Wimmer, Wolfgang, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues”: Gesundheitswesen und Innovationen der Pharma-Industrie in Deutschland: 1880–1935 (Berlin, 1994), 214Google Scholar, 318; and Reipha [Reichsfachschaft der Pharmazeutischen Industrie e.V.], Grüne Liste der Reipha: Preisverzeichnis pharmazeutischer Spezialpräparate (Berlin, 1934), 480–90Google Scholar.

³⁶ Kobrak, Christopher, National Cultures and International Competition: The Experience of Schering AG, 1851–1950 (Cambridge, U.K., 2002), 44Google Scholar, 367. In 1913, Schering's camphor sales were valued at 1.6 million marks.

³⁷ Approximately 23 percent (141 of 620 firms) belonged to this group; data from Bernsmann, W., “Arzneimittelforschung und -entwicklung in Deutschland in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Die pharmazeutische Industrie 30 (1967): 525–28Google Scholar.

³⁸ The first census data available is from 1925. While 60 percent of all firms employed fewer than five persons, a few big corporations held the majority of the industry's total employment. Schmitt, Die pharmazeutische Industrie, 141.

³⁹ Merk, Die Absatzgestaltung der Erzeugnisse, 59. While Murmann calculated a failure rate of 78 percent for the German dye industry, less than 20 percent of all former pharmacies enumerated by Huhle-Kreutzer failed; see Murmann, Knowledge and Competitive Advantage, 202, and Huhle-Kreutzer, Die Entwicklung arzneilicher Produktionsstätten.

⁴⁰ In 1910, 7 percent of sales were generated with galenicals and only 1.5 percent with specialties. Gehe to Merck, 17 Mar. 1913, H5/33, MA; Gehe to Fuchs, 19 Oct. 1910, H5/10a, MA.

⁴¹ For a list of Gehe's specialties, see Reipha, Grüne Liste der Reipha, 230–33, or Freia-List, 002-010, Schering Archives of Bayer AG, Berlin (hereafter SchA).

⁴² Gehe to Merck, 18 Feb. 1910, H5/10c, MA.

⁴³ Boehringer, C. F. GmbH, Denkschrift der C. F. Boehringer und Soehne, G.m.b.H., Mannheim-Waldhof, anlässlich ihrer 75 jährigen Bestehens, 1859–1934 (Mannheim-Waldhof, 1934), 3Google Scholar; Siebler, Michael, Mit Menschen für Menschen: Aus der Geschichte des forschenden Pharmaunternehmens Boehringer Ingelheim (Ingelheim am Rhein, 2010), 16Google Scholar; memorial document [Gedenkblatt] C. F. Boehringer and Soehne 1859–1909, no shelf number, Roche Deutschland Archives, Mannheim (hereafter RDA).

⁴⁴ Caro, Heinrich, “Die Entwicklung der chemischen Industrie von Mannheim-Ludwigshafen a. Rh.,” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Chemie 17, no. 37 (1904): 18Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ For a list of Boehringer's specialties, see Boehringer GmbH, Denkschrift der C. F. Boehringer und Soehne, 29.

⁴⁶ Schulz-Thomas, Gerhard, 100 Jahre im Dienste der Gesundheit: 1886–1986 (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, 1986), 11Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 18. Therefore, Knoll is listed among former wholesalers here.

⁴⁸ The share of specialties in total sales at Knoll ranked second behind the dye producers; see Table 2.

⁴⁹ For a list of Knoll's specialties, see Knoll AG, Knoll's Mitteilungen für Ärzte: Jubiläumsausgabe, 1886–1936 (Ludwigshafen a. Rh., 1936), 11Google Scholar, also available as ZA 34 at Abbott-Knoll Archives, Ludwigshafen (hereafter AKA).

⁵⁰ Ziegler, Die Familie Jobst, 128.

⁵¹ For a list of Zimmer's specialties, see Boehringer GmbH, Denkschrift der C. F. Boehringer und Soehne, 46.

⁵² Böttinger, “‘Böttingerschrift’: Geschichte und Entwicklung der Farbenfabriken vorm. Friedr. Bayer & Co., Elberfeld, in den ersten 50 Jahren,” memorial book, 624, UNT 600, BAL. For a list of Bayer's most important specialties, see Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 121, 317.

⁵³ Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 149.

⁵⁴ Wimmer, Wolfgang, “Tradition und Transformation: Die Pharmazeutische Industrie in einem ständisch geprägten Markt,” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 36, no. 3 (1991): 182Google Scholar. For a list of Hoechst's most important specialties, see Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 185, 316.

⁵⁵ For a list of Kalle's specialties, see Kalle & Co., Pharmazeutische Produkte (Biebrich a. Rh., 1912)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Report on production in the methyl plant for July, Aug., and Sept. 1892, R8128-16210, Bundesarchiv Berlin (hereafter BArch). For a contribution to the history of the AGFA plant in Lichtenberg, see also 5/E.44, 9, BAL.

⁵⁷ Annual report of the AGFA research laboratory for 1893, 5/E.A.26, BAL. For a list of AGFA's specialties, see Vershofen, Wilhelm, Die Anfänge der chemisch-pharmazeutischen Industrie: Eine wirtschaftshistorische Studie, 1870–1914, Bd. 3 (Berlin, 1958), 90Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Total sales in medicines in 1913 were 585,000 marks (AGFA).

⁵⁹ Schlenk, Oskar, Chemische Fabrik von Heyden Aktiengesellschaft, Radebeul-Dresden, 1874–1934: Erinnerungsblätter aus 6 Jahrzehnten (Radebeul, 1934), 26Google Scholar; Binder, Hans, Gustav Siegle (1840–1905): Wagemutiger Unternehmer mit sozialem Verantwortungsbewußtsein, Wohltäter, Politiker (Nürtingen, 1994), 294Google Scholar. For BASF, see note 25 above.

⁶⁰ For a list of Heyden's specialties, see Reipha, Grüne Liste der Reipha, 137–43.

⁶¹ Sulfuric acid generated approximately 8 percent of total sales in 1913.

⁶² Spezial-Archiv, Handbuch der deutschen Aktiengesellschaften, 1913/1914 (Berlin, 1914), 1581Google Scholar. See also Schlenk, Chemische Fabrik, 53.

⁶³ Sales per product 1913 and 1914, U 107 Sign. 60, Sächsisches Wirtschaftsarchiv, Leipzig (hereafter SWA).

⁶⁴ Siebler, Mit Menschen für Menschen, 26.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 42. Rivalry over the name with the company C. F. Boehringer ended in a Supreme Court decision in 1908 whereby C. H. Boehringer was allowed to also use its name for the sale of alkaloids.

⁶⁶ Siebler, Mit Menschen für Menschen, 64. See also Wenzel, Otto, ed., Adressbuch und Waarenverzeichnis der chemischen Industrie des Deutschen Reichs (Berlin, 1906), 48Google Scholar, which lists morphine, cocaine, and codeine.

⁶⁷ Siebler, Mit Menschen für Menschen, 46. For an early advertisement in Great Britain, see Benninga, H., A History of Lactic Acid Making: A Chapter in the History of Biotechnology (Dordrecht, 1990), 152Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Siebler, Mit Menschen für Menschen, 85.

⁶⁹ Merck to IG Pharma, 13 Oct. 1916, FA 083, AKA; see also Wüllrich, Susanne, Geschichte der Hageda als standeseigener Grosshandel der Apotheker (Stuttgart, 1987), 16Google Scholar; Winckelmann, Erwin, Die Arzneispezialitäten und die Frage ihrer gesetzlichen Regelung (Leipzig, 1928), 53Google Scholar, 81; Adlung, Alfred and Urdang, Georg, Grundriss der Geschichte der deutschen Pharmazie (Berlin, 1935), 76Google Scholar; Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 46.

⁷⁰ N. N., “Der Verein für pharmazeutische Großindustrie und Hilfsgewerbe,” in Pharmazeutische Zeitung (1901): 814.

⁷¹ Wetzel, Walter, Naturwissenschaften und chemische Industrie in Deutschland: Voraussetzungen und Mechanismen ihres Aufstiegs im 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1991), 69Google Scholar.

⁷² Reinhardt, Carsten, “Vom Alizarinblau zum Thallin: Pharmazeutisch-chemische Forschung der BASF in den achtziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Brückenschläge: 25 Jahre Lehrstuhl für Geschichte der exakten Wissenschaften und der Technik an der Technischen Universität Berlin: 1969–1994, ed. Schütt, Hans-Werner (Berlin, 1995), 276Google Scholar; Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 123, 225, 373.

⁷³ Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 153; Merck, Entwicklung und Stand, 9.

⁷⁴ Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 372.

⁷⁵ Merck, Entwicklung und Stand, 8; Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 113; Redlich, Fritz, Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der deutschen Teerfarbenindustrie (Munich, 1914), 57Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ For the expenses of the German Imperial health insurance, see Landgraf-Brunner, Kristin, Die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Apothekern und den gesetzlichen Krankenkassen von Beginn der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung an (Stuttgart, 1986), 86Google Scholar. See also Cramer, Der geborene Markenartikel, 308.

⁷⁷ According to Jonathan Liebenau, the dye producers resolved the 1885 crisis with not only new dyestuffs but also the establishment of the innovative field of synthetic medicines. Liebenau, “Ethical Business: The Formation of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Britain, Germany, and the United States before 1914,” Business History 30 (1988): 117Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Abelshauser, Werner, Die BASF: Eine Unternehmensgeschichte (Munich, 2002), 54Google Scholar, my translation.

⁷⁹ In 1900, a second alizarin cartel was formed (Abelshauser, Die BASF, 72, 95).

⁸⁰ Böttinger, “‘Böttingerschrift,’” 353, UNT 600, BAL.

⁸¹ Duisberg to Böttinger, 14 Feb. 1889, 4, 271/2, vol. 1, BAL, my translation. See Rinsema, De natuur voorbij, 171.

⁸² For more details see Cramer, Der geborene Markenartikel, 104. The earliest years for which data are available are 1884 for Hoechst and 1896 for Bayer. The profitability of pharmaceuticals was more than twice as high as the profitability of dyes at Hoechst in 1884 and still 1.84 times higher at Bayer in 1896.

⁸³ A net profitability for Hoechst in 1884 may only be estimated for Antipyrin. Deducting an inventor's royalty of 10 percent generates a net profitability of 12.3 percent (Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 161).

⁸⁴ Although bookkeeping was not yet standardized throughout all companies, gross profits were usually calculated by deducting production costs (raw materials), packaging, freights/customs, and agency commissions from sales. Further deductions of inventors' royalties and advertising resulted in net profits.

⁸⁵ An average net profitability for the years 1896–1904 at Bayer was 17.4 percent (dyes) vs. 32.9 percent (pharmaceuticals) (Mr. H. Cassel, statistics book, 10/1.2, 53, 75, BAL).

⁸⁶ Travis, Anthony S., The Rainbow Makers: The Origins of the Synthetic Dyestuffs Industry in Western Europe (Bethlehem, Pa., 1993), 223Google Scholar; Klotzsche, Mario, “Indigo und die schweizerische Farbenindustrie: Großprojekte von Ciba und Geigy,” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 1 (2009): 22Google Scholar. In 1913, indigo's net profit/sales ratio was 7 percent at Ciba.

⁸⁷ Indigo sales at Hoechst quickly increased to 23 percent of total sales (1905) and then to 33 percent (1913). Hoechst Annual Report 1905, 2/001 3, Hoechst Archives, Frankfurt (hereafter HoeA); sales statistics 1923, 1922, 1913, 6/, HoeA.

⁸⁸ Carl Duisberg and Bayer & Co., Abhandlungen, Vorträge und Reden aus den Jahren, 1882–1921: Von Carl Duisberg; herausgegeben zu seinem 60. Geburtstage vom Aufsichtsrat und Direktorium der Farbenfabriken vorm. Friedr. Bayer & Co. (Berlin, 1923), 353Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ This also differentiated specialties from dyes. Böttinger, “‘Böttingerschrift,’” 441, UNT 600, BAL.

⁹⁰ Merck Annual Report for 1899–1900, F3/4a, 10, MA, my translation. At Merck in 1900, the six major wholesale products generated a gross profit/sales ratio of only 15 percent.

⁹¹ Memorandum regarding pharmaceutical specialties, Gehe, 11 Nov. 1911, H5/30, MA, my translation.

⁹² For more details see Cramer, Der geborene Markenartikel, 106.

⁹³ Rosenberg, Ernst, Der Vertrieb pharmazeutischer und kosmetischer Spezialitäten in Deutschland (Berlin, 1913), 70Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 71. It fell to 2–3 percent in 1927 (Winckelmann, Die Arzneispezialitäten, 54).

⁹⁵ For a detailed history of the Hageda, see Heinrich Salzmann, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Handelsgesellschaft Deutscher Apotheker mit beschränkter Haftung,” Apotheker-Zeitung (1906); Wüllrich, Geschichte der Hageda.

⁹⁶ Gerhard Sporleder, Der deutsche Drogenhandel in wirtschaftsgeschichtlicher Entstehung (1921), appendix 3.

⁹⁷ Riedel and Gehe joined Mediwa in 1912. Merck Annual Report 1911 and 1912, Abt. D I, F3-15a and F3-16a, MA; Rosenberg, Pharmazeutischer und kosmetischer Spezialitäten, 73; Daum, Albert, Lagerhaltung und Einkauf im pharmazeutischen Großhandel (Würzburg, 1941), 89Google Scholar; Wüllrich, Geschichte der Hageda, 144; Salzmann, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Handelsgesellschaft,” 1081; Letter, Riedel to IG Pharma, 4 Dec. 1916, FA 083, AKA; Wenzel, Otto, ed., Adressbuch und Waarenverzeichnis der chemischen Industrie des Deutschen Reichs (Berlin, 1912), 39 (part 3)Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ Duisberg and Bayer, Abhandlungen, Vorträge, 353; Merck, Entwicklung und Stand, 72.

⁹⁹ Heyden feared “that some plants . . . work unprofitably for a period of war which precedes an agreement among manufacturers” (Heyden Annual Report 1910, U 107 Sign. 13, 2, SWA, my translation).

¹⁰⁰ Merck Annual Reports, Conventionen, various years, F3-1a (1896–1897) to F3-17a (1913), MA; Böttinger, “‘Böttingerschrift,’” 441, UNT 600, BAL; Kretzschmar, Hermann, Die Kartellbewegung in der chemischen Industrie (Heidelberg, 1921), 155–57Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Exact values are 31.7 percent (specialties) vs. 15.5 percent (cartelized products).

¹⁰² For a detailed history of IG Pharma, see Burkert, Klaus, Die Deutsche “Pharmazeutische Interessengemeinschaft” (1906–1918), Ein Beitrag zur Firmenpolitik der pharmazeutisch-chemischen Industrie bis zum Ende des Ersten Weltkrieges (Stuttgart, 1990)Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Merck Annual Report 1907, F3-11a, 3, MA; Mr. Wilhelm Conzen, report, F6/7, 54, MA.

¹⁰⁴ Considerations regarding the annual results in Darmstadt, 12 Dec. 1914, in Annual Report (IG) 1913, R15/14a, MA.

¹⁰⁵ Although some companies showed a high share of specialties in total pharmaceutical sales even before World War I (Table 2), specialties became the dominating pharmaceutical product category in the interwar period, on industry average. For their share in total pharmaceutical sales between 1913 and 1938 at Merck, Schering, Ciba, Roche, Heyden, IG Farben, and Sandoz, see Cramer, Der geborene Markenartikel, 97.

¹⁰⁶ For four differences between U.S. and German patent law, see Burhop, “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany,” 484.

¹⁰⁷ Stuber, Walther, Die Patentierbarkeit chemischer Erfindungen (Bern, 1907), 58Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ McTavish, Janice Rae, “What Did Bayer Do before Aspirin? Early Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices in America,” Pharmacy in History 41, no. 1 (1999): 11Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ von Kreisler, A., “Für und wider den Schutz von chemischen Stoffen, Arznei-, Nahrungs- und Genußmitteln,” Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) no. 12 (1951): 534Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ In Switzerland, the final product was also jointly protected by a process patent (ibid., 541).

¹¹¹ The decision became famous as the so-called Methylenblau-Urteil. Seckelmann, Margrit, Industrialisierung, Internationalisierung und Patentrecht im Deutschen Reich, 1871–1914 (Frankfurt am Main, 2006), 197Google Scholar.

¹¹² Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 86; Fleischer, Arndt, Patentgesetzgebung und chemisch-pharmazeutische Industrie im deutschen Kaiserreich (1891–1918) (Stuttgart, 1984), 140Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Duisberg and Bayer, Abhandlungen, Vorträge, 353.

¹¹⁴ Cartel agreements [Syndikatsverträge] regarding manufacture and sale of Antipyrin, CIBA RE 2.03, Novartis Archives, Basel.

¹¹⁵ Merck thus called its specialties “patent AND specialty products.” For Merck's definition, see Spezial-Archiv, Die Chemische Industrie im Deutschen Reich 1939/40 (Berlin, 1939), 341Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Wenzel, Otto, ed., Adressbuch und Waarenverzeichnis der chemischen Industrie des Deutschen Reichs (Berlin, 1889–1890), 808Google Scholar, my translation.

¹¹⁷ Rosenberg, Pharmazeutischer und kosmetischer Spezialitäten, 21; Hickel, Erika, “Das Kaiserliche Gesundheitsamt und die chemische Industrie im Zweiten Kaiserreich (1871–1914), Partner oder Kontrahenten?” in Medizin, Naturwissenschaft, Technik und das zweite Kaiserreich, ed. Mann, Gunter and Winau, Rolf (Göttingen, 1st ed., 1977), 67Google Scholar; Wilkins, Mira, “The Neglected Intangible Asset: The Influence of the Trademark on the Rise of the Modern Corporation,” Business History 34, no. 1 (1992): 78Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ A tendency toward this attitude in Romance-language countries, following the example of France, was observed in 1904 in Duisberg and Bayer, Abhandlungen, Vorträge, 353.

¹¹⁹ Rathenau, Fritz, “Wortzeichenschutz für Arzneimittel [samt anschließender Diskussion],” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Chemie 23, no. 12 (1910): 537Google Scholar. The scientific name for Antipyrin was Dimethyloxichinizin.

¹²⁰ The brand name Antipyrin was not erased after the patent became void; see Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 97.

¹²¹ N. N., “Die Hauptversammlung des Vereins deutscher Chemiker,” Die Chemische Industrie 31, no. 13 (1908): 397Google Scholar.

¹²² N. N., “Wortschutz für pharmazeutischen Produkte,” Die Chemische Industrie 29, no. 14 (1906): 349Google Scholar.

¹²³ Reuling, W., “Kritische Beiträge zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum Schutze der Warenbezeichnungen,” Zeitschrift für den gewerblichen Rechtschutz 1 (1892): 322Google Scholar. The 1874 law is reprinted in English in Endemann, Wilhelm, Der Markenschutz nach dem Reichsgesetz vom 30. November 1874 (Berlin, 1875), 106Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ Kohler, Josef, Das Recht des Markenschutzes, mit Berücksichtigung ausländischer Gesetzgebungen, und mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die englische, anglo-amerikanische, französische, belgische und italienische Jurisprudenz (Würzburg, 1884), 199Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Duguid, Paul, “French Connections: The International Propagation of Trademarks in the Nineteenth Century,” Enterprise and Society 10, no. 1 (2009): 3Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ In 1888, the German Supreme Court ruled that a foreign brand enjoyed protection even if it was not admissible according to German trademark law. Kohler, Josef, “Der Schutz gewerblicher Urheberrechte insbesondere der Patent-, Muster- und markenschutz (Gewerbe. III Teil),” in Volkswirtschaftslehre: In zwei Bänden, ed. Schönberg, Gustav, 3rd ed. (Tübingen, 1891), 804Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ The British patent law of 1883 had already allowed labels to include words, but it did not allow foreign brands to be registered.

¹²⁸ Rhenius, Wilhelm, “Was kann als Waarenzeichen geschützt werden?” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Chemie 10, no. 5/6 (1897): 181Google Scholar; Freund, S., “Bedeutung, Umfang und Wirkung des Wortzeichenschutzes nach dem Deutschen Reichsgesetze zum Schutz der Waarenbezeichnungen vom 12. Mai 1894,” Archiv für bürgerliches Recht no. 11 (1896): 292Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ Freund, “Bedeutung, Umfang und Wirkung,” 293.

¹³⁰ Hickel, “Das Kaiserliche Gesundheitsamt”; Seckelmann, Industrialisierung, Internationalisierung, 201; Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 33.

¹³¹ Speech, Köbner, B1-750/1, 1, SchA.

¹³² Kobrak, National Cultures, 249.

¹³³ Roche to Zimmer, 29 Nov. 1905, VW.3.2.101805f, 3, Hoffmann-La Roche Archives, Basel (hereafter HAR). The petition is reprinted in Die Chemische Industrie no. 3 (1906): 54–58.

¹³⁴ N. N., “Vereinsangelegenheiten,” Die Chemische Industrie 28, no. 19 (1905): 545Google Scholar; N. N., “Protokoll der 28. Hauptversammlung des Vereins zur Wahrung der Interessen der chemischen Industrie Deutschlands E.V., abgehalten in der Stadthalle zu Heidelberg am 22. September 1905,” Die Chemische Industrie 28, no. 20 (1905): 610Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ N. N., “Protokoll der 28. Hauptversammlung,” 607–10.

¹³⁶ Ibid., 607.

¹³⁷ Protocol of the meeting on 1 Dec. 1905, 170/2.1, BAL.

¹³⁸ Exposé by E. Merck, 1 Sept. 1916, FA 083, 27, AKA.

¹³⁹ The names were “Vereinigung zur Bekämpfung von Auswüchsen im Inseratenwesen” (1905), “Inserentenverband chemisch-pharmazeutischer Fabriken” (1906), and “Verband der chemisch-pharmazeutischen Großindustrie e.V.” (Cepha, 1908).

¹⁴⁰ For political lobbying, the companies also employed two associations not specific to the chemical industry: the Markenschutzverband (Verein der Fabrikanten von Markenartikeln e.V.) and the Deutsche Verein für gewerblichen Rechtschutz. For more information, see Cramer, Der geborene Markenartikel.

¹⁴¹ Vershofen, Die Anfänge, 132; J. D. Riedel, Remarks regarding the exposé written by Merck, FA 083, 18, AKA; “Zentralstelle für markenschutz,” in Annual Report Pharmaceuticals 1908, 2/001, HoeA.

¹⁴² See Cramer, Der geborene Markenartikel, for a detailed description of the industry's international activities.

¹⁴³ N. N., “Protokoll der 28. Hauptversammlung,” 590.

¹⁴⁴ Speech, Köbner, 3, 5.

¹⁴⁵ This is reflected in the original name, “Zentralauskunftsstelle für Markenschutz” (my emphasis). It was changed in 1907 to “Zentralstelle für Markenschutz.”

¹⁴⁶ For the prehistory, see Cramer, Der geborene Markenartikel.

¹⁴⁷ Hoechst to members of Zema, 8 Nov. 1909, H0000984, HoeA, my translation.

¹⁴⁸ The treaty was revised in 1916, 1927, and 1931 (Vershofen, Die Anfänge, 140).

¹⁴⁹ Roche to Zimmer, 27 Nov. 1905, VW.3.2.101805f, 3, HAR.

¹⁵⁰ N. N., “Vereinsangelegenheiten: Aenderungen im Mitglieder-Verzeichnis,” Die Chemische Industrie 29, no. 2 (1906): 29Google Scholar.

¹⁵¹ Peyer, Hans C., Roche—Geschichte eines Unternehmens: 1896–1996 (Basel, 1996), 49Google Scholar.

¹⁵² Ciba joined Cepha soon after the initial meeting. It had joined Zema in 1909 and Freia from the beginning.

¹⁵³ This phrase was coined by Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 101. Only at the end of the 1920s, when Roche's Berlin subsidiary merged with its former plant in Grenzach (Cewega, then independent), a Freia member since 1922, was international scope in doubt. It was resolved by Roche Basel rejoining Freia.

¹⁵⁴ Other associations, such as the “Markenschutzverband,” also had Swiss members. Fritz Heimann, Max Gabriel, and Verband der Fabrikanten von Markenartikeln e.V. Abteilung Chemisch-pharmazeutische Kosmetische und Nährmittel-Industrie, Zu den Paragraphen 6, 7, 8 und 15 des Entwurfs eines Gesetzes gegen Mißstände im Heilgewerbe (Berlin, 1911), 36–38Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁵ Speech, Köbner, 9, my translation. The 1910 treaty is reprinted in Annual Report Pharmaceuticals 1909, Annex II, 2/001, HoeA; revisions of 1912, 1916 in 367/292, BAL and of 1927 in 19-100, SchA. For the 1931 treaty, see Vershofen, Die Anfänge, 140.

¹⁵⁶ To become an innovation, an invention needs to be successfully incorporated into the production process. Pierenkemper, Toni, Unternehmensgeschichte: Eine Einführung in ihre Methoden und Ergebnisse (Stuttgart, 2000), 132Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 228, 322.

¹⁵⁸ Ibid., 102.

¹⁵⁹ Sales, Jan.–Dec. 1914, 1915, and 1916, 6/ [RFL 11], HoeA; Sales per product 1913 and 1914, U 107 Sign. 60, SWA.

¹⁶⁰ According to §1 of the 1927 Freia treaty, an entry should be omitted if the product was not marketed for two years. The voiding in German patent law had been changed for German patent holders into a mandatory license in 1911. Seckelmann, Industrialisierung, Internationalisierung, 234.

¹⁶¹ Heyden's “Calomelol” was omitted only in 1930; see Freia-List.

¹⁶² Annual Report (IG) Knoll 1917, Annex Nr. 6, R15/14e, MA.

¹⁶³ Product sales data exist only for Roche Basel (excluding Cewega), FR.2.3.1-104482, HAR.

¹⁶⁴ According to Ashish Arora, Ralph Landau, and Nathan Rosenberg, what generally differentiated the German chemical industry from foreign competitors was its willingness to invest in the commercialization of science-based innovations; see Arora, Landau, and Rosenberg, “Dynamics of Comparative Advantage in the Chemical Industry,” in Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries, ed. Mowery, David C. and Nelson, Richard R. (Cambridge, U.K., 1999), 248Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁵ Murmann, Knowledge and Competitive Advantage, 214.

¹⁶⁶ Ibid., 52.

¹⁶⁷ Taking 1912–1913 as an example, Bayer employed twelve, Hoechst seven, and Merck eight researchers. Burhop, “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany,” 482; Meyer-Thurow, Georg, “The Industrialization of Invention: A Case Study from the German Chemical Industry,” Isis 73, no. 3 (1982): 371Google Scholar; Reinhardt, Carsten, Forschung in der chemischen Industrie: Die Entwicklung synthetischer Farbstoffe bei BASF und Hoechst, 1863 bis 1914, 1st ed. (Freiberg, 1997), 286Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁸ Such as Liebreich, Filehne, Schmiedeberg, Baumann, Kast, v. Mehring; see Eichengrün, A., “25 Jahre Arzneimittelsynthese,” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Chemie 26, no. 7 (1913): 49Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁹ Ibid., 50; Winckel, Max, “Ueber den Wert pharmakologischer Arbeiten für die pharmazeutische Chemie,” Apotheker-Zeitung (1909): 381Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁰ Hickel, Erika, “Die Grundlegung der industriellen Arzneimittelforschung an der Deutschen Reichs-Universität Straßburg 1872,” in Biochemische Forschung im 19. Jahrhundert: Mit einer Bibliographie der Quellen, ed. Hickel, Erika (Braunschweig, 1989), 206Google Scholar. Bayer employed a pharmacologist in 1890 for the first time. Schering conducted physiological animal experiments beginning in 1902. See Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 118, 125, 175, 208.

¹⁷¹ Hickel, “Die Grundlegung,” 211.

¹⁷² Hickel (ibid., 202) lists prominent Strasbourg researchers and their industrial partners.

¹⁷³ This collaboration is said to have facilitated the first scientific application of pharmaceuticals. Letter from Hoechst to Kaiserliche Gesundheitsamt, reprinted in Hickel, Erika, “Die industrielle Arzneimittelforschung am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts und die Durchsetzung einer reduktionistischen Biologie,” in Materialistische Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Naturtheorie und Entwicklungsdenken, ed. Bonik, Klaus (Berlin, 1981), 139Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ Burhop, “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany,” 484.

¹⁷⁵ At Merck, the shares were between 8 and 50 percent (ibid., 490).

¹⁷⁶ Treue, Wilhelm, “Carl Duisbergs Denkschrift von 1915 zur Gründung der ‘Kleinen I.G.,’” Tradition: Zeitschrift für Firmengeschichte und Unternehmerbiographie 8, no. 5 (1963): 212Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ Burhop, “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany,” 493.

¹⁷⁸ For the timing of cooperation, see Liebenau, Jonathan, “Industrial R&D in Pharmaceutical Firms in the Early Twentieth Century,” Business History 26, no. 3 (1984): 342Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁹ Furman, Jeffrey L. and MacGarvie, Megan, “When the Pill Peddlers Met the Scientists: The Antecedents and Implications of Early Collaborations between U.S. Pharmaceutical Firms and Universities,” Essays in Economic and Business History: The Journal of the Economic and Business Historical Society 26 (2008): 134Google Scholar; Parascandola, John, “Industrial Research Comes of Age: The American Pharmaceutical Industry, 1920–1940,” Pharmacy in History 27, no. 1 (1985): 17Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁰ Gabriel, Joseph M., “A Thing Patented is a Thing Divulged: Francis E. Stewart, George S. Davis, and the Legitimization of Intellectual Property Rights in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, 1879–1911,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 64, no. 2 (2009): 170Google Scholar.

¹⁸¹ Ibid., 145, 171. By 1910, however, a substantial number of physicians had come to accept the legitimacy of pharmaceutical patents.

¹⁸² Ibid., 136.

¹⁸³ Ibid., 137; Parascandola, “Industrial Research Comes of Age,” 18; Rasmussen, Nicolas, “The Drug Industry and Clinical Research in Interwar America: Three Types of Physician Collaborator,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 79, no. 1 (2005): 56Google Scholar; Weiner, Charles, “Patenting and Academic Research: Historical Case Studies,” Science, Technology and Human Values 12, no. 1 (1987): 53Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁴ Burhop, “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany,” 493.

¹⁸⁵ Contract, Dr. Goldmann, 20 July 1897, 271.2.1, BAL; Merck Annual Report 1921, Advertising Dept. [Marketing], F3-25e, MA; Wüst, Erinnerungen, no shelf number, 19, HoeA.

¹⁸⁶ Annual Report 1921, Advertising Dept. [Marketing].

¹⁸⁷ Ibid., 2; Greiling, Walter, Im Banne der Medizin, Paul Ehrlich: Leben und Werk (Düsseldorf, 1954), 129Google Scholar; Wimmer, “Wir haben fast immer was Neues,” 190.

¹⁸⁸ Only 5 percent of newly developed substances went to clinical research; after the clinical tests, only 0.5 percent of the initially discovered medicines were actually marketed. Boehringer, C. F. GmbH, C. F. Boehringer & Soehne G.m.b.H. Mannheim-Waldhof (gegründet 1859) [1859–1934] (Mannheim, 1934), 21Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁹ Even Bayer considered Knoll (and others) as a model. Bartmann, Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt, 104.

¹⁹⁰ Annual Report 1921, Advertising Dept. [Propaganda], 15; Knoll AG, Knoll's Mitteilungen, 7.

¹⁹¹ Robson, Michael, The Pharmaceutical Industry in Britain and France, 1919–1939 (London, 1993), 399Google Scholar; Rasmussen, “The Drug Industry and Clinical Research,” 55.

¹⁹² Henderson, Rebecca, Orsenigo, Luigi, and Pisano, Gary P., “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Revolution in Molecular Biology: Interactions among Scientific, Institutional, and Organisational Change,” in Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries, ed. Mowery, David C. and Nelson, Richard R. (Cambridge, U.K., 1999), 270Google Scholar.