1. Congress Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, The Law of Employed Inventors in Europe, by Fcdrik, Ncumeyer, 87th Cong., 2d scss., 1963, Committee Print, Study no. 30, iv–v.Google Scholar

2. Karl August Riemschneider, “Empfichlt sich die Einrichtung von Trcuhandstcllcn zur Forderung von Erfindungen und Patenten?” memorandum of 8 August 1937, in Museum, Deutsches, Baycrischer Polytcchnischer Vcrcin/Deutschc Arbeitsfront (hereafter BPV/DAF) VIII 290 (1–2).Google Scholar

3. Hughes, Thomas P., American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm (New York, 1989), 53–54, 139, 180–3.Google Scholar For the purposes of this essay, “invention” may be defined as all those steps in the creation of a new product or process that occur prior to and include the issue of a patent. “Innovation” refers to the activities associated with bringing into use an invention (production, marketing, servicing). Innovation and invention arc linked by the development phase, during which the underlying (patented) conception of the new product or process is perfected (or dies) in the laboratory or as a prototype. For discussions of the shortcomings of this model and the problems involved in distinguishing between invention, innovation, and diffusion, see Jewkes, John, Sawers, David, and Stillerman, Richard, The Sources of Invention, 2d rev. and enl. ed. (New York, 1969);CrossRefGoogle ScholarLayton, Edwin T. Jr., “Conditions of Technological Development,” in Science, Technology and Society: A CrosS'Disciplinary Perspective, ed. Spiegel-Roesing, Ina and Price, Derek de Solla (London and Beverly Hills, 1977), 197–222Google Scholar; and Hughes, Thomas P., “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systetns: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. Bijker, Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas P., and Pinch, Trevor J. (Cambridge, Mass., 1987), 51–82.Google Scholar

4. Karl August Riemschncider and Hcinrich Barth, Die Gefolgschaftserfindung: Erläuterungen zur Verordnung über die Behandlung von Erfindungen von Gefolgschaftsmitgliedem, 2d ed. (Berlin, 1944), 53.Google Scholar

5. The notion of “technological culture,” henceforth without quotation marks, is used here to express something akin to what Thomas Hughes means by “technological style” in “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems” and Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930 (Baltimore, 1983)Google Scholar, but it also owes much to Wolfgang König, “Ingenicurausbildung, Ingcnieurbcruf, und Konstruktionstechnik in Grossbritannien, den USA, Frankreich, und Deutschland seit der Industrialisierung: Ein vergleichender Essay” (Ms., Berlin, 1990); Radkau, Joachim, Technik in Deutschland: Vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart (Frankfurt am Main, 1989)Google Scholar; Stokes, Raymond, “Technology and the West German Wirtschaftswunder,” Technology and Culture 32, 1 (01 1991): 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bijker, Wicbe E., “The Social Construction of Bakclite: Toward a Theory of Invention,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systems, 159–91 (see note 3).Google Scholar Technological culture may be defined as the “configuration of attitudes, practices, institutions, technical artifacts, and systems that set apart one society's or one period's approach to technology from that of another”. The leading cause of variation in this regard is the fact that technology is to a large extent “socially constructed,” i.e., that it is shaped by the different natural environments and different historical contexts of different societies. Because those exogenous factors change over time, technological culture is not a static concept but a dynamic one and itself subject to change. As a consequence, one can delineate periods or epochs in the development of a society's technological culture, even though patterns, once established, tend to survive long after the conditions that gave rise to them have disappeared. Furthermore, technological culture is not merely descriptive of a society's various technological peculiarities but also serves analytical purposes. It seeks to explain the “why” of those peculiarities in terms of the reciprocal influences and the functional relationships between technology and other societal factors. In the case of Germany, for instance, that nation's reputation for a scientific, theoretical orientation in technological matters undoubtedly has much to do with the timing and circumstances of the engineering profession's emergence in the nineteenth century. Likewise, the caution and conservatism that, relative to the United States, Germany has repeatedly exhibited in its adoption of new technologies during the last two hundred years can be linked to a kind of “inventive conservatism,” which in turn is related to Germany's bureaucratic tradition and to the historical emphasis on school-based professionalization and specialized scientific training (“compartmentalization”) of the majority of its technologists. It is likely that those organizational constraints have tended to produce inventors more firmly anchored in one single “technological frame” (Bijker) and therefore more likely to channel their creativity into producing improvements or variants of established technologies than the kinds of radical inventions often associated with independent inventors. The latter, historically more common in the United States, have perhaps been such successful innovators precisely because they have been more marginal, more likely to be acquainted with multiple technological frames (greater “interpretive flexibility” [Bijker]), less specialized and less committed to the traditions of a discipline than their more professionalized and bureaucratized counterparts in Germany. In short, the reasons for the different types of technological prowess of” both nations can be shown to be deeply rooted in their respective historical developments.

6. Summaries of those developments in Eduard Rcimer, Das Recht der Angestelltenerfindung: Gegenwärtiger Rechtszustand und Vorschläge zur künftigen Gesetzesregelung (Berlin, 1948)Google Scholar, and Schade, Hans and Schippel, Helmut, Das Recht der Arbeitnehmererfindung: Kommentor zu dem Gesetz über Arbeitnehmererfindungen vom 25. Juli 1957 und deren Vergütungsrichtlinien, 5th ed. (Berlin, 1975).Google Scholar

7. See, for example, Simon, Leslie H., German Research during World War II: An Analysis of the Conduct of Research (New York, 1947).Google Scholar

8. Interviews with patent-office directors at the Siemens and MAN companies in 1990 and 1991.

9. See, for example, Meyer-Thurow, Georg, “The Industrialization oflnvcntion: A Case Study of the German Chemical Industry,” Isis 73, 268 (09 1982): 363–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Dornseifcr, B., “Der Aufsticg organisierter Industricforschung in Deutschland und den USA 1880–1929” (Master's Thesis, University of Bielefeld, 1988).Google Scholar

10. Details in Kees Gispen, New Profession, Old Order: Engineers and German Society, 1815–1914 (Cambridge and New York, 1989), chaps. 9–10.Google Scholar

11. Ibid. The frustrations of Schuckert's and Siemens’ salaried inventors are documented in the Nachlass Wilhclm v. Siemens, e.g., a forty-page memorandum about the inequities of “Unser Patentrcvers” by senior engineer Waldemar Meissner of June 1899, Siemens Museum (SAA) 4/Lk78.

12. Numerous complaints of this type in the files of the Reichspatentamt, csp., “Allgemcine Kritiken fiber die Handhabung des Gesetzes im Patenterteilungsverfahren, 1898–1905,” Bundesarchiv Koblenz (hereafter BAK) R131/152, also “Bcstrcbungcn auf Abanderung des Patcntgcsctzcs,” BAK R131/153–60 (1920–1936), and the Reich justice ministry files in the Bundcsarchiv-Abtcilungcn Potsdam (hereafter BAP), “Die Revision des Patcntgesctzcs vom 7.4.1891,” nos. 2336–41 (1928–1934).

13. Gispen, , New Profession, chaps. 9–10.Google Scholar

14. See, e.g., Hughes, , American Genesis, 249–352Google Scholar; idem. Networks of Power, 175–200Google Scholar; Radkau, , Technik in Deutschland, 222–312Google Scholar; Fritrsche, Peter, A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination (Cambridge, Mass., 1992);Google ScholarNeufcld, Michael J., “Weimar Culture and Futuristic Technology: The Rocketry and Spaccflight Fad in Germany, 1923–1933,” Technology and Culture 31 (1990): 725–52;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHcrf, Jeffrey, Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich (Cambridge and New York, 1984); and the literature on Weimar's cultural modernism.Google Scholar

15. Hughes, , Networks of Power, 175–200, 404–30Google Scholar; Radkau, , Technik in Deutschland, 222–312.Google Scholar For a striking example of how government and the large radio companies foiled the plans of a high-profile independent inventor to bring high-quality, low-cost radio reception to Berlin and other large German cities in 1930, see Ardenne, Manfred von, Ein glütkliches Leben für Tethnik und Forsthung: Autobiographic (Zurich and Munich, 1972), 93–6.Google Scholar

16. Evidence based on materials cited in note 12. The attitudes and frustrations of salaried inventors are documented in numerous discussions of the “inventor problem” in the publications of the Bund der technischen Angestelhen und Beamten (Butab), a trade union ofnonacadcmic engineers and technicians, and the Bund der angestelhen Chemiker und Ingenicure (Budaci), a union of academically trained chemists and engineers, and in the files on patent questions, inventor rights, and management-salaried employee contract negotiations in industrial archives of corporations such as Siemens and I. G. Farben.

17. For the labor market and unemployment of engineers, see Jarausch, Konrad H., The Unfree Professions: German Lawyers, Teachers, and Engineers, 1900–1950 (New York, 1990).Google Scholar

18. James, Harold, The German Slump: Politics and Economics, 1924–1936 (Oxford, 1986), 110–245;Google ScholarLudwig, Karl-Hcinz and König, Wolfgang, Technik, Ingenieure und Gcsellschafi: Geschichte des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure 1856–1981 (Dusseldorf, 1981), 333–34;Google ScholarRadkau, , Technik in Deutschland, 222–312;Google ScholarHughes, , American Genesis, 286–90; the files “Akademikcr Reichstarifverhandlungen 1919–1933,” Hocchst Archive, 12/11/2; Arbeits und Sozial-verhältnisse, Erfindcrgebühren der Chemikcr, 1909–1934Google Scholar, and idem, 1930–1941, Hocchst 12/255/1 and 12/255/2; Harald Mcdiger (a former I. G. Farben manager), “Gedanken zur Gcstaltung des Rcchts des nicht-selbständigen Erfinders im Lichte der Betriebsverknüpfthcit seiner Erfindung” of 6 June 1948, in Bundesarchiv-Zwischenarchiv Skt. Augustin-Hangelar, B141/2793; SAA ll/Lf237/238 Kottgen.

19. Bund der angestclltcn Chemiker und Ingcnieure (since 1925 known as the Bund der angestellcr Akademikcr tcchnisch-naturwisscnschaftlichcr Bcrufe c.V.), ed. Kommentar zum Reichstarifvertrag für die akademisth gebildeten Angestellten der chemischen Industrie vom 27.4.20, several editions (Berlin, 1920–1930); SAA ll/Lf237/238 Köttgen; documents cited in note 12.Google Scholar

20. Reichsarbeitsblatt (Amtlicher Teil) 1923, no. 15, 498–507; Reichsarbeitsblatt (Nichtamtlicher Teil) 1922, no. 23/24, 720–23; protocols of Arbeitsrechtausschuss meetings in Rcichsarbcitsministerium of January 1923, BAP 10278; correspondence Dr. Of Fenbacher with Dr. Guggenheimer, 11 May, 1925, Nachlass Guggenheimer, K65, MAN Historisches Archiv.

21. On Junkers, see Blunck, Richard, Hugo Junkers (Düsseldorf, 1951)Google Scholar; Dorning's views in a letter to Reichspatentamt president Gustav Klauer of 11 July 1935, BAP 10130. It is not impossible that the decision by well-known physics and electronics inventors such as Manfred von Ardenne and Max Steenbeck to opt for the Soviet side and the DDR after World War II was partly inspired by their extremely frustrating patent and patent-litigation experiences in the Weimar Republic; see Ardenne, Ein glückliches Leben; Max Steenbeck, Impulse und Wirkungen: Schritte aufmeinem Lebensweg (Berlin [East], 1977).Google Scholar

22. See the documents cited in note 12, especially BAP 2337, 2340; and BAK R131/153, R131/155, R131/156.

23. See the documents cited in note 12, especially the numerous reports by the patent committee of the Vercin Deutscher Ingenieure and the protocols of the Deutscher Vcrein for den Schutz des gewcrblichen Eigcntums (Grüner Vcrein), patent-law reform committee meetings.

24. Ludwig, and König, , Technik, Ingenieure und Cesellschaft, 333–34.Google Scholar

25. Quoted in Robert Kahlert, Erfinder-Taschenbuch (Berlin: 1939), 3, 5.Google Scholar

26. See the document collections cited in note 12, especially correspondence by the Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Erfinder and the Bund Deutscher Civil-Ingenieure to the patent office and the Reich justice ministry in 1930–32, as well as the numerous letters by independent inventors large and small to Chancellor Brüning, patent office presidents Eylau and Klauer (since 1933), justice ministers Joel and Koch-Wcser, and, after January 1933, to Hitler and Göring.

27. The story of patent law reform from 1933 to 1936 is documented exhaustively in the collections cited in note 12, especially, BAP 2340–2343, and BAK R131/157 and R131/160. Additional information in files of the Reich justice ministry, “Neuregelung des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes,” BAP 10129–10131, and the protocols and correspondence of the Reichsausschus für gevverblichen Rechtsschutz of the Akademie für Deu'tsches Recht, chaired between 1934 and his death in 1935 by Carl Duisberg, in Bayer Archiv, 23/2.3 and 28/6.2.

28. On Jebens, the Reichserfinderamt and the DAF between 1933 and 1937, the relevant documents are in BAK R131/160, BAK NS 022/000851 (Nationalsozialistischer Bund Deutscher Technik); BAP 2337, 2340, 2343, and 2297 (Errichtung eines Rcichserfinderamts und Fragen dcr wirtschaftlichen Prüfung von Erfindungen); Deutsches Museum, BPV7 DAF III 79–2 (4), BPV/DAF VIII 260, BPV/DAF VIII 250, DPV/DAF VIII 290 and 291 (2). Sec also Ludwig, Karl-Heinz, Technik und Ingetiieure im Dritten Reich (Düsseldorf, 1974), 123–33Google Scholar; and Seidler, Franz and Todt, Fritz, Baumeister des Dritten Retches (Munich, 1986), 39–96.Google Scholar

29. The relevant document collections are: Dcutschcs Museum, BVP/DAF, Nos. 36 (1) and (2), III 79–2 (2), VIII 282 (2), VIII 290 (1) and (2), VIII291 (2), VIII292 (4) and (5), VIII 293 (1) and (2); BAK R131/22, R22/629 (Reich justice ministry, Rcchte dcr Arbeitgcbcr an den Erfindungcn ihrcr Arbcitnchmcr, 1934–40), R22/60 (idem, 1940–44); BAK R43 11/1559 (Ncuc Reichskanzlci, Bctr. Entwurf cines Gcsctzes über die Erfindungcn von Gefolgsmänncrn), R43 IIü547 (untitlcd); BAP 46.03 (Reichsministerium für Rustling und Kricgsproduktion).

30. Herf, Reactionary Modernism; Ludwig, Technilt und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich. Not surprisingly, the documents provide evidence for a government/party policy to expressly deny the benefits of the inventor reward system to Jews.

31. Radkau, , Technik in Deutscland, 46–51, 222–312.Google Scholar

32. Smclscr, Ronald, Robert Ley: Hitler's Labor Front Leader (Oxford, New York, Hamburg, 1988).Google Scholar

33. Hughes, , American Genesis, 53–54, 180–83Google Scholar; see also Sawers, Jewkes, Stillerman, , The Sources of Invention; and Layton, “Conditions of Technological Development”. In this connection one might consider the current condition of American corporations such as Wcstinghousc, General Motors, and IBM.Google Scholar

34. On Hitler's revolutionary impulses, see Zitelmann, Rainer, Hitler: Selbslverständnis eines Revolutionärs (Hamburg, Leamington Spa, New York, 1987).Google Scholar

35. Cf. Neumeyer, Fredrik and Stedman, John C., The Employed Inventor in the United States: R&D Policies, Law, and Practice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971).Google Scholar

36. E.g., “Die Entwicklung des patcntamtlichcn Ertcilungsvcrfahrcns nach dcr V.O. vom 12.5.43,” an internal report of the Patentamt, included and discussed in correspondence between officials of I. G. Farben, the ministry of armaments, and the patent office, 4 August 1943, BAK R131/159.

37. Gimbel, John, Science, Technology, and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany (Stanford, 1990);Google Scholar also Simon, , German Research during World War II.Google Scholar

38. Abelshauser, Werner, Wirtschaftsteschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–1980) (Frankfurt a. M., 1983)Google Scholar; Kramer, Alan, The West Gertnan Economy, 1945–1955 (New York, Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar; see also the balanced assessment of Nazi science policy by Walker, Mark, German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power 1939–1949 (Cambridge and New York, 1989). 212–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Radkau, , Tectmik in Deutschland, 313–21Google Scholar; Gimbel, , Science, Technology and Reparations.Google Scholar