Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T06:07:37.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Transfer of Patents in Imperial Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2010

Carsten Burhop
Carsten Burhop*
Affiliation:
Professor of Economic and Business History, Universität zu Köln, Seminar für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensgeschichte, Albertus-Magnus-Platz 50923 Köln, Germany; and Research Affiliate, Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Gemeinschaftsgütern. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe the transfer of patents in late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Germany using a new database containing information on 20,000 transactions. The number of transactions shows an upward trend, in total numbers and as a share of patents in force. About 8 percent of patents were transferred at least once during their existence. Many transactions involved the transfer of patents with an above-average quality from individual inventors to firms and to newly created firms. In addition, valuable patents were transferred between firms. About two-thirds of all transfers occurred during the first three years of a patents’ existence.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 921 - 939
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

Anand, Bharat N. and Khanna, Tarun. “The Structure of Licensing Contracts.” Journal of Industrial Economics 48, no. 1 (2000): 103–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baten, Jörg, Spadavecchia, Anna, Streb, Jochen, and Yin, Shixu. “What Made South-Western German Firms Innovative Around 1900? Assessing the Importance of Intra- and Interindustry Externalities.” Oxford Economic Papers 59, Special Issue (2007): i105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burhop, Carsten. “Pharmaceutical Research in Wilhelmine Germany: The Case of E. Merck.” Business History Review 83, no. 3 (2009): 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burhop, Carsten, and Lübbers, Thorsten. “The Historical Market for Technology Licenses: Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, and Electrical Engineering in Imperial Germany.” Preprint Max-Planck-Institute for Research on Collective Goods, No. 2009/25.Google Scholar
Burhop, Carsten, and Lübbers, Thorsten. “Incentives and Innovation? R&D Management in Germany's Chemical and Electrical Engineering Industries Around 1900.” Explorations in Economic History 47, no. 1 (2010): 100–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burhop, Carsten, and Wolff, Guntram B.. “A Compromise Estimate of German Net National Product, 1851—1913, and Its Implications for Growth and the Business Cycle.” The Journal of Economic History 65, no. 3 (2005): 613–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Rondo, and Neal, Larry. A Concise Economic History of the World from Palaeolithic Times to the Present. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Church, Roy, and Tansey, E. M.. Burroughs, Wellcome & Co.: Knowledge, Trust, Profit, and the Transformation of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Lancaster: Crucible Books, 2007.Google Scholar
Erker, Paul. “Zur Geschichte der Industrieforschung in den europäischen und amerikanischen Elektrokonzernen, 1890—1930.” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 35, no. 1 (1990): 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature 28, no. 4 (1990): 1661–1707.Google Scholar
Grupp, Hariolf, Dominguez-Lacasa, Iciar, and Friedrich-Nishio, Monika. Das deutsche Innovationssystem seit der Reichsgründung. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hounshell, David A. and Smith, John K.. Science and Corporate Strategy: DuPont R&D, 1902—1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Patentamt. Verzeichnis der im Jahre […] ertheilten und noch in Kraft befindlichen Patente. Berlin: Carl Heymann, various years.Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Patentamt. Blatt für das Patent-, Muster- und Zeichenwesen. Berlin: Carl Heymann, 1914.Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt. Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich. Berlin: Carl Heymann, various years.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
Khan, B. Zorina. The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790—1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Khan, B. Zorina and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “‘Schemes of Practical Utility’: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Among ‘Great Inventors’ in the United States, 1790—1865.” The Journal of Economic History 53, no. 2 (1993): 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, B. Zorina and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “Institutions and Democratic Invention in Nineteenth-Century America: Evidence from the ‘Great Inventors,’ 1790—1930.” American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings 94 (2004): 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Josef. Handbuch des deutschen Patentrechts. Mannheim: Bensheimer, 1900.Google Scholar
König, Wolfgang. Wilhelm II und die Moderne: Der Kaiser und die technisch-industrielle Welt. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2007.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R. and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “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 Lamoreaux, Naomi R., Raff, Daniel M. G., and Temin, Peter, 19–60. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R. and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “The Geography of Invention in the American Glass Industry, 1870—1925.” The Journal of Economic History 60, no. 4 (2000): 700–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R. and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “Market Trade in Patents and the Rise of a Class of Specialized Inventors in the Nineteenth-Century United States.” American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings 91 (2001): 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R. and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “The Decline of the Independent Inventor: A Schumpeterian Story.” NBER Working Paper No. 11654, Cambridge, MA, October 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., Sokoloff, Kenneth L., and Sutthiphisal, Dhanoos. “The Reorganization of Inventive Activity in the United States During the Early Twentieth Century.” NBER Working Paper No. 15440, Cambridge, MA, October 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, David S.The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1999.Google Scholar
Lübbers, Thorsten. “Patentstatistiken als wirtschaftshistorische Quelle: Die Rechtssicherheit von deutschen Patenten zwischen 1877 und 1913.” Unpublished Working Paper, Max-Planck-Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany, 2010.Google Scholar
Merck Record Office. Darmstadt. R 1/42. “Anstellungsverträge und Erfinderverträge.”Google Scholar
Metz, Rainer, and Watteler, Oliver. “Historische Innovationsindikatoren: Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie.” Historical Social Research 27, no. 1 (2002): 4–129.Google Scholar
Mowery, David C.“The Relationship Between Intrafirm and Contractual Forms of Industrial Research in American Manufacturing, 1900—1940.” Explorations in Economic History 20, no. 3 (1983): 351–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murmann, Johann Peter. Knowledge and Competitive Advantage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google 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
Reichspatentamt. Blatt für das Patent-, Muster- und Zeichenwesen. Berlin: Carl Heymann, 1930.Google Scholar
Schankerman, Mark, and Pakes, Ariel. “Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period.” Economic Journal 96, no. 394 (1986): 1052–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seckelmann, Margrit. Industrialisierung, Internationalisierung und Patentrecht im Deutschen Reich, 1871—1914. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2006.Google Scholar
Serrano, Carlos J.“The Dynamics of the Transfer and Renewal of Patents.” RAND Journal of Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Spulber, Daniel F.“Innovation and International Trade in Technology.” Journal of Economic Theory 138, no. 1 (2008): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streb, Jochen, and Baten, Jörg. “Ursachen und Folgen erfolgreicher Patentaktivitäten im Deutschen Kaiserreich: Ein Forschungsbericht.” In Innovationsgeschichte, edited by Walter, Rolf, 249–75. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2007.Google Scholar
Streb, Jochen, Baten, Jörg, and Yin, Shixu. “Technological and Geographical Knowledge Spillover in the German Empire, 1877—1914.” Economic History Review 59, no. 2 (2006): 343–73.Google Scholar
Streb, Jochen, Wallusch, Jacek, and Yin, Shixu. “Knowledge Spillover from New to Old Industries: The Case of German Synthetic Dyes and Textiles (1878—1913).” Explorations in Economic History 44, no. 2 (2007): 203–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swann, John P.Academic Scientists and the Pharmaceutical Industry. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Wimmer, Wolfgang. “Wir haben fast immer was Neues”: Gesundheitswesen und Innovation in der Pharma-Industrie in Deutschland, 1880—1935. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1994.Google Scholar