1055
In Europe there were different patent systems op-
erating which offered varying degrees of protection to
the patentee. In France the modern patent system was
established by 1844 and consisted of a simple registra-
tion system with the state remaining an active participant
in managing both the patents and their exploitation. An
inventor could choose between a patent or offering an
invention to the government in returned for an award
from a special fund. Until 1902 patent specifi cations
were not published although the original application was
available for inspection. In Germany unifi ed national
patent legislation was passed in 1877 which established
a central offi ce for granting patents. Government policy
was intended to encourage economic development
and in some areas, such as chemical products patents,
were prohibited. The government encouraged the dif-
fusion of patent information by publishing claims and
specifi cations before they were granted. From 1891 a
gebrauchsmuster offered a parallel but weaker system
of protection through a registration system.
Elsewhere in Europe two countries took a view that
patents were not morally acceptable. The Netherlands
reinstated a patent system in 1912 and Switzerland in
1888 mainly as a response to international pressure.
Japan, as part of its modernization policy during
the mid and late nineteenth century, sent an envoy in
1886 to examine the European and American patent
systems. As a result the fi rst national patent law was
passed in 1888 copying many features of the American
system which were considered superior to the various
European systems, although it placed many restrictions
on patentees. A new law was passed in 1899 after Japan
signed the Paris Convention which brought it into line
with the convention and extended patent protection to
foreigners.
Despite some serious defi ciencies in its patent process
the British patent specifi cations record some of the key
developments in photography. Some notable patents
include the Woodburytype process (number 2338 of
1864 and others), the platinotype process (number
2011 of 1873) and the Kodak camera (number 6950 of
1888). Many other British patents are unlikely to have
ever been produced commercially. Several innovations
that one might have expected to be patented were not,
the most signifi cant being Frederick Scott Archer’s
wet-collodion process which he published and made
freely available in 1851 ensuring a wide-spread and
rapid adoption compared to the patented daguerreotype
and calotype processes. Both of those were robustly
defended through the law courts.
Michael Pritchard
See also: Daguerre, Louis-Jacques-Mandé; Talbot,
William Henry Fox; Daguerreotype; Calotype
and Talbotype; Woodburytype, Woodburygravure;
Platinotype Co. (Willis & Clements); and Kodak.Further Reading
Davenport, Neil, The United Kingdom Patent System. A Brief His-
tory with Bibliography. Homewell: Kenneth Mason, 1979.
Hewish, John, Rooms Near Chancery Lane. The Patent Offi ce
under the Commissioners 1852–1883, London: British Li-
brary, 2000.
Khan, B. Zorina, ‘An Economic History of Patent Institutions,’
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/khan.patents
Patents for Inventions, Abridgments of Specifi cations Class 98,
Photography, Periods 1839–1900, two volumes, reprint, New
York: Arno Press, 1979.
van Dulken, Stephen, British Patents of Invention 1617–1977. A
Guide for Researchers, London: British Library, 1999.PATENTS: UNITED STATES
In order to encourage improvements in the applied arts,
the United States government in 1790 gave inventors
(citizens and non-citizens) temporary, exclusive rights to
profi t from their inventions. The purpose was to promote
public good through individual ingenuity; the incentive
was the guarantee of ownership and attendant profi ts.
Patent rights, however, were limited. The original Patent
Act of 10 April 1790 fi xed the term of U.S. letters-patent
for inventions at no more than fourteen years; in 1861
it was expanded to seventeen years.
In spite of the protest mounted by some in the pho-
tographic community who believed that photography
could only be advanced by the free exchange of ideas,
most involved in the business understood that the costs
associated with patent rights were an inevitable part of
doing business. However, exclusive patent rights were
frequently challenged, especially if the patentee defi ned
his invention so broadly that others could easily be ac-
cused of infringement. And patent holders who insisted
upon substantial fees sometimes found themselves out-
foxed by others who circumvented their patent rights by
inventing slight modifi cations, for which they too could
apply for and receive a patent.
Particularly contentious was the fourteen-year con-
troversy surrounding three patents issued in 1854 to
James A. Cutting. In one of these patents, Improvement
in Compositions for Making Photographic Pictures (11
July 1854, No. 11,266), known as the bromide patent,
Cutting had modifi ed Frederick Scott Archer’s collodion
process to include bromide, which made fi lm more light-
sensitive and thus speeded up the process. Since the
patent included all wet-plate photography, it would be
hotly contested by the full photographic establishment
who saw it as a threat to the progress of photography,
collodion being a new and important medium for mak-
ing both positives and negatives.