Abstract
O N March 24, 1791, an announcement appeared in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette. One George Parkinson, of that city, advertised that he had recently obtained a United States patent for spinning flax, hemp, and combed wool by methods that represented improvements upon the mill or machinery of Kendrew and Porthouse of the town of Darlington in Great Britain. Why had Parkinson, an English weaver who later worked for the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures (SEUM) in Paterson, New Jersey, been granted a patent monopoly even though his version of Richard Arkwright's flax-spinning machine only marginally improved on the original? Parkinson's announcement provided the answer. It was because this machinery, with the original mechanism . . . [was] of the utmost value to the United States.' By granting a patent to an introducer of a machine that was protected under Britain's intellectual property laws the United States patent office rewarded technology piracy.2 Prohibitions on the emigration of artisans and the export of machinery from the British empire had been in effect throughout the eighteenth century. In the period following American Independence, growing anxiety in Britain over industrial piracy prompted stronger legislation and stricter enforcement.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.