Marconi and the Maxwellians: The Origins of Wireless Telegraphy Revisited SUNGOOK HONG The point is which of the two was the first to send a wireless telegram? Was it Lodge in 1894 or Marconi in 1896? [Silvanus P. Thompson, London Times,July 15,1902] We live in a world where technological priority disputes and patent litigation are so commonplace that only a spectacular case, such as Kodak versus Polaroid over the instant camera, attracts our attention. In the past two hundred years, such disputes have become increasingly frequent. Notable examples include those over the invention of spin ning machines (John Hargreaves vs. Richard Arkwright), steelmaking (Henry Bessemer vs. William Kelly), the incandescent lamp (Thomas Edison vs. Joseph Swan), the telephone (Alexander Graham Bell vs. Elisha Gray), the airplane (the Wright brothers vs. Samuel Langley), and amplifiers and the heterodyne principle in radio (Lee De Forest vs. Edwin Howard Armstrong). Historians of technology, however, have generally paid little attention to the conflicting priority claims themselves, except when priority and patent disputes can be used as a window through which the character istics of the evolution of technology are analyzed.1 There are two well-grounded reasons for this neglect. First, unlike scientific discoverDr . Hong received his Ph.D. from Seoul National University with the dissertation “Forging the Scientist-Engineer: A Professional Career ofJohn Ambrose Fleming” and is working on the science-technology relationship in power and early radio engineering. He thanksJed Buchwald, Bert Hall, Bruce Hunt,Janis Langins, and the Technology and Culture referees for their valuable comments. He is indebted to Professor Thad Trenn of the University of Toronto and Roy Rodwell of the Marconi Company Archives for their help with the archives quoted here, and he thanks Youngran Jo, Shinkyu Yang, Jane Jenkins, André Leblanc, and Ben Olshin for their assistance, as well as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Fellowship in Electrical History for facilitating the research. ‘See, e.g., the important research of David E. Hounshell, “Elisha Gray and the Telephone: On the Disadvantage of Being an Expert,” Technology and Culture 16 (1975): 133-61; Robert C. Post, “Stray Sparks from the Induction Coil: The Volta Prize and the Page Patent,” Proceedings ofthe Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 64 (1976): 1279-86; James E. Brittain, “The Introduction of the Loading Coil: George A. Campbell© 1994 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/94/3504-0004$01.00 717 718 Sungook Hong ies, priority disputes in technology often develop into patent litigation, which ultimately involves judicial decisions or interferences by the Patent Office. These court decisions act like a forcedjudgment on the question of priority. “Closure” of the controversy (to use the social constructivist’s term) is not brought about by negotiation among the engineers involved, but rather by external, compulsory forces. These court judgments, which historians cannot overrule and which funda mentally determine future histories, sometimes differ from those based on detailed historical analysis. Historians therefore treat historical assessments of inventions as a sphere separate from legal decisions about patents and avoid entering into the latter realm.2 Second, and more important, historians of technology have usually considered invention as a long-term, social process, which includes not only the creative activity of an inventor but also historically accumulated tradi tions in which the work of many people is merged.3 The priority dispute is itselfinterpreted as evidence for regarding the invention as something socially conditioned. The question, for example, of who first invented wireless telegraphy is hardly meaningful from such a perspective, because “wireless telegraphy” itself did not burst into being as a result of a single genius’s efforts, but was gradually shaped as several different technological traditions converged. Recent historical studies on the origin of radio reflect such a shift of emphases in the interpretation of technological inventions. In a highly influential monograph, Syntony and Spark: The Origins of Radio, Hugh G.J. Aitken argues that wireless telegraphy cannot be said to have been and Michael I. Pupin,” Technology and Culture 11 (1970): 36-57. Hounshell contrasts the amateurish style of invention (Alexander Graham Bell) with the professional style (Elisha Gray), arguing for the former’s...
Read full abstract