Intellectual Property and Narratives of Discovery/Invention: The League of Nations' Draft Convention on ‘Scientific Property’ and its Fate

Ruffini Francesco , “Report on scientific property” of the League of Nations Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, League of Nations document A.38.1923.XII A, 1. Hereafter: Ruffini, “Scientific property”.

Millikan R. A. , “The interchange of men of science”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, xci (1947), 129–32, p. 130.

Annotation by “P. C. L.”, dated 1 September 1928, on S. J. Chapman to Sir H. Payne, 29 August 1928, U.K. National Archives, Kew, BT 209/960.

I acknowledge that this is a very powerful idea. We will see that even the most radical ‘scientific property’ advocates did not maintain the scientist's right to deny use of the discovery to others. That is, there was always to be the equivalent of compulsory licensing. To this extent even the scientific property advocates acknowledged an imperative of open, if not free, communication. Parallels with the ‘Open Source’ movement are important and instructive.

Merton Robert K. , “The normative structure of science”, in Merton , The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (Chicago, 1973), 267–78. This essay was originally published as “Science and technology in a democratic order”, Journal of legal and political sociology, i (1942), 1942–26.

See in particular, Biagioli Mario Galison Peter , (eds), Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science (New York and London, 2003); Johns Adrian , “Intellectual property and the nature of science”, Cultural studies, xx (2006), 2006–64; Hilgartner Stephen , “Data access policy in genome research”, in Private science: Biotechnology and the rise of the molecular sciences, ed. by Thackray Arnold (Philadelphia, 1998), 202–18. Many of the key issues concerning intellectual property were examined in the context of the early Royal Society, but with reference to later and contemporary concerns, in Rob Iliffe, “‘In the warehouse’: Privacy, property and priority in the early Royal Society”, History of science, xxx (1992), 1992–68. An important recent historical study focusing on the issue of the specification is Mario Biagioli, “Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors”, Social research, lxxiii (2006), 2006–72. See also Miller David Philip , “Watt in court: Specifying steam engines and classifying engineers in the patent trials of the 1790s”, History of technology, xxvii (2006), 2006–76.

See parallels here with David Hollinger's important work historicising a foundational concept of science studies, namely ‘scientific community’. See particularly, Hollinger David A. , “Free enterprise and free inquiry: The emergence of laissez-faire communitarianism in the ideology of science in the United States”, New literary history, xxi (1990), 897–919.

See especially, Rose Mark , Authors and owners: The invention of copyright (Cambridge, MA, 1993); Boyle James , Shamans, software and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society (Cambridge, MA, 1996); Peter Jaszi, “Towards a theory of copyright: The metamorphoses of ‘authorship”’, Duke law journal, 1991, 455–502; and the essays in Woodmansee Martha Jaszi Peter (eds), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (Durham, NC, 1994).

See, for example, Murmann Johann Peter , Knowledge and competitive advantage: The coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions (Cambridge, 2003). On the evolution of norms in relation to intellectual property, see, for example, Eisenberg Rebecca S. , “Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research”, The Yale law journal, xcvii (1987), 1987–231, and Rai Arti Kaur , “Regulating scientific research: Intellectual property rights and the norms of science”, Northwestern University law review, xciv (1999), 1999–152. For more general treatments of ‘re-norming’ see Jacob Merle , “Re-norming the science—society relation”, Tertiary education and management, xii (2006), 2006–36, and Nelson Richard R. , “The advance of technology and the scientific commons”, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, A, ccclxi (2003), 1691–708.

See Barnes Barry , “Social life as bootstrapped induction”, Sociology, xvii (1983), 524–45, and idem, The elements of social theory (London, 1995). A powerful account of Mertonian norms as ideology remains Michael Mulkay, “Interpretation and the use of rules: The case of the norms of science”, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, ser. 2, ix (1980), 111–25.

For studies at this level see, for example: Swanson Kara , “Biotech in court: A legal lesson on the unity of science”, Social studies of science, xxxvii (2007), 357–84; Cambrosio A. Keating P. MacKenzie M. , “Scientific practice in the courtroom: The construction of sociotechnical identities in a biotechnology patent dispute”, Social problems, xxxvii (1990), 1990–93; Miller , “Watt in court” (ref. 6). See also Miller David Philip , “Principle, practice and persona in the patent abolitionism of Isambard Kingdom Brunel”, The British journal for the history of science, xli (2008), 2008–72 for an account of how, in the case of an individual, statements of principle about intellectual property were related to a particular persona and way of doing business.

The main recent treatments of the scientific property “movement” of the 1920s in English are: Merges Robert P. , “Property rights theory and the commons: The case of scientific research”, in Scientific innovation, philosophy and public policy, ed. by Paul Ellen Frankel Miller Fred D. Jr. Paul Jeffrey (Cambridge, 1996), 145–67; Swanson James M. , Scientific discoveries and Soviet law: A sociohistorical analysis (Gainesville, 1984). There is a more substantial literature in French, which can be accessed via Catherine Blaizot-Hazard, Droit de la recherche scientifique (Paris, 2003). See also Boudia Soraya , “La propriété intellectuelle en science et la communauté scientifique Française (1900–1930)”, Paper at Seminaire Invention, 6 March 2001. Online at http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/bhhall/ipconf.

Sherman Brad Bently Lionel , The making of modern intellectual property law (Cambridge, 1999), 44–47.

See Janis Mark D. , “Patent abolitionism”, Berkeley technology law journal, xvii (2002), 899–952, pp. 931–2. There are, of course, many other arguments against patents that do not challenge the creativity involved in discovery and invention. A particularly interesting one, which leans on the collective character of discovery and invention but retains the creativity, is Arnold Plant's view of discovery and invention as collective streams of creativity. It was the patent system's artificial and unjust individuation of this stream that he objected to. (See Johns , “Intellectual property and the nature of science” (ref. 6), 150.).

On advocacy and critique of natural rights arguments, see MacHlup Fritz Penrose Edith , “The patent controversy in the nineteenth century”, The journal of economic history, x (1950), 1–29.

Ricketson Sam , The Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works: 1886–1986 (London, 1987), 40–41.

Quoted in Ladas Stephen P. , “The efforts for international protection of scientific property”, The American journal of international law, xxiii (1929), 552–69, p. 553.

U.S. Circuit Court, 5 Blatchf. 116, Fed. Cases 9865, quoted in Wigmore John H. Ruffini Francesco , “Scientific property”, Illinois law review, xxii (1927), 355–78, p. 356.

The Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale (ALAI) was founded in Paris in 1878 at a Literary Congress presided over by Victor Hugo. It is credited with a major role in establishing the Berne Convention in 1886. See Ricketson , The Berne Convention (ref. 16), 46–49.

See Swanson , Scientific discoveries and Soviet law (ref. 12), 22–23.

On the National Union of Scientific Workers in Britain (later the Association of Scientific Workers) see MacLeod Roy MacLeod Kay , “The contradictions of professionalism: Scientists, trade unionism and the First World War”, Social studies of science, ix (1979), 1–32. See also Sapiro Gisèle Gobille Boris , “Propriétaires ou travailleurs intellectuels? Les écrivains français en quête d'un statut”, Le mouvement social, no. 214 (2006), 113–39.

See Swanson , Scientific discoveries and Soviet law (ref. 12), 24–25. That in many minds the CIC was synonymous with the international organization of intellectual labour is apparent in much press coverage. See, for example, “Non-manual labor is now organizing”, Christian science monitor, 17 December 1921, 6; “League looked on as menace. Britons see drift of control to revolutionists — Is no longer merely a theory”, The Wall Street journal, 17 September 1924.

Key works on the history of the Committee on Intellectual Cooperation include: Pycior Stanley W. , “‘The most ineffectual enterprise’: The International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation of the League of Nations, 1922–1931”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1978; Cain Julien , “Bergson Président de la Commission Internationale de Cooperation Intellectuelle”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, civ (1960), 1960–70; Schroeder-Gudehus Brigitte , “Collaboration scientifique et cooperation intellectuelle: Un chapitre dans les deboires de la Société des Nations”, Revue d'Allemagne, xx (1988), 1988–77; Canales Jimena , “Einstein, Bergson, and the experiment that failed: Intellectual cooperation at the League of Nations”, MLN, cxx (2005), 2005–91.

Curie Eve Sheean Vincent , Madame Curie (London, 1938), 354.

Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of the CIC, 5 August 1922, in League of Nations, Committee on Intellectual Co-operation, Minutes of the First Session, Geneva, August 1st–5th, 1922, League of Nations Document C.711.M.423.1922.XII, 34.

http://www.charleroi-museum.org/mjd/code/en/expo_perm.htm; Paulus Jean-Pierre , “L'esthete de l'agora: Jules Destrée (1863–1936)”, Synthèses, xviii (1963), 42–47; Noiret Sergio , “Interventisma e socialismo nelle ‘Memoire’ di Destree”, Italia contemporanea, nos 151/152 (1983), 135–47.

See Halperin S. William , “Francesco Ruffini (1863–1934)”, in Essays in modern European historiography, ed. by Halperin S. W. (Chicago, 1970), 266–88. Ruffini's best known work is La libertà religiosa: Storia dell'idea (Turin, 1901).

On Torres Quevedo see: Posada Francisco González , (ed.), Leonardo Torres Quevedo: Conmem-oración del sesquicentenario de su nacimiento (1852) (Madrid, 2003); de Posada Francisco González Redondo Francisco A. González del Castillo Dominga Trujillo Jacinto (eds), Actas de III Simposio “Ciencia y Técnica en Espana de 1898 a 1945: Cabrera, Cajal, Torres Quevedo” (Madrid, 2004); Antonio Pérez Yuste and Magdalena Salazar Palma, “Scanning our past from Madrid: Leonardo Torres Quevedo”, Proceedings of the IEEE, xciii (2005), 2005–82. I am grateful to Professors Posada and Redondo for their help with materials on Torres Quevedo.

Millikan recalled that for ten years after the First World War, “I worked in the interests of the League of Nations, becoming American member of its Committee on Intellectual Cooperation…. I was in it because I thought the League was the only existing agency that was capable of development into a real practical exponent of the principle of collective security…”. Millikan R. A. , The autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York, 1950), 255.

Wright Helen , Explorer of the universe (New York, 1966), 343–4. On Hale's international activities see Kevles Daniel J. , “‘Into hostile political camps’: The reorganization of international science in World War I”, Isis, lxii (1971), 1971–60. Murray Gilbert , the Oxford classicist and member of the CIC, had a rather different perspective on these events. He reported working hard to ensure that the CIC did not cede its brief on “scientific co-operation” to the International Research Council. Murray took the IRC's refusal to allow membership of ex-enemy states (notably Germany) to be contrary to the purpose of the League. See Murray to Lady Mary Murray, 3 August 1922, Gilbert Murray Correspondence, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Gilbert Murray 466.152. I am grateful to Alexander Murray for permission to consult these letters.

Kevles Daniel J. , The physicists: The history of a scientific community in modern America (New York, 1979).

The CTI's scheme was published as Dalimier R. Gallié L. , La propriété scientifique: Le projet de la C.T.I. (Paris, 1923).

Committee on Intellectual Co-operation, “Report on scientific property submitted by Senator F. Ruffini and approved by the Committee” is a document of 28pp., dated Geneva, 1 September 1923 (the date that the CIC transmitted it to the League of Nations Assembly), Archives of the League of Nations, Document A.38.1923.XII.

See Ilosvay Thomas R. , “Scientific property”, The American journal of comparative law, ii (1953), 178–97, p. 183.

See Doc.A, 21, 1928, XII.

Ilosvay , “Scientific property” (ref. 34), 184.

The insurance scheme is discussed in Hamson C. J. , Patent rights for scientific discoveries (Indianapolis, 1930), 46–47.

See Ilosvay , “Scientific property” (ref. 34), 184.

See the UNESCO document, “The right to scientific property”, Impact of science on society, v (1954), 47–68, and also Ilosvay Ilosvay , “Scientific property” (ref. 34), 179–80. Ilosvay was from the Copyright Division of UNESCO and his article was based on a report —” Le droit du savant”— That he wrote for that organization.

Ruffini , “Scientific property”, 1.

Ibid., 1.

Ibid., 1.

Ibid., 2.

Ibid., 3.

Ruffini noted that a similar Belgian law of 1921 bore the signature of “our eminent colleague J. Destrée”.

Ruffini , “Scientific property”, 4.

Ibid., 6. The difficulties in settling issues of scientific priority and in allocating credit through historical time for a particular discovery were raised repeatedly in debate on scientific property. It has been suggested to me that this was simply the insurmountable obstacle that made the movement ill-fated from the beginning. However, I am not persuaded of this. Ruffini had a point when he argued that the problems of allocating priority in invention are also (perhaps just as) serious. And yet the patent system and the legal system do make allocations. Given this, the perceived difficulty of allocating credit for discovery is a function of the extent to which institutional and other practices assuming that difficulty have acquired momentum.

Ibid., 6.

Schanze Oskar , “Erfindung und entdeckung”, in Hirth G. , Annalen des Deutschen Reichs, 1894, 653–721.

Damme Felix , Das Deutsche Patentrecht (Berlin, 1906), 136.

Ruffini , “Scientific property”, 7. The works in question are Albert Osterrieth, Lehrbuch des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes (Leipzig, 1908), and DuBois-Reymond Alard , Erfindung und Erfinder (Berlin, 1906), 65.

See, for example, MacFie Robert Andrew , The patent question: A solution of difficulties by abolishing or shortening the inventor's monopoly, and instituting national recompenses (London, n.d.), 13–14. Ruffini himself, in reaction to the initial responses of governments, pointed out that the same contrary arguments had been made in the nineteenth century: “Every opponent of the system of patents opposed all attempts to assimilate patent rights to authors' rights…. Had we been inclined to indulge in mere dialectics, we might have proposed to the adversaries of scientific property the following dilemma: ‘Since your arguments are identical with those which were formerly levelled against industrial property, you must either, in logic, deny the legitimacy of that form of property, or you must allow that your arguments are nothing more than rusty and antiquated weapons’.” League of Nations, Committee on Intellectual Co-operation, “Scientific property: Supplementary report submitted by Senator Ruffini”, League Document A.29.1924. XII, 1–4, pp. 3–4.

Ruffini , “Scientific property”, 8. The works cited are Walker Albert H. , The patent law (New York, 1904), Para 1; Roberts James , The grant and validity of British patents (London, 1903), 34; MacOmber William , The fixed law of patents (Boston, 1909), Para 347.

Thus, in English (and Scottish) case law there was no absolute prohibition on a patentee gaining protection of all applications of a scientific principle providing that he offered a particular practical instantiation of that principle. The Boulton & Watt patent of 1769/1775 had effectively achieved such protection, and the case law on the point was rendered explicit in the case of Househill v. Neilson. See The trial before the Lord-Justice Clerk, and a special jury … of James Beaumont Neilson of Glasgow, engineer, and others, against the Househill Coal and Iron Company… (Edinburgh, 1842), 165–6, in which the Lord-Justice Clerk addressed this point of law.

Pilenko Aleksandr , Das Recht des Erfinders (Berlin, 1907).

Ruffini , “Scientific property”, 10.

Minutes of the Second Session, League of Nations Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Geneva, July 26th to August 2nd, 1923, League of Nations Archives, Document C.570.M.224.1923, XII[A], 7.

Ibid., 22.

The Gariel scheme was first elaborated in articles in the journal Propriété industrielle, 1923: 113ff, 131ff, 166ff and 169ff, later consolidated in Gariel, La question de la propriété scientifique (Paris, 1924). Gariel grounded his advocacy of a reward system in his contention that discoveries should be distinguished from inventions because the former are not creative acts. In consequence, for Gariel, no property rights could be held in discoveries.

On Lorentz see van Helden Albert , “Hendrik Antoon Lorentz 1853–1928”, in A history of science in the Netherlands, ed. by van Berkel K. van Helden A. Palm L. (Leiden, 1999), 514–18.

See “Fifth meeting … adoption of M. Ruffini's report on the protection of scientific property”, in Minutes of the Second Session, League of Nations Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Geneva, July 26th to August 2nd, 1923, League of Nations Archives, Document C.570. M.224.1923, XII[A], 22–44.

Cuba's eight-line response, dated 7 October 1925, is translated in League Document C.213. M.73.(a).1926.XII [A].

Translated response from Finnish Government, dated 31 December 1924, in League Document C.217.M.74.1925.XII [A].

Both translated in League Document C.213.M.73.1926.XII [A], Brazil's dated 5 January 1926 and Chile's eleven page contribution, 4 November 1925.

League of Nations — Official journal, August 1931, 1678.

Translation of Reply from the Belgian Government, 20 June 1931, League of Nations — Official journal, August 1931, 1683–4, p. 1684.

See for example, Munier Suzanne , Les droits des auteurs de découvertes ou inventions scientifiques (Paris, 1925); Robin J. , L'oeuvre scientifique: Sa protection juridique est-elle pratiquement realisable? (Paris, 1928); Olagnier P. , Le droit des savants (Paris, 1937).

A useful historical survey leading into contemporary concerns is Catherine Blaizot-Hazard, “Les propositions, depuis le XIXe siècle jusqu'à nos jours, en droit interne et international”, in Académie des Sciences, Propriété scientifique et recherche: Des pistes pour l'avenir (Paris, 2005), 43–57.

Ilosvay , “Scientific property” (ref. 34), 186–8.

Ruffini Francesco , “Scienza ed industria”, Nuova antologia, ccxxxiv (1924), 289–301, in response to Vivante Cesare , “La tutela della proprietà scientifica innanzi la Società delle Nazioni”, Nuova antologia, ccxxxiv (1924), 1924–85. The article “The right to scientific property”, Impact of science on society, v (1954), 1954–68, includes a bibliography of publications on scientific property in a number of countries from the 1920s onwards. The periodical La propriété industrielle is a major source in this connection.

Wigmore Ruffini , “Scientific property” (ref. 18). On Wigmore, see Roalfe William R. , John Henry Wigmore, scholar and reformer (Evanston, 1977). On the circumstances of the article written “with” Ruffini see Wigmore to Ruffini, 18 January 1928, John H. Wigmore Papers, Northwestern University Archives, Chicago, USA, Box 128, Folder 6. And on Wigmore's recruitment to the CIC see Inazo Nitobé to Murray, 4 August 1923, MSS Gilbert Murray, 265.145.

Wigmore Ruffini , “Scientific property” (ref. 18), 378. The prizewinning entry, by an Englishman, was Hamson C. J. , Patent rights for scientific discoveries (ref. 37). This remains the most detailed account of the subject up to the late 1920s.

Ladas Stephen P. , “The efforts for international protection of scientific property”, The American journal of international law, xxiii (1929), 552–69.

Ladas Stephen P. , The international protection of industrial property (Cambridge, 1930), 844–72.

Rogers Edward S. , “The proposal for scientific copyright, with the literary parallel”, Journal of comparative legislation and international law, 3rd ser., vii (1925), 69–85, p. 69.

Ibid., 85.

Rogers's involvement is reconstructed from correspondence between himself, Wigmore and Dr. Van Hamel, of the League of Nations, contained in the John H. Wigmore Papers, Box 82, Folder 1.

“Opposes royalties on scientific ideas. E. S. Rogers calls Geneva plan to pay inventors for use of principles impractical”, The New York Times, 1 February 1931, 15.

See Ilosvay , “Scientific property” (ref. 34), 191.

See Spencer Richard , “Scientific property”, American Bar Association journal, xviii (1932), 79–82.

Ibid., 81. Spencer was another key legal figure in the US response to scientific property. He won the Charles C. Linthicum Foundation Prize in 1930 for a monograph on the US patent system, published in 1931 as The United States patent system. Spencer was active in the Patent, Trademark and Copyright section of the ABA. For a time he was a faculty member at Northwestern University Law School. It seems likely that he was a protégé of Wigmore.

“Committee reports of the Section of Patent, Trade Mark and Copyright Law of the American Bar Association”, Journal of the Patent Office Society, xv (1933), 796–819, p. 801. This journal contains a number of important contributions to the debate, including: William I. Wyman, “Patents for scientific discoveries”, Journal of the Patent Office Society, xi (1929), 1929–57; Greenberg Abraham S. , “Quasi-patent rights: A proposal for the future”, Journal of the Patent Office Society, xii (1930), 1930–41, 65–83, 115–27; Smith Arthur M. , “Protection of scientific property”, Journal of the Patent Office Society, xiv (1932), 1932–48.

Rossman Joseph Cottrell F. G. Hull A. W. Woods A. F. , Protection by patents of scientific discoveries (New York, 1934). The authors of this report were the members of the AAAS Committee.

Thompson J. David to Wigmore J. H. , 3 May 1928, Wigmore Papers, Box 128, Folder 6.

Wigmore J. H. to Thompson J. David , 7 July 1928, carbon copy, Wigmore Papers, Box 128, Folder 6.

Thompson J. David to Murray , 4 May 1928, MSS Gilbert Murray, 366.41.

Murray's comment to that effect was made to G. Oprescu, Secretary to the CIC in a letter of 14 May. This is apparent from Oprescu's reply, dated 18 May 1928, MSS Gilbert Murray, 273.21.

J. David Thompson to Wigmore, 29 July 1929, Wigmore Papers. The attempt to raise the $20m fund to which Thompson refers was among the least successful of the measures pursued by the Millikan/Hale. See Davis Lance E. Kevles Daniel J. , “The National Research Fund: A case study in the industrial support of academic science”, Minerva, xii (1974), 207–20.

See Weiner Charles , “Patenting and academic research: Historical case studies”, Science, technology & human values, xii (1987), 50–62, and Matkin Gary W. , Technology transfer and the university (New York, 1990), 16–38.

See Apple Rima B. , “Patenting university research: Harry Steenbock and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation”, Isis, lxxx (1989), 374–94.

On the origins and recent history of patenting and the university sector see Mowery David C. Nelson Richard R. Sampat Bhaven N. Ziedonis Arvids A. , Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University—industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act (Stanford, CA, 2004); Thackray Arnold (ed.), Private science: Biotechnology and the rise of the molecular sciences (Philadelphia, 1998); Etzkovitz Henry Webster Andrew Healey Peter (eds), Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia (Albany, 1998).

Millikan Robert A. to Murray Gilbert , 20 June 1930, R. A. Millikan Papers, California Institute of Technology Archives, Box 14, Folder 4.

Bush Vannevar , “Science in a changing world”, Journal of the Patent Office Society, xviii (1936), 227–36.

Ibid., 233–4, 235–6.

See also Compton Karl T. , “Science and prosperity”, Science, n.s., lxxx, no. 2079 (2 November 1934), 387–94.

See Miller David Philip , “The political economy of discovery stories: The case of Irving Langmuir and General Electric”, paper given to Australasian Association for History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science Conference, Otago University, Dunedin, New Zealand, December 2005; Israel Paul , “The flash of genius: Defining invention in the era of corporate research”, paper presented at Con/texts of Invention: A Working Conference of the Society for Critical Exchange, Western Reserve University, Cleveland Ohio, 20–23 April 2006.

Section 103 of the 1952 Act provided that “patentability shall not be negatived by the method through which the invention was made”. This meant that “patents could be granted for discoveries resulting from large-scale, team-based, routine and painstaking — Even almost mindless — ‘trawling”’. See Kingston William , “Streptomycin, Schatz v. Waksman, and the balance of credit for discovery”, Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, ix (2004), 441–62, p. 456. An excellent guide to Section 103 is Witherspoon John F. (ed.), Nonobviousness — The ultimate condition of patentability (Washington, D.C., 1980).

See U.K. National Archives, BT209/951, Board of Trade Industrial Property Department. Intellectual Co-operation Committee, League of Nations. Protection of Scientific Discoveries. Also see Frank Heath to Walter M. Fletcher, 5 March 1924, U.K. National Archives, FD1/2457, which explains the process.

BGC, “Proposed convention for the protection of scientific discoveries and inventions”, 28/11/[1923], BT 209/951.

Franks W. Temple , “Reward of scientific workers”, 3/12/1923, BT 209/951.

DSIR, “Memorandum on the report on scientific property”. The copies I have consulted included those sent to the Medical Research Council (U.K. National Archives, FD1/2457) and to the National Union of Scientific Workers (Papers of the Association of Scientific Workers, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick).

Ibid.

National Union of Scientific Workers, Half-Yearly Report of Executive Committee [July 1924], Association of Scientific Workers Papers, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, MSS 79/ASW/1/1/6/11.i.

See “National Union of Scientific Workers. Statement for Interdepartmental Committee on Patents”, 20 December 1920, Association of Scientific Workers Papers, MSS 79/ASW/1/2/3, 95–98. There were, however, some in the Union who put more store in patent rights. See Griffith A. A. , “Presidential address: The support and utilization of science”, The scientific worker, iv, no. 18 (February 1923), 1–5, pp. 4–5.

This was consistent with Fletcher's promotion of the MRC as the vehicle for basic, laboratory medical sciences. He was often disdainful of those working in more applied, clinical or epidemiological traditions who sought practical results more directly. Like Millikan and Hale, Fletcher saw the support of research as crucially dependent on philanthropic support. See Kohler Robert E. , “Walter Fletcher, F. G. Hopkins, and the Dunn Institute of Biochemistry: A case study in the patronage of science”, Isis, lxix (1978), 331–55; Austoker Joan , “Walter Morley Fletcher and the origins of a basic biomedical research policy”, in Historical perspectives on the role of the MRC, ed. by Austoker Joan Bryder Linda (Oxford, 1989), 23–33.

See Liebenau Jonathan , “The MRC and the pharmaceutical industry: The model of insulin”, in Historical perspectives on the role of the MRC, ed. by Austoker Bryder (ref. 105), 163–80; “Memorandum by the Medical Research Council on the Patent Law in relation to medical research”, 29 November 1929, U.K. National Archives, FD1/2144. This was a printed submission to the Board of Trade for consideration by the Departmental Committee on the Patents and Designs Act.

Fletcher to H. Frank Heath, 4 March 1924 [copy], U.K. National Archives, FD1/2547. Material in this same file shows that, having already given approval, Fletcher then proceeded to consult the Council and in due course transmitted its support of the DSIR Memo.

Secretary of the Royal Society to Secretary of the DSIR, 22 February 1924, Royal Society of London Archives, CD 841–847.

The League published a detailed account of the British response in “Memorandum by the Secretariat on the replies of Governments concerning Senator Ruffini's scheme for the protection of scientific property”, in League Document A.29.1924.XII, 4–5.

Strictly speaking, Hirst did not represent the British Government but was an independent expert nominated by it. On Hirst see Palmer H. M. , “Hirst, Hugo, Baron Hirst (1863–1943)”, Oxford dictionary of national biography (2004).

On the origins of research at GEC and Hirst's role in it see Clayton Robert Algar Joan , The GEC research laboratories 1919–1984 (London, 1989).

Ladas , “The efforts for international protection” (ref. 17), 568, states that it was unfortunate that the Committee of Experts was dominated by members of “the Latin group”, there being 10 Frenchmen, 2 Italians, 1 Belgian, 1 Swiss and 1 Spaniard. Germany, Great Britain and the U.S. had only one representative each and they were industrialists.

“Report to H.M. Government, Foreign Office, by Hugo Hirst on the Proceedings of the Sub-Committee of Experts for Scientific Property at the Meeting held in Paris 12th to 15th December, 1927”, in U.K. National Archives, BT209/959.

Ibid.

“General discussion of Senator Ruffini's proposal regarding the property of scientists in their intellectual achievements by some members of the staff of the research laboratories of the General Electric Co. Ltd”, in “Report … by Hugo Hirst”, U.K. National Archives, BT209/959.

See S. J. C. [Chapman] to Sir H. Payne, 29.8.[19]28, in BT209/960. Sir Sydney John Chapman (1871–1951) was Professor of Political Economy at Owen's College, Manchester 1901–17, Assistant Secretary at the Board of Trade 1918–19, Permanent Secretary 1920–27 and Chief Economic Advisor to the Government 1927–32 (Who was who 1951–60 (London, 1961), 200). Sir Henry Arthur Payne (1873–1931) was Second Secretary of the Board of Trade 1919–29 (Who was who 1929–1940 (London, 1941), 1055).

Annotation on Ibid., initialled “P. C. L.” and dated 1 September 1928. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister (1884–1972), was later 1st Earl Swinton.

Typescript, initialled “W. S. J.”, dated 25.8. [19]28, attached to S. J. C. to Sir H. Payne, 29.8.[19]28, in BT 209/960.

Note to the Comptroller, initialled “H C H” and dated 19.1.[19]28, plus attached chart in BT209/960. Haycraft was an Examiner in the Patent Office at the time of the First World War and subsequently rose to be Assistant Comptroller.

H. C. Haycraft to Sir Sydney Chapman, 18 February 1928, in BT 209/960.

Arthur George Bloxam (1866–1940) studied and taught chemistry before, from 1897, applying himself to the patent law on which he became a leading authority. Obituary, Journal of the Chemical Society, 1941, 241.

Bloxam A. G. , “Opening address of the President”, Transactions of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, xlv (1926–27), 21–37, p. 21. For an interesting discussion of Bloxam's “Address”, see Transactions of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, xlv (1926–27), 39–49. The protection of scientific discoveries and the Ruffini scheme were also taken up in Reginald William James, “Opening address of the President”, Transactions of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, xlvi (1928–29), 22–40, pp. 25–27, and in discussion of that “Address” at 44–51.

Bloxam , “Opening address” (ref. 122), 22.

Ibid., 23.

H. C. Haycraft to Sir Sydney Chapman, 18 February 1928, BT 209/960.

Copy letter dated Foreign Office, 26 March 1931, signed on behalf of Mr Secretary Henderson by Keeper A. W. , U.K. National Archives, ED 25/25. Essentially the same text exists as “Memorandum on the draft convention on scientific property” in BT 209/959.

A number of Board of Trade files dealing with scientific property have a label of later provenance on their front covers reading “U.N.E.S.C.O. Scientists Rights”, suggesting that they were dusted off in the early 1950s. Apart from bureaucratic discussions of scientific property, and those by patent agents (see ref. 122), I have found that the issue was discussed at the BAAS meeting in 1931. See Goldsmith J. N. , “The development of invention: Scientific property”, in Business and science, ed. by MacKay R. J. (London, 1932), 261–73. Goldsmith's paper is summarized along with others given in the session “Patents and the protection of scientific discoveries” in Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Centenary Meeting, London 1931 (London, 1932), 424–6. Another discussion is J. W. Williamson, “Scientific property”, Journal of scientific instruments, xiv (1937), 1937–76.

Hull Andrew , “War of words: The public science of the British scientific community and the origin of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, 1914–16”, The British journal for the history of science, xxxii (1999), 461–81. Also see MacLeod Roy , “Science for imperial efficiency and social change: Reflections on the British Science Guild, 1905–1936”, Public understanding of science, iii (1994), 1994–93.

The Australian Report is reproduced in Hamson , Patent rights for scientific discoveries (ref. 37), 225–45.

The other members were two patent attorneys who were also Associates of the Australian Chemical Institute, and the Assistant Commonwealth Parliamentary Draftsman. See Hamson , Patent rights for scientific discoveries (ref. 37), 225.

Hamson , Patent rights for scientific discoveries (ref. 37), 55.

Bugos Glenn E. Kevles Daniel J. , “Plants as intellectual property: American practice, law and policy in world context”, Osiris, n.s., vii (1992), 75–104; Kevles Daniel J. , “Patents, protections, and privileges: The establishment of intellectual property in animals and plants”, Isis, xcviii (2007), 2007–31.

Drahos Peter Braithwaite John , Information feudalism (New York, 2003).

Resnik David B. , “Discoveries, inventions, and gene patents”, in Who Owns Life?, ed. by Magnus David , Arthur Caplan and Glenn McGee (Amherst, NY, 2002), 135–59. See also Alex Oliver's argument at http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/business/events/intel_prop.html concerning the European Union Directive. Oliver notes that old usage made gene sequences “discoveries” while new usage in the European Directive makes then “inventions”. He is, rightly, sceptical of the Directive's claim that a prior principle that discoveries are not patentable — And hence a stable concept of discovery — Were being respected in these moves. Rather, he says, the terms ‘discovery’ and ‘invention’ were being redefined to suit the purposes of the forces behind the Directive.

See amidst a vast literature: Posey Darryl A. , “Intellectual property rights and just compensation for indigenous knowledge”, Anthropology today, vi (1990), 13–16; Posey Darryl A. Dutfield Graham , Beyond intellectual property (Ottawa, 1996); Zerda-Sarmiento Alvara Forero-Pineda Clemente , “Intellectual property rights over ethnic communities' knowledge”, ISSJ, clxxi (2002), 2002–114; Hafstein Vladimir Tr , “The politics of origins: Collective creation revisited”, Journal of American folklore, cxvii (2004), 2004–15; Dutfield Graham , Intellectual property, biogenetic resources and traditional knowledge (London, 2004).

See UNESCO document “The right to scientific property” (ref. 39).

Ziman John , Real science: What it is, and what it means (Cambridge, 2000), 215.

For important insights into this period see Mayer A. K. , “Setting up a discipline, II: British history of science and the ‘end of ideology’, 1931–1948”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxxv (2004), 41–72; MacLeod Roy , “The social function of science in Britain: A retrospect”, in J. D. Bernal's The Social Function of Science, 1939–1989, ed. by Steiner Helmut (Berlin, 1989), 342–63; and Werskey Gary , “The visible college revisited: Second opinions on the red scientists of the 1930s”, Minerva, xlv (2007), 2007–19.

See MacLeod Christine Tann Jennifer , “From engineer to scientist: Reinventing invention in the Watt and Faraday centenaries, 1919–31”, The British journal for the history of science, xl (2007), 389–411.

For debate about whether the linear model ever existed, see Edgerton David , “‘The Linear Model’ did not exist. Reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in the twentieth century”, in The science—industry nexus: History, policy, implications, ed. by Grandin Karl Wormbs Nina Widmalm Sven (Sagamore Beach, MA, 2004), 31–57; and Godin Benoit , “The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework”, Project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics, Working Paper No. 30, 2005 [accessed at http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin-30.pdf].

Merton , “The normative structure of science” (ref. 5), 275. As previously pointed out, this essay began life as “Science and technology in a democratic order”. It was reprinted as “Science and technology in a democratic social structure” in Merton R. K. , Social theory and social structure (New York, 1949). David Kellogg has noted how the title of the essay shifts “toward the very universalism it embraces” ( Kellogg David , “Toward a post-academic science policy: Scientific communication and the collapse of the Mertonian norms”, International journal of communications law & policy, Autumn 2006, 1–29, p. 6). In historicizing Merton we need to restore not only the local context of “democracy” but also that of “technology” in which the norms were developed. It is in that connection that the scientific property debate ought to be relevant.

The item is Robin J. , L'oeuvre scientifique: Sa protection juridique (Paris, 1928). Merton cites this not as a contribution to the literature on scientific property but in reference to the patenting activity of Einstein et alia, which was designed to subvert the privatization of scientific discovery.

Cf. Johns , “Intellectual property and the nature of science” (ref. 6), 161.