How did other manufacturers wriggle around Wheatstones Patent

[Alan Day]

I have been reading the Wheatstone Patent 1844 and it clearly patents amongst other things the construction of a reed for use in a concertina. He patents at the same time the English System and the drawings are a remarkable likeness for those still produced today. I notice that George Jones Filed a Patent almost exactly Forty Years later for the Anglo German System. Does this mean that patents were only applicable for Forty Years?

Charles Wheatstone was in fact updating his previous Patent 1829 for air blowing through a vibrating reed. This means that he also held the Patent rights for a Harmonium that uses exactly the same principle.

Finally in amongst the Patent he refers to the Concertina for the first time and I quote " This musical Instrument as such has since been named the Concertina and is generally known by that designation". This would imply that The Concertina was being made long before 1844.

So if Wheatstone held the Patent for the manufacturing principle of reed manufacture, how did the other manufacturers get around it ?

Or was there a free for all in 1884?

The patent can be read at Robert Gaskins site in full detail

Al

[chris]

Hi

I don't know how they 'wriggled' round the patent. The earliest 'independant' maker seems to be Joseph Scates (tuner with Wheatstone) who, probably, started his 'busines' about 1844 so he may have sneaked in before the patent was registered?? Scates was certainly playing Wheatstones before he started his 'business' - 8th Jan 1842 at The Strand Theatre advertised as playing 'Wheatstone's patent concertina', and later in 1842 on 27th July at The Fulham Grand Fete before Victoria (not that I think that she played concertina first ). It seems possible they all 'ignored' the patent- given the number of makers who appeared, it may not have made economical sense to try to prosecute them all and I suppose that they all gained (including Wheatstones, as the 'best') as the popularity of concertinas, to which they all contributed, increased. As a modern example- look at the comparative prosperity of Microsoft against Apple -one gave more info to 'independents' than the other.

chris

[TomB-R]

A patent does nothing unless the owner takes, or successfully threatens, legal action, (as Chris said.)

 

(But not "prosecution" technically, since it's a civil, not criminal, law matter. Sorry!)

 

It may be that although registered, Wheatstone were too slow with their patent so it wouldn't actually have stood up in court.

 

What was "patent" about Lachenals?

 

Tom

Edited April 29, 2009 by TomB-R

[wes williams]

Hi Al,

At this time, patents lasted 14 years. So the 1844 patent (called 'Improvements ...' ) was an attempt to patent various extras. Scates - and anyone else - was free to build concertinas in 1844 as long as they didn't use any of these 'Improvements'.

 

The concertina was named before 1834/5 (Regondi is touring Ireland with"'Wheatstone's Patent Concertina"), and we suspect the name came into use in 1833 (December 27th).

[Mike Pierceall]

I have been reading the Wheatstone Patent 1844 and it clearly patents amongst other things the construction of a reed for use in a concertina. He patents at the same time the English System and the drawings are a remarkable likeness for those still produced today. I notice that George Jones Filed a Patent almost exactly Forty Years later for the Anglo German System. Does this mean that patents were only applicable for Forty Years?

Charles Wheatstone was in fact updating his previous Patent 1829 for air blowing through a vibrating reed. This means that he also held the Patent rights for a Harmonium that uses exactly the same principle.

Finally in amongst the Patent he refers to the Concertina for the first time and I quote " This musical Instrument as such has since been named the Concertina and is generally known by that designation". This would imply that The Concertina was being made long before 1844.

So if Wheatstone held the Patent for the manufacturing principle of reed manufacture, how did the other manufacturers get around it ?

Or was there a free for all in 1884?

The patent can be read at Robert Gaskins site in full detail

Al

All a guess on my part, but, perhaps it was a less litigious environment, and with small variations in design, it could take years or even decades to prevail.

[Alan Day]

Hi Al,

At this time, patents lasted 14 years. So the 1844 patent (called 'Improvements ...' ) was an attempt to patent various extras. Scates - and anyone else - was free to build concertinas in 1844 as long as they didn't use any of these 'Improvements'.

 

The concertina was named before 1834/5 (Regondi is touring Ireland with"'Wheatstone's Patent Concertina"), and we suspect the name came into use in 1833 (December 27th).

Thanks Wes ,this would mean that from the information we have available the Concertina as such although named in the Patent of 1844 was developed soon after the 1829 Patent. Certainly if Regondi was playing and writing music for the Concertina he must have had one in about 1831.So from this information the Concertina as such must have been invented or prototyped nearer to 1839 than the 1844 date most seem to quote for its date of invention. Interesting stuff I hope this discussion develops.

Al

[gavdav]

What was "patent" about Lachenals?

 

Lachenal used McCann's duet system patent (Patent number 4752) to make their "patent" concertinas.

 

George Jones also patented a more complex anglo system (9314) which was alleged to play chromatically a friend owns one of these, though it has been sadly retuned to a more "conventional" system.

 

think these were both 1884 - both ae effectively fingering system patents I suppose.

Edited April 29, 2009 by gavdav

[Chris Drinkwater]

Currently, a patent expires after 20 years. Once a patent is granted, you need to pay renewal fees to keep it in force so that protection continues. The amount you pay increases every year your patent is ‘live’. This is to avoid placing too much of a financial burden on a person in the early life of their patent when they are likely to have other costs. If someone decides to endorse their patent ‘Licences of Right’ (which means it will be available for the cost of a royalty payment for licensing to anyone who asks), the renewal fee they pay after endorsement will be half the normal rate. Throughout the 20-year life of a UK patent, you need to make 16 yearly renewal payments. Once a patent has expired, or is not renewed, then anyone can manufacture or produce the invention and not be subject to litigation. I don't know how long a 19th century patent lasted before it expired, but once Wheatstone's had, then anyone was free to manufacture concertinas with reeds to Charles Wheatstone's exact same design. As the concertina gained popularity, this would explain why other later manufacturers, such as Lachenal and George Jones, were able to produce their own versions and compete with Wheatstone without fear of prosecution. Some inventors, granted patents, let them lapse because they cannot afford to renew them, or think the cost of doing so is not worth it.

 

Chris

Edited April 30, 2009 by Chris Drinkwater

[JimLucas]

I have been reading the Wheatstone Patent 1844 and it clearly patents amongst other things the construction of a reed for use in a concertina. He patents at the same time the English System....

Sorry, Alan, but my reading of the 1844 patent is quite different.

 

Lines 21-24 on page 2 say,

...in order clearly to indicate the new improvements, which form the subject of the present Letters Patent, and to distinguish those improvements from those which are already before the public, I shall commence with describing the concertina in its present complete form.

Then lines 4-6 on page 4 say,

Having now described the concertina in the most improved forms in which it has been already before the public, I shall proceed to describe the new improvements, which form the subject of the present Patent.

I.e., everything described between those two statements -- and illustrated in figures 1-6 -- is pre-existing design (including the "English" keyboard layout, which was the principal claim in the 1829 patent), and thus NOT among the claims of the 1844 patent.

 

The 1844 patent claims -- eight in all -- begin with line 7 on page 4 and continue through line 18 on page 9. They are then summarized in the text from line 22 on page 9 through line 6 on page 10. Note that the first claim encompasses four new (at the time) keyboard layouts, and the "English" keyboard is not among them, though the first of the four (Fig. 7) is what is now known as the Wheatstone "double", of which a few examples are known. And the third claim is for what today is sometimes known as the "squashed hexagon" cross-sectional shape, most commonly found in bass concertinas, and the only one of the 1844 claims that found its way into regular use.

[JimLucas]

...the 1844 date most seem to quote for its date of invention.

Most???

What are the various sources you're counting in order to reach that "calculation"?

 

In an earlier Topic, there was considerable discussion of just what was invented when. Worth reading, in spite of its length, before adding further speculation ("All a guess on my part" and "It may be" have already appeared) to this thread.

 

It's an odd coincidence that this discussion should appear just now, since at our just-finished Scandinavian Squeeze-In, Stephen Chambers gave an excellent presentation on the early history of the concertina, illustrated with actual instruments from the period. I presume he'll weigh in on this Topic as soon as he finds a bit of time to do so.

[Hereward]

It's an odd coincidence that this discussion should appear just now, since at our just-finished Scandinavian Squeeze-In, Stephen Chambers gave an excellent presentation on the early history of the concertina, illustrated with actual instruments from the period. I presume he'll weigh in on this Topic as soon as he finds a bit of time to do so.

 

I do hope that Stephen is able and willing to have the talk published at some time because it sounds excellent.

 

Ian

[Alan Day]

I have been reading the Wheatstone Patent 1844 and it clearly patents amongst other things the construction of a reed for use in a concertina. He patents at the same time the English System....

Sorry, Alan, but my reading of the 1844 patent is quite different.

 

Lines 21-24 on page 2 say,

...in order clearly to indicate the new improvements, which form the subject of the present Letters Patent, and to distinguish those improvements from those which are already before the public, I shall commence with describing the concertina in its present complete form.

Then lines 4-6 on page 4 say,

Having now described the concertina in the most improved forms in which it has been already before the public, I shall proceed to describe the new improvements, which form the subject of the present Patent.

I.e., everything described between those two statements -- and illustrated in figures 1-6 -- is pre-existing design (including the "English" keyboard layout, which was the principal claim in the 1829 patent), and thus NOT among the claims of the 1844 patent.

 

The 1844 patent claims -- eight in all -- begin with line 7 on page 4 and continue through line 18 on page 9. They are then summarized in the text from line 22 on page 9 through line 6 on page 10. Note that the first claim encompasses four new (at the time) keyboard layouts, and the "English" keyboard is not among them, though the first of the four (Fig. 7) is what is now known as the Wheatstone "double", of which a few examples are known. And the third claim is for what today is sometimes known as the "squashed hexagon" cross-sectional shape, most commonly found in bass concertinas, and the only one of the 1844 claims that found its way into regular use.

You are correct Jim and thanks for your comment,I did not read the 1829 patent which I should have done, as you state the 1944 patent was an update on the 1929 one where he mentions a Symphonion from which the basis of the English System was developed.

I was unaware of the talk by Stephen,my interest came from a talk on Manx Radio combined with English International where these patents and Charles Wheatstone himself was discussed.I hope Stephen joins this discussion.

Al

[JimLucas]

...the 1944 patent was an update on the 1929 one where he mentions a Symphonion from which the basis of the English System was developed.

Picking a linguistic/philosophical nit, I would say that it was the Sympnonion for (not from) which the English system was developed. I.e., the Symphonium was the result of the fingering system, not the other way around. As already noted, the 1829 patent is for the fingering system, not the Symphonium.

 

I was unaware of the talk by Stephen...

As far as I know, he prepared (or perhaps ad-libbed) the talk for us after he decided to join our little gathering.

 

There were several cameras present, but as far as I know, no video. Sigh!

 

I expect he'd be willing to do it, again.

(Frankly, I think it's a presentation worth paying him for.)

[wes williams]

..this would mean that from the information we have available the Concertina as such although named in the Patent of 1844 was developed soon after the 1829 Patent...

Al,

If you look at the final figure in the 1829 patent, it shows a variation for a bellows blown version of Wheatstone's original symphonion idea. So Wheatstone was trying to include variations on his main idea within the patent.

[JimLucas]

..this would mean that from the information we have available the Concertina as such although named in the Patent of 1844 was developed soon after the 1829 Patent...

If you look at the final figure in the 1829 patent, it shows a variation for a bellows blown version of Wheatstone's original symphonion idea. So Wheatstone was trying to include variations on his main idea within the patent.

In this particular context, the word "include" could have more than one interpretation.

 

As noted elsewhere, concertina makers independent of Wheatstone didn't appear until after the 1829 patent expired, but I would not conclude that this is because Wheatstone's 1829 patent gave him exclusive rights to produce a small, hexagonal, bellows driven instrument. Instead, it is because the only concertinas these other makers were producing used Wheatstone's patented (in 1829) arrangement of notes... what we now call the "English" keyboard layout. English-made concertinas with the German ("anglo") layout didn't appear until later, and "duet" keyboards (except Wheatstone's "double", figure 7 in his 1844 patent) much later.

 

In fact, it now appears that Wheatstone probably copied many details of his hand-held, bellows-driven design from Demian's accordion. (Stephen Chambers can tell us more about that.) So inclusion of the bellows-driven option at the end of the Wheatstone's 1829 patent appears (to me) not to be a claim of patent on that particular concept, but simply an acknowledgement of its prior existence, thus preventing others from attempting to obtain patents on the concept, and thereby restrict its use. (Such a patent claim would almost certainly not have survived a court challenge, but keeping it from reaching the courts in the first place would save much time and money.)

[Alan Day]

One can only guess that although Wheatstone tried to tie up the concertina patent so that only his company could make them at some time he or his company must have given up on the idea. Perhaps the slight keyboard fingering patterns got around the patent,or as has been suggested he just let the Patent lapse, because he possibly found he had more than enough work for his company with advance orders. I suppose a few private deals could have taken place .

I shall have a little chat with Mr Crabb at Bradfield on the QT and see if he knows anything about it.

Al

[wes williams]

In this particular context, the word "include" could have more than one interpretation.

If you wish to be pedantic Jim, lets use the word 'show' instead. But we cannot deny that it was being called 'Wheatstone's Patent Concertina' by 1835, and our speculations on the legality of this claim really have no value.

...English-made concertinas with the German ("anglo") layout didn't appear until later...

That's something its not yet possible to establish. See Stephen's notes to Section 5, and item 15 in the Michaelstein article.

Edited May 2, 2009 by wes williams

[JimLucas]

In this particular context, the word "include" could have more than one interpretation.

If you wish to be pedantic Jim, lets use the word 'show' instead. But we cannot deny that it was being called 'Wheatstone's Patent Concertina' by 1835, and our speculations on the legality of this claim really have no value.

My wish was not to "be pedantic", but to emphasize the principle that patents commonly (though not always) include descriptions and illustrations of items that are not being claimed as new invention.

 

Such "inclusions" can have various purposes. E.g., they can be descriptions of how the invention can be used, and thus a sort of advertisement. (Advertising that a new kind of fiber can be either spun or felted does not mean that the inventor's permission is needed in order to use the fiber in these ways.) But they can also be used to protect the patentee against frivolous claims by others for rights to a trivial variation... claims which unfortunately are not always rejected by patent examiners. And while I don't know that that was Wheatstone's intent in including the use of a bellows in his 1829 patent, such use does fall into that class.

 

"Wheatstone's patent concertina" is accurate, but incomplete in its brevity. It implies that the instrument as a whole incorporates features which are protected by one or more patents, but it doesn't specify which features those are. That very vagueness may provide protection for features which were not themselves patented, but which others might avoid copying, because they haven't seen them elsewhere and they're not sure they're not covered by a patent they haven't seen. The removable reed pand and the radial arrangement of the reed chambers stirke me as features that might be in this category. Screws and bolts, on the other hand, would certainly not be covered by patent, though they are certainly parts of "Wheatstone's patent concertina". (I suppose one could characterize that last bit as "pedantic", but that doesn't make it any less true.)

 

On the other hand, the keyboard layout of "Wheatstone's patent concertina" definitely was covered by Wheatstone's 1829 patent, and would have effectively prevented others from legally copying the instrument in its entirety.

 

...English-made concertinas with the German ("anglo") layout didn't appear until later...

That's something its not yet possible to establish. See Stephen's notes to Section 5, and item 15 in the Michaelstein article.

OOPS! Thanks for the link, Wes.

 

That does seem to show that at least one person manufactured at least one instrument that seems to share various features with "Wheatstone's patent concertina", though not the keyboard layout. I will refrain from claiming that this "proves" my point, since I don't know whether Wheatstone responded to this production, or even was aware of it. But I'm quite certain that it was in fact not a violation of Wheatstone's patent.

 

Edited to correct a typographical error.

Edited May 4, 2009 by JimLucas