Bell Telephone Patent Was No Poster Child For The Patent System
from the learning-from-history dept
As part of a research project on the history of government regulation, I'm reading a 1975 book about the history of the telephone industry. One of the most interesting things I've been learning about is the central role of the patent system in the telephone's early development. In 1877, Alexander Graham Bell was granted a patent that effectively gave him a 17-year monopoly over the entire telephone industry. I found the story particularly interesting because it's strikingly at odds with the standard policy argument for the patent system. It's generally claimed that without patents, inventors wouldn't be able to recoup the costs of their inventions. The story of the Bell patents undermines this argument in two ways. First, it's pretty clear that someone else would have invented the telephone within a few years if Bell hadn't done so. Indeed, inventor Elisha Gray famously submitted a preliminary application for his own telephone design a few hours after Bell. But I think an even more serious difficulty for the pro-patent argument is what happened after the Bell patents expired in 1894. Patent supporters assume that competition will rapidly drive the price of a new invention down to the point where an inventor is unable to recoup his investment. But in fact, despite an explosion of new competitors in the 1890s, the American Bell Company maintained its high rates, and its revenues continued to grow every year from 1894 to 1899. It seems that even in competitive markets, there's plenty of room for innovators to turn a profit.I suspect that part of what was going on was simply that the United States was a big country, even in the 19th century, and there was plenty of room in the market for a number of companies to grow simultaneously. Also, American Bell was demonstrating that innovation is a process, not a burst of innovation. American Bell stayed ahead of its competitors largely by continuing to improve their technology, including adding new long-distance routes and switching from noisy one-wire circuits to much higher-quality two-wire ones. Once it could no longer rely on its patent monopoly, they were forced to stay ahead of competitors by continuously improving their technology. Obviously, consumers are much better off when companies have to compete for their business, rather than simply resting on the strength of a patent monopoly. I've got more discussion of the Bell patent story, and some quotes from the book, at the Technology Liberation Front.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alexander graham bell, patents, telephone
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Typo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Happened
"In 1977, Alexander Graham Bell was granted a patent that effectively gave him a 17-year monopoly over the entire telephone industry."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry
While it may be true in theory that the consumer fares better when there is a competitive market, it seems we are not really that well off now. My cell bill is $80 for a fairly basic package from ATT, when I had a land-line the bill was $100 with a few options. Now, I guess the land-line business really had little competition; ATT and Verizon, but my mobile service has 5 major competitors and it seems that instead of competing on services and price we see more of a price fixing atmosphere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry
*cough, cough, bullshit, cough, cough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry
The fact is that competition does drive down price as it forces businesses to provide better and smarter way to attract customers' money. That's the bottom line.
Open a business in the web hosting industry and you will see what you could once charge $50 a month for hosting with 5MBs of space you can now pay $3 a month with 1.5GB of space and a whole host of better performing technologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems odd. I could swear I was using a telephone as early as 1965.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Telephone Patent History Book
FWIW. There is a difference between innovation and invention. Edison and the incandescent light bulb is a good example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another anti-patent drivel from techdirt "expert"
I give you an F grade for your logic, Mr. Lee
You forgot one important condition: the existence of a patent system which motivated both Bell and Gray, as well as many other folks to spend their time and money tinkering with magnets and wires...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another anti-patent drivel from techdirt
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/281402/a_peek_into_the_future/
10GB memory!!
as posted by angry dude at
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070614/130621.shtml
which it would seem he invented solely so he could have something to make a video about for his high school multimedia class
"The idea is to do away with the size and enhance the features."
That is a great idea angrydude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impostors be damned !!!
I know who you are and you don't know who I am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: another anti-patent drivel from techdirt
To Angry Dude, you could respond with "this isn't my patent" instead of threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elisha Gray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's no mystery here
For example, when you buy a car, the total available demand for cars is reduced by one unit; at least for some period of time. But in the late 19th century, the purchase of each phone INCREASED the demand for phones as there was then, one more person to talk to. This concept is also at the heart of the anti-trust actions against Microsoft.
Roo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impostors be damned !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm gay.
I hate you. I have no friends and am failing all my classes. I make comments on things I know nothing about and flame everyone else. Unlike in real life I can't get a wedgie here so I'll keep reading and flaming despite declaring constantly how much this place sucks.
Please Notice Me,
Angry Dude
PS: My mom gave me herpes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm gay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So despite the competition from generics, both McNeil and Bayer have continued to innovate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meucci invented the telephone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad a long broad monopoly was awarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]