Bell Telephone Patent Was No Poster Child For The Patent System

from the learning-from-history dept

Thu, Jan 24th 2008 4:58pm — Timothy Lee

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

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

none, 24 Jan 2008 @ 5:16pm

Typo?
what happened after the Bell patents inspired in 1894 ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron (profile), 24 Jan 2008 @ 5:21pm

What Happened
Nothing. That was 80 years before the patent was issued.
"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 thread ]
Ron (profile), 24 Jan 2008 @ 5:26pm

Sorry
The nit-pickies can be fun sometime, but...
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 thread ]
Mark Tomlinson, 24 Jan 2008 @ 5:29pm

"In 1977, Alexander Graham Bell was granted a patent that effectively gave him a 17-year monopoly over the entire telephone industry".

Seems odd. I could swear I was using a telephone as early as 1965.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim Lee, 24 Jan 2008 @ 5:42pm

Re: Sorry
Funny, my cell phone bill averages about $45/month. And last time I had a land line, in 2003, my bill was $23/month. Somehow I doubt you were or are getting a "fairly basic" package.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC, 24 Jan 2008 @ 6:07pm

Another Telephone Patent History Book
Try reading the newly published (January 2008) "The Telephone Gambit" by Seth Shulman.

FWIW. There is a difference between innovation and invention. Edison and the incandescent light bulb is a good example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hellsvilla, 24 Jan 2008 @ 6:30pm

Re: Re: Sorry
Funny, my cell phone bill averages about $45/month. And last time I had a land line, in 2003, my bill was $23/month. Somehow I doubt you were or are getting a "fairly basic" package.

*cough, cough, bullshit, cough, cough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
angry dude, 24 Jan 2008 @ 6:36pm

another anti-patent drivel from techdirt "expert"
"First, it's pretty clear that someone else would have invented the telephone within a few years if Bell hadn't done so."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2008 @ 7:09pm

Re: another anti-patent drivel from techdirt
Angry dude is just prejudiced by years of bitterness from an inability to monetize his amazing invention, the nokiapsule

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 thread ]
nonuser, 24 Jan 2008 @ 7:11pm

Elisha Gray
I read there's a new book out from a researcher who thinks the Bell/Gray story was not so much about coincidence of invention as it was about out and out theft. According to this author, Bell didn't have a working invention when he filed, but seems to have been given access to Gray's filing by a dishonest employee at the patent office. After Bell returned to his lab, he abruptly changed his approach, and shortly thereafter he was talking to Watson on line one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roo, 24 Jan 2008 @ 7:12pm

There's no mystery here
Bell's success after the expiration of the phone patent was due to the "network effect". If you're doing a research project, then you'll want to get clear on this phenomena. It helps to explain how some classes of products are subject to very different demand (and supply) curves than we might otherwise experience.

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 thread ]
R. H., 24 Jan 2008 @ 7:51pm

Re: Sorry
My brothers cellular bill from AT&T with the cheapest national cellular plan, unlimited data, and 1500 text messages is only eighty-something dollars a month. My Mothers plan which is only cellular is under $50. Her plan is about as basic as you can get with AT&T under contract.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
angry dude, 24 Jan 2008 @ 8:00pm

Impostors be damned !!!
Hey coward

I know who you are and you don't know who I am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ted L Nancy, 24 Jan 2008 @ 8:12pm

Re: Impostors be damned !!!
Wow. Lots of drama on TechDirt Today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2008 @ 8:13pm

Yay, you've successfully made the talk about patents even more boring!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
angry dude, 24 Jan 2008 @ 10:35pm

I'm gay.
Dear TechDirt,

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 thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 25 Jan 2008 @ 6:10am

Re: Re: another anti-patent drivel from techdirt
Ha ha. 10G ram, Bluetooth, Internal battery that charges off of body heat, GPS. I don't think this is his patent. Even Angry Dude isn't that dumb.

To Angry Dude, you could respond with "this isn't my patent" instead of threats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement, 25 Jan 2008 @ 7:19am

McNeil, the maker of Tylenol and Bayer, the maker of Aspirin, still produce Tylenol and Aspirin despite the availability of cheaper generics. They have expanded their Tylenol and Aspirin lines to include the whole "Cold and Flu", "Cold and Sinus", "Cold, Cough, Stuffy Nose", "Cold, Dry Cough, Stuffy Nose and Sinus", "Childrens", "Infants", and so on.

So despite the competition from generics, both McNeil and Bayer have continued to innovate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
inc, 25 Jan 2008 @ 7:45am

Re: Sorry
How do you figure competition does not drive down prices? Have you owned a cell phone for longer then a couple years? The prices for the first cell phones were astronomical. The have steadily been dropping while more and more features have added. Personally I hate the sleazy back door fees they tack on.

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 thread ]
z, 25 Jan 2008 @ 3:48pm

Meucci invented the telephone
Actually Bell could patent the phone because Meucci didn't have the $10 fee that was required to renew caveat 3335 that he filed in 1871 with the title "Sound Telegraph". Congress recognized it in 2001 with resolution HRES 269 IH.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cixelsid, 30 Jan 2008 @ 9:20am

Re: I'm gay.
Comedy gold, man, comedy gold!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 19 Jun 2010 @ 11:29pm

As news of basic experimentation and theoretical formulations spread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#History , everyone all of a sudden had lots of ideas and a desire to make a bundle.

Too bad a long broad monopoly was awarded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]