Table of Contents

Knowledge Management and Intellectual Property

Knowledge Management and Intellectual Property

Concepts, Actors and Practices from the Past to the Present

Queen Mary Studies in Intellectual Property series

Edited by Stathis Arapostathis and Graham Dutfield

The book links the practices and regimes of the past with those of contemporary and emerging forms, covering the mid-19th century to the present. The contributors are noted scholars from various disciplines including history of science and technology, intellectual property law, and innovation studies. The chapters offer original perspectives on how proprietary regimes in knowledge production processes have developed as a socio-political phenomenon of modernity, as well as providing an analysis of the way individuals, institutions and techno-sciences interact within this culture.

Chapter 5: Collective invention and patent law individualism, 1877–2012 – or, the curious persistence of the inventor’s moral right

Graham Dutfield

Subjects: business and management, knowledge management, innovation and technology, knowledge management, law - academic, intellectual property law


Why do inventors continue to be named in patents when most are owned by firms rather than individuals? And what role, if any, does inventor-naming play in the management of intellectual property rights? This chapter seeks answers. Why should the persistence of the named inventors be worthy of attention? Because in certain respects it appears quite anomalous. The slow demise of the true and first inventor has been noted for decades, in some cases approvingly. As early as 1941, Charles Kettering of General Motors commented that ‘a one-man invention isn’t very possible these days’, and opined that it would be unfair to single out individuals for collective attainments (quoted in Owens, 1991; see also, Noble, 1977). However, even before then the trend was becoming evident. The downgrading of the inventor from the status of autonomous genius to semi-anonymous team player in the employ of others, and a cog in a much bigger innovation ‘wheel’, is evident, for example, in the 1877 German Patent Law. This legislation heralded the first-to-file (as opposed to first-to-invent) principle, which is now the global norm. By favouring large businesses with their own scientific workers, this was in part strategic. But it was justified by the argument that modern inventions were collectively achieved and depended primarily on capital investment in laboratories, equipment and skilled employees (Gispen, 1989: 265). The second industrial revolution of the late nineteenth century, pioneered largely by Germany and the U.S., is associated with a number of phenomena favouring more collective – and potentially anonymous – conceptions of the inventive act, and a diminished autonomy for inventors.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information