A HISTORY of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY in 50 OBJECTS Edited by CLAUDY OP DEN KAMP and DAN HUNTER 12 Light Bulb Stef Van Gompel

Home , Electric arc, Joseph Swan, Phoebus cartel

A HISTORY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN 50 OBJECTS Edited by CLAUDY OP DEN KAMP and DAN HUNTER 12 Light Bulb Stef van Gompel

ankind has been using artificial light genius of a sole inventor. While Thomas Mfor millennia. Starting with camp- Edison or Joseph Swan are often credited as fires and torches in ancient times, lighting “the” inventors of the light bulb, the truth improved slowly but incrementally with the is that the concept of incandescent light introduction of candles, oil lamps, kerosene existed long before they entered the scene. lamps, and gas lighting. In 1802, Humphry Davy and Vasily Petrov Artificial lighting was lifted to another simultaneously invented the arc lamp, by dimension by the invention of the electric lighting an electric arc between carbon light bulb, which effectively extended day electrodes. Because arc lamps were too into night at the switch of a button. How- bright for indoor use and suitable only for ever, electric light not merely prolonged large spaces, other 19th-century scientists the usable hours in a day: by illuminating experimented with a range of electrically homes, schools, factories, offices, shop win- heated wires or rods inside semi-vacuum dows, theaters, street corners and parks, it glass tubes, trying out various combinations also improved conditions for learning and of iridium, platinum, carbon, and other reading, furthered economic and commer- materials. However, none of these early cial progress, created opportunities for experimental bulbs were commercially at- leisure and night life, and brought about tractive—they were too costly to produce, a sense of safety. It transformed the world. or they burnt out too quickly. This was Of course, electric light required a net- where Edison, Swan, and their teams of work of wires and power generators to inventors stepped in. bring electricity to the people, and this In 1878, Swan was the first to create a spurred the development of the electric light bulb consisting of an enclosed vac- power industry. As Thomas Edison ex- uum glass tube, platinum wiring, and a plained in the New York Sun of 16 Septem- filament of carbonized cotton. It gave off ber 1878: “The same wire that brings the light but was short-lived. Having a low- light will also bring power and heat.” The resistance filament, it moreover required widespread use of electric light facilitated larger conductors to supply the necessary the invention of various electric home ap- electric current, making it ill-suited for pliances and industrial equipment. With- commercial application. Meanwhile, in out electric lighting, everyday life would the United States, Edison had developed look completely different and contempo- an incandescent lamp based on similar rary concepts like the “24-hour economy,” principles to Swan’s, but which used a high- or even the “city that never sleeps,” could resistance carbon filament. This increased not exist. And the story of the electric light the durability of the lamp, as it required bulb is one that relies on patent law, (out- a lower current for the filament to glow. rageous) exercise of monopoly control, and On 22 October 1879, Edison successfully a hefty serving of marketing brilliance. demonstrated a lamp that burned 13.5 Like many other famous inventions, the hours at his home laboratory in Menlo light bulb was not the result of a spark of Park, NJ, and, in 1880, he created a light bulb with an improved filament of carbon- the basis for systematic litigation against ized bamboo that lasted over 1,200 hours. competitors. After winning a series of Swan did not seek patent protection for patent infringement cases against rival the light bulb he created, as he assumed manufacturers in the mid-1880s, Ediswan’s that its technical details were public knowl near-monopoly in the British incandescent edge and lacked patentable innovations. lamp industry was firmly secured. Oddly, However, Edison sought and eventually Swan was asked to testify as an expert obtained patents in the United States, witness in those cases as to the validity of Britain, and elsewhere on his invention Edison’s basic patent. His business interests of the 1879 carbon-filament lamp and its forced him to agree that Edison was the subsequent improvements. In his zeal for rightful owner of the patent, and so Swan patenting, he was not alone: already by downplayed his own contribution to the in- 1878, Sawyer and Man had obtained pat- vention of the light bulb. This act of willful ents on a filament improvement process self-erasure doubtlessly contributed to the called “flashing,” and in the 1880s Swan myth that Edison was the sole inventor of obtained a series of patents for a method the light bulb. to avoid bulb-blackening, a process to pro- Outside Britain, the lamp industries in duce “parchmentized” cotton filaments, other territories were more competitive. and a process to create high-resistance This was particularly so in continental cellulose filaments. Not only were many Europe, where unfettered competition inventors working on incandescent lighting reigned, especially from foreign lamp at the same time, but they also all realized producers whose economic sustainabil the significance of the patent system to ity greatly depended on export markets. secure and maintain their position in the Despite the existence of patents—includ- newly emerging lamp market. ing Edison’s basic patent held by local Patent holders enjoy strong commercial subsidiaries such as AEG in Germany advantages, of course, since their patents and the Compagnie Générale des Lampes can be used to prevent competitors from Incandescentes in France—competition in entering new markets. Unsurprisingly, the Europe could roam freely, as French and early days of the incandescent lamp indus- German courts rendered the validity of try witnessed fierce patent wars. The most some key lamp patents uncertain, while contested patent was undoubtedly Edison’s light bulbs could be manufactured without basic patent on the 1879 light bulb: it was restrictions in the Netherlands and Switzer- central because of its broad scope, and land, which had no patent protection at the so its validity was widely questioned by time. This also explains the establishment competitors who maintained that Edison’s in the Netherlands of the Philips company invention was not genuinely new, and was, in 1891, which later grew out to be one of instead, based on existing knowledge and the largest lamp producers in Europe, next prior art. to AEG and Siemens-Halske. The battles over this and other patents Likewise, while the early US lamp in- played out differently in different territories. dustry faced little foreign competition due In Britain, for example, a near-monopoly on to high import taxes, domestic competi- electric lamps was established after Edison tion was intense. In the United States in and Swan joined forces in the Ediswan the 1880s numerous lamp manufacturers Company in 1883. This merger was mutu- existed, and despite litigation over var- ally beneficial, as Edison’s broadly formu- ious lamp patents, few of them took out lated patent on the 1879 light bulb made licenses: they either ignored the patents, or Swan’s business vulnerable, while Edi- designed around them. Ultimately, in the son was uncertain about his patent being early 1890s US courts upheld the validity upheld in court if Swan could establish of Edison’s basic patent; but by then it was priority of invention. Ediswan’s rich pat- too late to confer monopoly powers on ent portfolio—which also included Saw- the Edison General Electric Company. yer and Man’s flashing patent and lamp Still, General Electric led the US lamp patents purchased from others—formed industry with a 50 percent market share throughout the 1890s—partly caused by the US market. the success of Edison’s bamboo filament In other territories, lamp producers lamp, but also because fierce competition established market control through col- had, by then, driven many competing lamp laboration, by establishing national car- manufacturers out of business. tels—such as the British Carbon Lamp Consistent with the economic litera- Association—or by using patent pools to ture on monopolies, the dominant market jointly regulate competition, quality, and position of a few large companies caused prices in the metal-filament lamp industry. drawbacks for consumers. During the pe- Examples of these pools include the UK riod of Ediswan’s near-monopoly in Brit- Tungsten Lamp Association founded in ain, innovations in filament development 1912; and the German Patentgemeinschaft halted, and lamps cost almost three times established in 1911 by AEG, Siemens- the price charged in Europe. Only after Halske and the Deutsche Gasglühlicht AG, Edison’s basic patent expired in 1893 was which sought to control competition on the the British market flooded with foreign European mainland. After World War I, lamps, often of a better quality and costing as the balance of power in the European less than Ediswan’s lamps. But the monop- lamp industry changed, the three German oly was not all bad: the public benefited firms merged into the Osram company to from the monopoly rents extracted from secure their position. the sale of lamps, as part of these profits Around this time, the world’s leading were reinvested in the development of the lamp producers also began to organize electricity network. This brought advan- themselves internationally. While in con- tages to all, rich and poor. Edison’s famous tinental Europe, regional markets were quote in the New York Herald of 4 January allocated and prices and production quotas 1880 captures some of this: “After the elec- were fixed through international lamp car- tric light goes into general use, none but tels such as the Internationale Glühlampen the extravagant will burn tallow candles.” Preisvereinigung, transatlantic trade was However, monopoly powers derived controlled by cross-licensing contracts be- from lamp patents impeded the public tween General Electric and leading Eu- interest more seriously in the first half of the ropean lamp producers, which agreed to 20th century, when carbon-filament lamps exchange technological advances but not were replaced by metal-filament lamps to invade each other’s markets. In 1924, which significantly improved the lifetime lamp producers in continental Europe, the and intensity of light bulbs. The basic pat- United Kingdom, and Japan set up the ents on these new lamps were owned by Phoebus cartel, which regulated prices, a few large companies, which repeatedly quality, and sales quotas; facilitated the strengthened their patent portfolios by exchange of patents and knowhow; and amassing improvement patents through introduced technological standardization corporate invention, mergers and takeovers, in the lamp industry. Meanwhile, General and the purchase of patent portfolios. The Electric continued its patent licensing and incumbents controlled domestic compe- exclusive sales territory agreements with tition, and had the power to speed up or lamp producers around the world, while delay introduction of new innovations, securing its interests in the Phoebus cartel depending on their commercial interests. through foreign subsidiaries. In the United States, the market was The outbreak of World War II rendered controlled largely by General Electric, the cartel ineffective. Moreover, postwar which owned most metal-filament patents. antitrust actions filed against lamp pro- General Electric was able to fix prices and ducers, mostly in the United States, soon set strict production quotas for licensees. banned the industry practices of interna- Although in 1911 a federal antitrust case tional cartelization, exclusive patent li- was successfully brought against Gen- censing, price fixing, and market division. eral Electric, it did not seriously affect Cooperation and knowledge exchange the company’s patent domination and its between lamp producers continued, but market-restricting licensing practices in this was now based on the principle of formal nonexclusivity. However, while competition increased, large pre-war companies like Osram, Philips, and General Electric continued to dominate the postwar global lighting market. Today, in many countries worldwide, incandescent light bulbs are gradually being phased-out in favor of more energy- efficient lighting like halogen, CFL, and LED lamps. Yet, the history of the light bulb remains and holds important les- sons for current and future generations. From questions of inventorship and patent grants for incremental innovations built on existing ideas, to patent wars that established early market positions, collaborative strategies of pooling patents to eliminate competition, and exclusive sales territory and cartel agreements to divide markets, the chain of events in the history of the light bulb is characteristic of how industries emerging around new paradigm technol- ogies behave. Utilizing the commercial power of intellectual property was central to the history of the light bulb, and studying this history helps us to better understand how these cycles might repeat themselves in the future. ♦