Between Imitation and Invention. Inventor Privileges and Technological Progress in the Early Dutch Republic (c. 1585–1625)

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Mario Biagioli, Karel Davids, Henk Looijesteijn, Antonella Romano, Jacob Meyer Thygesen, and Cristiano Zanetti for their useful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes

1. Primary source material has been presented using original spelling and grammar, except that the long ‘s’ has been replaced by its modern equivalent. Furthermore, common transpositions have been adjusted to modern spelling and common contractions, such as “Ex.tie” for “Excellentie,” have been expanded. In the translations (all of which are mine) capitals have been adjusted to modern spelling. The majority of sources used for this paper can be found in the Dutch National Archives, The Hague, States-General, access number 1.02.02 (hereafter NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02). Since a number of these sources have previously been transcribed and published by Gerard Doorman in his Octrooien voor uitvindingen, I have included a reference to this work wherever possible. The reader will find this reference in the form of a “G-number” between brackets at the end of the reference to the original source document, like this: [Gxx].

2. For a concise overview of the similarities and disparities between “privileges” and “patents,” see Biagioli, “Patent Specification.” Please note that I use the expression “inventor privileges” rather than “patents” in this paper to avoid misunderstandings and anachronistic interpretations.

3. Privileges were a particular type of rights that provided an exception to common law. In consequence, they were used for a wide variety of topics that went well beyond what we now consider a patent. See Mohnhaupt, “Unendlichkeit des Privilegienbegriffs.”

4. Walterscheid, “Novelty in Historical Perspective,” 692. A key-case in Walterscheid's account (that centered on England and the United States) was Edgeberry v. Stephens, decided in 1691, when the court held that “if the invention be new in England, a patent may be granted though the thing was practised beyond the sea before; for the statute speaks of new manufactures within this realm; so that, if they be new here, it is within the statute; for the act intended to encourage new devices, useful to the kingdom, and whether learned by travel or by study it is the same thing.” 2 Salk. 447, 1 Abbott's, P.C. 8 (King's Bench 1691). As quoted in ibid., at 698.

5. Brown, The Venetian Printing Press, 52.

6. Belfanti, “Between Mercantilism and Market,” 322–323.

7. See Veluwenkamp, “Buitenlandse octrooien.” Cf. Belfanti, “Between Mercantilism and Market,” 327.

8. Davids, Rise and Decline, especially Ch. 5: “The Northern Netherlands as an exporter of technological knowledge between 1350–1800,” 269–365.

9. de Vries and van der Woude, First Modern Economy, 345.

10. Berg, “From Imitation to Invention,” 2. See also Berg, “Manufacturing the Orient” and Berg, “Asian Luxuries.”

11. Other scholars in the field who studied the relation between imitation and technical innovation include Irwin, “Origins of the ‘Oriental Style’”; Lemire and Riello, “East & West”; Shaffer, “Southernization”; and Styles, “Product Innovation in Early Modern London.” For a different line of approach with similar outcomes, see Basalla, Evolution of Technology.

12. Although the use of privileges to promote innovation has been documented from at least the fourteenth century onwards, earlier examples of personal privileges were often a type of settlement privileges that allowed inventors to “introduce an industry” (pro arte introducenda) to a particular territory. One of the first examples was a privilege made out by King Edward II of England to a couple of Flemish weavers for settling around the city of York in 1336. See Federico, “Origin and Early History,” 293–295. The idea of counterfeiting, however, did not yet appear in these grants. As far as I am aware, the first privileges to mention the notion of counterfeiting were issued in the beginning of the fifteenth century. Nevertheless, it took more than a century for inventor privileges to take off on a grand scale in Europe, spreading rapidly during the years 1535–1550.

13. For an excellent overview and bibliography of early modern inventor privileges, see Biagioli, “From Print to Patents.”

14. There is a great number of good books on the history of the Dutch Republic. For a general overview, see Israel, Dutch Republic. For the more economic aspects, see de Vries and van der Woude, First Modern Economy. For an overview of political institutions, Fruin remains the standard work: Fruin, Geschiedenis der staatsinstellingen in Nederland.

15. After the departure of the Earl of Leicester in 1587 (the English “viceroy” who had also issued some privileges in his own name) there was at first some confusion about the question of who was responsible for issuing privilege grants. Soon, however, the Council of State as well as the Stadtholder were sidelined because of political reasons. I intend to publish a short essay on this topic in the near future.

16. The Republic consisted of seven provinces with voting rights that were united on the basis of the Union of Utrecht (1579). Although nominally these provinces were sovereign, they gave up these sovereign rights on a number of issues that were of common interest, such as defense and finances. These issues were decided upon in the assembly of the States-General in consultation with the Council of State.

17. The number of privileges issued by individual provinces remained negligible until the 1640s. See Davids, “Patents and Patentees in the Dutch Republic.”

18. In terms of numbers, there was a sharp rise in the 1620s before the number dropped significantly, settling to around one per year at the beginning of the eighteenth century. For an overview of the number of privileges, inventors, etc., see ibid.

19. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12300, fol. 435v [G127]: “[ … ] van allerley personagien, historiën, bossaigen, Jachten, wilde dieren, gevogelte ende anders, soo met goudt ende selver alleen, als oock met aller coleuren na den Eysch van t werck seer cierlyck te drucken, [ … ] ende van de selve eenige proefkens gemaeckt hebbende, mitsgaders aen Syne Princelycke Excellentie verthoont synde, hadde nyet alleene deselve syne Princelycke Excellentie ende de doorluchtige Princesse van Oraignen daer Inne soodanigen behaegen ende contentement genoemen dat haere doerluchticheden daervan behangsels tot eenige Camers hadden begeert.” Privilege dated 17 December 1613. Jacob Dircxzoon de Swart later became “gold leather maker of His Excellency” (goude ledemaker van Syn Excellentie) Prince Frederick Henry of Orange, obtaining another privilege on 5 August 1628. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12303, fol. 283v [G286].

20. The Stadtholder was again one of those remnants of the past that gained new meaning because of the Revolt. During the major part of the period under consideration in this paper, the power fell to two Stadtholders: Count Maurice of Orange (1567–1625) and Count William Louis of Nassau-Dillenburg (1560–1620). Maurice and William Louis got along exceptionally well. They had grown up together as cousins under the guidance of Count John VI (Jan de Oude) in Dillenburg Castle and, in later life, often waged war together. For a biography of Maurice of Orange, see van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau. William Louis has received somewhat less scholarly attention, but see Bergsma, “Willem Lodewijk” and Waterbolk, “Met Willem Lodewijk aan tafel.”

21. For patronage gestures in the Dutch privilege business, see also Vermij, “The Telescope.” Although, in theory, the Stadtholder was subordinate to the Provincial States while retaining certain sovereign rights, in reality how far the Stadtholder could go in strengthening his personal court also depended on the particular political situation. About the court of Maurice, see especially Zandvliet, “Het hof van een dienaar.”

22. For the privilege, granted 27 June 1623, see NL-HaNA, States-General, inv.no. 12302, fol. 327 [G244].

23. For the notary contract, see van Dillen, Bronnen, vol. 2, 494: “[ … ] om ‘t werck te bereyden ende claer te maecken ende als het werck in orde gestelt is ende bevonden wert goede avance te sullen geven, te tellen 200 ponden Vlaems uyt sijn eygen beurs, sonder interessen hiervan te genieten. [ … ] om ‘t werck in andere plaetsen van dese Geünieerde Landen op te stellen ende in treyn te brengen [ … ].” Ouseel was bound to raise his investment to a total of 600 pounds; it was further agreed that Ouseel would withdraw his invested capital within two to four years. As this example shows, privileges served an important “prospect function,” encouraging investment after the property right had been granted. In many ways, one could thus compare the dynamics of the early modern privilege with what Edmund Kitch has identified as “prospect patents.” Kitch, “Nature and Function of the Patent System.”

24. The expression “market of inventions” is borrowed from Molà, “Il mercato delle innovazioni.”

25. See, for instance, NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12300, fol. 185v [G122]. Ideas about the “just price” clearly resonated at this juncture.

26. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12300, fol. 66 [G133]: “Welverstaende die voors. Claes Wolbrantszoon gehouden sal syn t'voorseyde werck te maecken voor den geenen die dat van hem sullen begeren ontfangende van de selve boven de costen daeraen te doen aen materialen ende aerbeyts loon derttich Guldens eens voor syne Inventie.”

27. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12299, fol. 4: “[ … ] alleene te mogen maken, doen maken, ende verkopen, inhoudende interdictie dat niemant [ … ] na en maken off conterfeyten, int geheel, ofte deel.” The penalty for infringement often consisted of the confiscation of any instruments or products that fell under the privilege, as well as a monetary fine. In the early days of the Dutch Republic, the monetary fine was set on average at about 400 Flemish pounds (of XL grooten), which was to be divided in three equal parts among the inventor, the officer of justice, and the poor.

28. The injunction to counterfeit privileged inventions primarily had a local character. But often an import impediment was inserted that prohibited the import of products counterfeited abroad as well. That such a clause was not a redundant luxury can be deduced from the case of Dierck Claeszoon Spiegel, who had obtained the exclusive privilege for the production of pottery that was “as good as and possibly better” than the ones then commonly imported from Germany. In his first privilege, granted 20 July 1602, Spiegel was held to solely use inland soil. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12299, fol. 77v [G74]. Two years later, on 12 March 1604, his privilege was amended “because his servants counterfeit his pottery from foreign soil” (omdat zijn dienaers zyn aardewerk van uuytheemsche aerde contrefeyten). It was now forbidden to others to use “indigenous, foreign or other types of soil’ (met hierlandtssche, uuytheemsche oft andere diergelycke aerde) for the duration of the monopoly. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12299, fol. 173 [G86].

29. Silberstein, Erfindungsschutz, and Belfanti, “Between Mercantilism and Market.” Both authors suggest, however, that the situation in the Dutch Republic was somehow exceptional.

30. Davis, “European Economies,” 125. The exact definition of mercantilism is a matter of continuous scholarly debate. I have based my interpretation mainly on Blaich, Die Epoche des Merkantilismus; Coleman, Revisions in Mercantilism; and Voorthuysen, De Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden. For the sake of simplicity, I chose to start from the working definition of mercantilism given above.

31. This observation concurs with the conclusion drawn by Voorthuizen, who claimed that mercantilism was less cherished in the Dutch Republic than it was in its neighboring countries because “the goals strived for by the mercantilists (both theoreticians and practitioners) were in many respects already achieved.” Voorthuysen, De Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden, 129. Translation by the author. Also Klein argued that the degree of economic liberty differed significantly from sector to sector. Klein, “De Nederlandse handelspolitiek.” The study of inventor privileges can obviously only offer a contribution to the general debate about of the role that mercantilist ideals played in the Republic; a full-fledged analysis would require the use of different (and more varied) sources.

32. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12302, fol. 36 [G163]: “[ … ] die als nu in Engelandt moeten geverft worden, vermits dat alhyer te lande de voorseyde invensie van perssinge nyet en is, alhyer voortaen sullen geverft ende geperst werden, ommedat een yeder notoir kennelijck is, dat de verwe van dese landen ongelijck beter is als de verwe in Engelandt, daerover den Engelsman genootsaeckt sal sijn de perpetuanen in dese landen wit te brengen, waerdoor do verwerven ende commertie van de voorseyde perpetuanen ten meesten deele in dese landen sal worden getrocken ende den stapel van deselve alhyer te lande gestabilieert werden, tot voordeel ende vermeerderinge van de licenten, vorweryen ende andere dependentiën van dien.” The privilege was granted on 23 September 1617 to the inventor Philip Brugman.

33. Cf. Lemire and Riello, “East & West.” The function of the East as a “stimulus of desire” to imitate exotic commodities was particularly strong in the textile and ceramics industry.

34. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv. no. 12301, fol. 32 [G130]: “[ … ] porceleynen te maecken die van Schilderie, ende aerde (sonder roem) tamelyck gelyckformich souden wesen porceleynen commende uuyt wyde vreemde Landen [ … ].” The privilege was dated 4 April 1614.

35. Actually, the proper heyday of Delftware would only occur in the 1660s (when the Dutch tried to supplant the imports that declined because of the Ming-Manchu dynastic wars). Nevertheless, the privilege for Wytmans shows that there was a longer history to the genesis of Eastern-styled pottery in the Dutch Republic; Delftware is only thus called because potteries moved into a deserted area in Delft after the explosion of a local gun powder storage magazine. On these issues see Finlay, Pilgrim Art, 258–261.

36. Dodt van Flensburg, Archief voor kerkelijke en wereldsche geschiedenissen, vol. 4, 116: “[ … ] alderley soorten van syde lakenen, die men tot nog toe uit Spaegnien, Italie ende andere Landen heeft moeten halen.” Resolution States-General dated 22 August 1604. The privilege act was made out on 23 August 1604: NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 1299, fol. 187 [G88]. For more information about the inventor, named Caspar Benoist, see Bruinvis, “Caspar Benoist.”

37. Benoist, De gehele Conste tmiddel ende Belyet om de sijdewormen te winnen, oock thaeren onderhoude witte moerbeye bomen te sayen, te planten ende op t brengen door der natueren ondersoeck ende veler cloecke geesten ervarenheyt metter tijt vercregen [The whole Art, means and Policy to win silk worms, as well as to sow, plant, and raise white mulberry trees to their maintenance, obtained through the investigation of nature and by the experience of many bright minds throughout the times]. The unpaginated and undated manuscript can currently be consulted in the Amsterdam University Library, Ms IC 37 (35 pages folio, with 3 large drawings in color).

38. Admittedly, nowadays most intellectual property regimes have something called a “utility model” or a “petty patent” too, which has a lower threshold for originality and provides short-term protection against counterfeiting. Nevertheless, as the name “petty” indicates, this type of patent is less valued than a “real patent” and plain imitation would not pass for a petty patent anyway.

39. Wilhelm Kick was well-connected to other practitioners of the gold leather technique in the first half of the seventeenth century. Among others, he was closely involved with the gold-leather factory of his brother-in-law Hans le Maire from Aken (1586–1641), who also managed to obtain several privileges. See Koldeweij, “Goudleer,” 58–60.

40. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12300, fol. 124 [G103]: “[ … ] de conste van allerhande lackwercken in dese Landen te maecken. In te voegen als alhier vuyt OostIndien wordt gebrocht [ … ].” Kick found good costumers in the States-General. On 11 May 1612, the States “agreed to write out an order for Wilhem Kick, of 1,200 guilders, for six dozen lacquered and gilded plates of all kinds, large and small, as well as a big lict du champ, which the High and Mighty have bought from him for the aforementioned price, among others to honor the Electress Palatine.” (“Is geaccordeert te depescheren ordonnantie voor Wilhem Kick, vande somme van twaelf hondert guldens, voor sess dousynen gelacte ende vergulde schotelen van elderhande soorten, groot ende cleyn, mitsgaders een groot vergult ende gelact lict du champ, dat hare Ho. Mo. van hem voor de voorsz. somme hebben gecocht, omme onder anderen daermede oock de Cheurfurstinne te vereeren.”) Dodt van Flensburg, Archief voor kerkelijke en wereldsche geschiedenissen, vol. 5, 275.

41. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12302, fol. 119 [G176]: “[ … ] dat hy Suppliant eenige Jaeren geleden geinventeert hebbende de conste omme naer de Chinesche maniere alderhande houtwereken te verkeken, ende vergulden, ende daerover In den Jaere 1609 van uwe Hoog Mogende [Heeren Staten Generaal] vercregen hebbende Octroy, [ … ] nu eenige Jaeren geexpireert synde hy onlancx met seer groote moeyten ende costen hadde geinventeert een sekere nieuwe conste van geemailleert Lackwerck te maecken [ … ] ende mogen selffs verdragen dat men der met een hamer op clopt sonder aff-schelfferen [ … ] veel swarter, ende bruynder als voor desen by den Suppliant ofte andere gemaeckt syn geworden, [ … ] veel effender, fynder, ende gladder [ … ] soo can dit goudt soo wel als dit lack verdragen dat men der heet siedende water in doet, brandewyn, soudt oock selffs sterck water [ … ] heeft dit gout, ende lack gantsch geen reuck [ … ] gantsch nyet cleeffachtich, [ … ] can dit in geenderhande manieren met den nagel affgecrabt, [ … ].” On 2 August 1619, Kick obtained a sum of 320 guilders for the dedication of his invention to the States-General. Dodt van Flensburg, Archief voor kerkelijke en wereldsche geschiedenissen, vol. 7, 79.

42. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12302, fol. 119. It is worth noticing that the second privilege had a longer duration than the first privilege. Furthermore, the first privilege had specified that Kick would control the exclusive monopoly for Eastern-styled lacquer ware, except “for the [lacquer] brought from the East Indies by the Dutch East India Company [ … ] or other persons.” NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12300, fol. 124: “[ … ] uytgesondert alleene die ghene die uyte OostIndien byde OostIndische Compagnie [ … ] ofte andere persoonen alhier te Lande gebrocgt sullen wordden.” The second privilege made no further mention of any restriction regarding imports, whatsoever.

43. I am especially indebted to the following books and articles on this topic: Achermann, “Unähnliche Gleichungen”; Greene, In Light of Troy; and Pigman, “Versions of Imitation.”

44. For the original privilege (dated 5 May 1617), see NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12302 [G158]. Isaac had furnished a letter of recommendation by the Amsterdam magistrates (dated 15 January) as well as attestation by several principal merchants. Dodt van Flensburg, Archief voor kerkelijke en wereldsche geschiedenissen, vol. 7, 8. For the accusation in front of a notary, see van Dillen, Bronnen, vol. 2, 238.

45. “[ … ] voor geen nieuwe inventie kan gehouden werden.” van Dillen, Bronnen, vol. 2, 238.

46. There are many stories of inventors who traveled around Europe working for different patrons. A well-known Dutch case is that of Cornelis Janszoon Meijer. See van Berkel, “‘Cornelis Meijer Inventor et Fecit.”; Berveglieri, “Tecnologia idraulica olandese”; and Berveglieri, Inventori stranieri a Venezia, 152–166.

47. Belfanti, “Between Mercantilism and Market,” 328.

48. de Vries and van der Woude, First Modern Economy, 348.

49. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12298, fol. 257 [G45]. It concerned Kronborg castle.

50. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no. 12301, fol. 341 [G148].

51. On industrial espionage in the early Republic, see Davids, “Openness or Secrecy?” To be sure, in some cases new inventions were encompassed by secrecy, particularly when it involved military instruments. In those cases, however, the authorities often chose not to grant a privilege at all, but instead to buy off the invention or to employ the inventor in the service of the state.

52. NL-HaNA, States-General, 1.01.02, inv.no.12300, 163v [G104]: “[ … ] in Vranckryck gepresenteert hebbende binnen de Stadt van Paris.” Piedro Sardy (also spelled Pietro Sardi) later became known for his L'artiglieria; divisa in tre libri (Venice, 1621).

53. Ibid., “[ … ] dies sal die Suppliant gehouden syn zyne Inventie over te laeten aen de Collegien ende Steden die deselve sullen begeren te gebruycken voor de somme van drye hondert guldens eens, ende aen elcken particulieren Inwoonder voor de somme van vyftich guldens eens.” It is worth noticing how different types of consumers were taken into account in the process of dissemination of the invention; this was not an uncommon practice in the Dutch Republic.

54. Ibid., “[ … ] die Staten Generael der Vereenichde Nederlanden hebben op te serieuse Intercessie ende recommandatie van den heere Ambassadeur des Conincx van Vranckrycke, ende omme andere goede consideratien, geconsenteert ende geaccordeert [ … ] dat de clausule begrepen in dit Octroy, daerby den prys van het overlaten van de wetenschap van de Inventie van Piedro Sardy Ingenieur daer Inne verhaelt is gelimiteert ende gerestringeert aen seker somme In t selve Octroy ende oick anderssints gehouden sal worden als daervuyt gelaten, ende niet geconsereert, sulcx dat hy deselve syne Inventie tot syne costen sal moegen maken.” The privilege was dated 16 November 1610; the addition dated 18 November 1610.