MQDuck loves you and isn't trying to make any enemies

[chris the cynic]

EDIT: I just reread the quote I responded to and realized I missed something. "Concept of the ownership OF IDEAS"? I think not. Chris the Cynic needs to check his "generally believed facts" list.

No, that's the thing.

The string of invention that was the revolution was unprecedented, as was the way inventions spread. Without the pace of invention there would be no revolution. Even the steam engine, one of the things most associated with the revolution, predated it's modern invention by 1400 years* but it went nowhere the first go round.

What changed was ideas. Once you could own an idea rather than a thing that meant that you could release your invention to the world and still benefit from it. Once you owned the idea of the invention rather than the physical objects you created you could let everyone in on how to make it and you had an incentive to do so. Their implementation of your idea would benefit you. If they improved on it, it would benefit you. That changed everything.

Say what you will about capitalism and patent law, but that is generally considered to be what made the industrial revolution a revolution. Without the change in the rate and distribution of invention that the ownership of ideas caused there would have been nothing but the normal background rate of change. Or at least that is what is generally accepted. If you'd like to rewrite the accepted history of the industrial revolution so that patent law played no role and everything would have been the same if people didn't own the ideas of inventions but instead only owned those devices they themselves had constructed ... well I might be interested in reading the first book you publish on the matter, but I should tell you now that I'd be more likely to get it out of the library than I would to buy it myself.

* The Alexandrians created some truly amazing things, all the more impressive considering the technology they had available.

[gamer0004]

It was propably far more important that there was enough capital available to invest in capital goods in the 18th century, among with other important socio-economic factors (existence of a rich upper-middle bourgeoisie, transformation of feudal into commercial society and enthusiasm for new technology).
Watt, for instance, charged little more for his machines than the basic costs of making them, so there was hardly any financial incentive involved.

Technology has been around for a very long time, but in most cases there were simply much better alternatives (like slave labour). One has to bear in mind that early models of steam engines were in fact both very inefficient and ineffective. Another reasons why technology never really caught on is because there was no possibility of using machines on a large scale, because steam engines are typically only useful for large scale production, which means they're not usable if there is no large consumer market (because of a lack of a wealthy middle class), and because they require large investments.

[chris the cynic]

It was propably far more important that there was enough capital available to invest in capital goods in the 18th century, among with other important socio-economic factors (existence of a rich upper-middle bourgeoisie, transformation of feudal into commercial society and enthusiasm for new technology).
Watt, for instance, charged little more for his machines than the basic costs of making them, so there was hardly any financial incentive involved.

Yet Watt still got a patent and the patent was enforced until it expired. In fact, he went to court to defend that patent. Do you think he would have gone to court multiple times if there were no incentive? Watt clearly thought that the patent was important, as did his financial backers. The capital given to Watt was by people who wanted to profit from the patent. That motivation is not insignificant.

According to Wikipedia, which is hardly a reliable source but is a very quick place to get numbers, the payments due to Boulton & Watt in 1795 because of the patent were twenty one thousand pounds, they only received twenty five hundred. Which is why Watt went to court.

Based on average earnings, the incentive would be equal to more than 20 million pounds in 2009 (I don't have data for this year or last year) based on the retail price index that incentive would be equal to 1.66 million pounds in 2009. You may not consider more than a million pounds to a financial incentive, but where I come from* that's a pretty sizable incentive. It must have been to Watt as well because he went to court repeatedly to get his patent enforced.

-

If I left it at that someone reading the above would likely say that I oversimplified. They would be correct. I did. Watt got multiple patents.

-

*I come from America. Do you know what those figures would be in US dollars? The lower price would be over 2.6 million, the higher would be more than 32 million. I definitely consider that kind of a money a financial incentive.

[gamer0004]

It was propably far more important that there was enough capital available to invest in capital goods in the 18th century, among with other important socio-economic factors (existence of a rich upper-middle bourgeoisie, transformation of feudal into commercial society and enthusiasm for new technology).
Watt, for instance, charged little more for his machines than the basic costs of making them, so there was hardly any financial incentive involved.

Yet Watt still got a patent and the patent was enforced until it expired. In fact, he went to court to defend that patent. Do you think he would have gone to court multiple times if there were no incentive? Watt clearly thought that the patent was important, as did his financial backers. The capital given to Watt was by people who wanted to profit from the patent. That motivation is not insignificant.

According to Wikipedia, which is hardly a reliable source but is a very quick place to get numbers, the payments due to Boulton & Watt in 1795 because of the patent were twenty one thousand pounds, they only received twenty five hundred. Which is why Watt went to court.

Based on average earnings, the incentive would be equal to more than 20 million pounds in 2009 (I don't have data for this year or last year) based on the retail price index that incentive would be equal to 1.66 million pounds in 2009. You may not consider more than a million pounds to a financial incentive, but where I come from* that's a pretty sizable incentive. It must have been to Watt as well because he went to court repeatedly to get his patent enforced.

-

If I left it at that someone reading the above would likely say that I oversimplified. They would be correct. I did. Watt got multiple patents.

-

*I come from America. Do you know what those figures would be in US dollars? The lower price would be over 2.6 million, the higher would be more than 32 million. I definitely consider that kind of a money a financial incentive.

He could have charged a lot of money and he didn't. He was a hobbyist/inventor rather than a businessman. Sure he patented his invention. Who wouldn't want to keep control over the product of his hard work?
Also, the revenues are not very important (he had to regain his initial investments). If he had wanted to become rich he could have done so, but he didn't. To me this is an obvious sign that he wasn't in it for the money.

[chris the cynic]

He could have charged a lot of money and he didn't. He was a hobbyist/inventor rather than a businessman. Sure he patented his invention. Who wouldn't want to keep control over the product of his hard work?
Also, the revenues are not very important (he had to regain his initial investments). If he had wanted to become rich he could have done so, but he didn't. To me this is an obvious sign that he wasn't in it for the money.

He went to court to get the money.

More than once.

To save space, I'm not going to rewrite the previous sentences several times, but they are worth rereading.

The following is probably more important though.

he had to regain his initial investments

Yes. Yes he did. And he did it using, among other things, patents.

Also, those initial investments didn't come out of nowhere. They came from investors, at least some of whom were in it for the money, money they hoped to gain using the patent. No patent would mean no possibility of money recouped using the patent which in turn would mean no investment, which would mean no Watt steam engine.

Roebuck, who went bankrupt before it took off, invested in exchange for a 2/3rds share of the invention. Not for the love of creation, for 2/3s of the revenue that would come from owning the idea. Watt's steam engine was not yet marketable and Watt was working on other things when the 2/3rds changed hands. The buyer was Boulton and it was he who pushed Watt to improve the engine and gave him the resources necessary to do so. Without that, Watt's engine would not have had the impact it did. It might not have even existed. Boulton was definitely in it for the money.

A fair amount of the credit for Watt's rotatory steam engine must also be given to Boulton's pursuit of money, he saw that they were running out of places to sell their current design and was looking to expand into new markets. Thus when he learned that water based mills in some areas couldn't operate year round, he had the idea of a steam engine mill and sent off a letter to Watt suggesting to modify the steam engine to work for mills.

So even if we assume that money was not an incentive to Watt, the financial incentives created by patents did drive both of his major investors. Without the investment, Watt wouldn't have been able to do what he did. You were definitely right when you talked about capital being an important factor in the revolution, but the reason that capital flowed to inventors was because of the ROI that patents allowed. Without the patents, the capital flow simply wouldn't have been there.

It isn't as if Watt was the only inventor who lacked the resources to bring his ideas to fruition without outside help.

-

Also, for the record, Watt didn't charge "little more for his machines than the basic costs of making them" he didn't have a set price at all. He and Boulton charged one third of the savings (their steam engines were initially used to replace less efficient ones) on a yearly basis for 25 years. They'd provide specialized parts where necessary, and provide men to build the engine, but it wasn't the engine they charged for at all, it was the efficiency of the engine. How much they got paid for a given engine depended on how much fuel the engine saved.

-

I note that I'm disagreeing with you in two threads. It's definitely nothing personal. I'm enjoying this conversation and hope you are too.

I have to go right now, apologies for not taking time to proofread.

[Jonas]

I am sad that this thread isn't about how awesome steam engines are. Can we make it about that? I think that's much more interesting than trying to guilt-trip HDTP into releasing a bunch of half-finished files nobody can do anything with anyway.

Here's an example of how awesome steam engines are:

http://rooc.offtopicproductions.com/blo ... e-museums/

Awesomeness starts 5 rows down, the first photos are from the London museum of natural history. The science museum then takes over with lots of steam machines (and then some other stuff).

[chris the cynic]

Steam engines are awesome.

I was going to go on a tangent about clockwork and keyboards with typewriter keys, but steam engines can stand on their own and do it well.

Steam engines are awesome.

[Hashi]

Fighter jets are cooler, especially the f18. I also like the apache helicopter, looks awesome. Both of the things I like can destroy trains, making them cooler

[justanotherfan]

I prefer Unreal usually.

[kdawg88]

As a kid I used to read a lot about vehicles and awesome technology. My favourite train has always been the Mallard, constructed in 1938, which currently holds the world speed record for steam locomotives - 125.88 mph or 202.58 km/h. Quite impressive in my opinion

[Jonas]

I prefer Unreal usually.

Unfortunately that joke would only work if Steam were a game engine rather than a distribution platform. Valve's actual game engine is called Source, as you may recall. But A for effort.

[Nameless Voice]

Steampunk is even better.

(Admittedly, the link doesn't really have anything to do with steampunk other than the awesome rusty machinery vibe.)

[Jonas]

Saying that Steampunk is even better than steam engines is like saying that Cyberpunk is even better than the Internet. It basically makes no sense. Steampunk is all about steam engines, put into contexts that make them even more awesome than they typically are in the real world.

You realise of course that steam engines aren't just literally engines for steam trains or ships. Steam engines power steam machines. They were used for all sorts of things. Technically they still are, but modern steam engines are a lot less stylish.

[chris the cynic]

You realise of course that steam engines aren't just literally engines for steam trains or ships. Steam engines power steam machines. They were used for all sorts of things. Technically they still are, but modern steam engines are a lot less stylish.

To expand on this, not only are they used for all sorts of other things, they were originally designed for them. Steam engine uses other than transportation pre and post date steam engines as a means of transportation.

-

Random largely unrelated thing, keyboard.

[bobby 55]

Random largely unrelated thing, keyboard.

Oooh! If I ever come into a decent amount of money I'll get one of those. I won't use it, and I'm not a collector, but it looks wonderful and it would be a good conversation starter.