On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 WLSVAX::SCHRAMMR@wlsc.wvnet.edu wrote:
> Talbot definatly preceeded Daguerre. In my opinion, he should be credited
> with the first practical process but its his own fault for not publishing.
> Today, his dated notebooks would be used as evidence that he was first, but
> maybe things were different then.
Yes, patent law for one thing. As I understand it Talbot attempted to
patent his process whereas Daguerre announced his finding publicly through
a report commissioned by the French government. This doesn't seem so
strange today, but I believe at this period of time the prevailing idea
was that anything in the natural world was "God given". Patenting
scientific discoveries of natural phenomenon was more or less frowned
upon, and I believe a relatively new idea. In a sense, Talbot chose to go
against the flow.
Actually the issue of patenting discoveries of basic scientific phenomenon
is still a pretty touchy issue. Patents were originally created to
protect "inventions". At the root of the issue is whether or not a
chemical process is an "invention" and hence patentable, or whether or not
it is really a discovery of a natural phenomenon? If it is a natural
phenomenon can one person really claim ownership of the phenomenon? After
all, it is part of nature. If you can patent natural phenomenon, what
would you say if Watson and Crick patented the DNA molecule or gene
expression? If so can they then charge you a licensing fee simply for
existing! Today we talk about "intellectual property". You can't so much
patent the natural phenomenon as you can the understanding of that
process.
- Wayde
(wallen@boulder.nist.gov)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 17:07:41