Published before Patented

I hope this is of interest to some on this forum.

Looking through my 1882 years worth of American Machinist, I ran across an article that surprised me.

I thought it was common wisdom for a patentee to not publish his invention before it was patented.

But, there it was, right smack in the middle of page 3, in the February 11, 1882 issue of American Machinist. Under the heading Mechanical Drawing and the title 'Drawing from Sketches' was a large article by Professor John E Sweet.

He is probably most famous to collectors of precision tools as the inventor of the Sweet's Patent Comparator - a micrometer. See a picture of one below.

His comparator was patented on March 10, 1885 - nearly 3 years after the article was published. But approximately 1/2 of this earlier page is a drawing of his invention. See the drawing below.

As titled, the article discusses/instructs making a drawing and he used something he was going to patent to be the students example.

Here is a picture of a Sweets Patent Comparator, complete with partial original box and missing two standards:


And, here is a picture of the article from the Feb. 11, 1882 American Machinist:


In the article, Prof Sweet seems unafraid of a patent jumper. He writes:


So, he is challenging them to draw the comparator in full size and ready for construction. But, he goes on to say:


It surprises me he would publish before protected his intellectual work. I can't image any inventor today being so free with intellectual property. But, I have to add a sample of Prof Sweet's confidence in keeping the Comparators development to himself - addressing his students, he wrote a note saying essentially that they could draw it, understand it, but not construct it because:


I guess within 3 years, John Sweet had the solved. But, are there many other examples of a patented item being published before being patented?

Patent applied for March 26, 1884.
MICROMETER-GAGE - Google Patent Search

Look at page 2 line 28 and Fig. 5. I think a machinist would have scratched his head at the clearance channels for accumulated dirt in the roots of the male and female buttress threads. I wonder if the actual tool had that feature.

And who was Thomas Hooker? Not a major toolmaker as far as I know.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zu...=onepage&q=thomas hooker syracuse, ny&f=false
Thomas Hooker, born Syracuse, NY Sept. 1, 1840. College educated and worked as a teacher. Engaged in manufacturing in Syracuse since 1878.

Larry

Then, as now, there are considerable delays in the systems!

I can take a year sometimes to get an article in a technical journal actually published
in print, from the moment it is submitted.

And from initial application, to actual filing of a patent? Years for sure.

So from the dates given, it could well be that he figured that the patent would be
filed well before the publication came out.

Larry, Thanks, I didn't pay attention to the actual application date for the patent. But, the application date is still after the article was published, which to me seems a risk of one's intellectual property.

I don't know who Hooker was. But, I have not found out too much about the company that actually produced the Sweet's Patent. That was "S.T.D.", or Syracuse Tool and Die on the four that I have owned and all that I have seen. S.T.D. stuff shows up on occasion at sales with mostly tooling products like drill bits and reamers. And, I have seen reference to a countersink for use in a bit brace patented by Hiram Clark, March 1, 1887 and made by S.T.D. So, Syracuse Tool and Die was around for a while.

Quick research would indicate that S.T.D and the Syracuse Twist Drill Co are related.

EAIA's DAT (Directory Of American Toolmakers) indicates that the Syracuse Twist Drill Co is related to S.T.D and it says that Thomas Hooker's April 29th 1884 micrometer patent was made by them - before Sweet's. Sweet's micrometer says "S.T.D. Co." on it. Apparently S.T.D. made a caliper patented Nov. 30, 1886 by Jacob Hurst, who is also unknown to me.

Cope-1 says Jakob (vice Jacob) Hurst's caliper patent was used by the Syracuse Twist Drill Co. I've never seen an example of the Hurst caliper, but I'd love to own one! Here is the patent:
< JAKOB HUEST - Google Patent Search >

And Cope-2 has a picture of an advertisement showing the Sweet's patent being sold by Syracuse Twist Drill.

Right now, I'm betting earlier descriptions of S.T.D as being Syracuse Tool & Die are wrong and that S.T.D stands for Syracuse Twist Drill which appears to have been established in 1877.

More research!

I don't know the rules right now or back then, but when I was involved with patents on a regular basis you had 1 year after the first sale or public demonstration, which included publication. If you got an application in before the year deadline, you and the patent office could play games for years before they issued the actual patent. Meanwhile, others could copy the invention up to the day of issuance. He may well have had the application submitted or knew he was going to soon. On several occasions we developed manufacturing machines, sold the product, and continued refinements until we got close to the year and then filed on a process we knew was successful. BTW, selling the product counts for starting the year.

Bill

In another thread Rivett posted a picture of a micrometer that looks similar to a Sweets Patent. It is not, but it evoked some discussion of Sweets and I asked that the discussion be moved to this thread.

Here is Rivett's picture of the Sweets like micrometer:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v341/rivett608/DSCN4467.jpg

It does look similar to a Sweet's Patent. It is not and here is the posts about it from the other thread:

PeterM wrote:

"With respect to the large wooden-handled micrometer with an 1890 date, the Sweet's patent was 1885 and I believe the Syracuse Twist Drill Co. (STD) began making them before 1890. It's still a surprise to see this in Denmark just five years after the US patent date.

I do have a question about the STD micrometers -- I've ended up with two of them and was inclined to "restore" one to something like new condition -- with the notion it might then look cool to people besides myself. Horrible idea??"

Rivett responded,

""was inclined to "restore" one to something like new condition -- with the notion it might then look cool to people besides myself. Horrible idea???"...... why was this a bad idea? what is the condition to start with? I have a mint one if you are wondering about any details."

PeterM then wrote:

"Oops, I wasn't very clear. Was wondering if gently polishing the bright parts and repainting the frame of one of my old Sweet's micrometers would destroy their value? One of mine is pretty much bare of any finish and the other is chipped. It would be good to know what sort of stand was used to hold these upright. My recollection is that the whole thing came in a wood tray (which I don't have) and that part of it served as a sort of "stand.""

And Rivett responded:

"I don't think some cleaning and fresh paint would hurt anything since there is no original finish left on it anyway....... also there are quite a few around so it's not like you are messing with the only one."

PeterM,

About the "stand" for the Sweets, you are correct.

All the Sweet's Patents I have owned - four to date - originally came in a wooden mahogany box. That box provided a protective cover, a resting place for the Sweets with locking holders while carrying it, a drawer for the different length spindles and the spindle locking nut wrench. Plus, the box was the stand.

Note the rectangular hole just above the serial number "445" in mine shown in my picture posted earlier.

None of my Sweet's patent boxes were complete, but all had the base with the stand. I think that the only Sweet's extant that is has a complete, whole box is Rivett's - and since he has left the country on a short trip, it is now mine!

As to painting and polishing and the effect on the value my opinion is based on art and museum "conservation". Consider this, which guides my opinion:

1. The Sistine Chapel has been "repainted" in a process they called "cleaning and restoration".
2. All Stradivarius violins have been repaired and a friend of mine paid $350,000 for his repaired one that included replaced wood.
3. The Studley Tool Chest has had additions and repairs and is not so advertised - I have the original picture with missing ivory and ebony now not missing.
4. The White House was gutted, wall to wall and all floor demolished and removed, then rebuilt with new materials and on the tour you are shown the "Lincoln Bedroom" which may or may not be exactly where it originally was located, but contains nothing original to Lincoln except the furniture.
5. Rembrandt and other famous paintings have been repaired and sold without repair comment.

I could go on about the late Bob Baker's "conservation' of hundreds of antique tools for his clients. If you know what a Sandusky Center-wheel Plow plane is, he once said he conserved about 30 of them.

What is important about each of the examples above is the manner and skill in which the "conservation" was done. Do it right, conserve the Sweets and you have actually enhanced its value.

All of mine originally had bright bare metal parts (that had patinated or in one case lightly rusted) and japanned metal surfaces. On all of mine, I have conserved the bright metal and merely cleaned and waxed the japanning.

The mahogany box parts, I have seen, seem to have a surface coating which is either shellac or something similar to lacquer. It is not shiny.

Hope this helps. Just let me know what other details you'd like.

And, please post some pictures of your Sweets, including the serial numbers.

Thanks, AntiqueMac & Rivett, for the details.