Piracy_ The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates - Adrian Johns [332]
41 [Brewster], "Paris Exposition," 130,134,136; Gordon, Home Life of Sir DavidBrewster, 211-12.
42 [Brewster], "Paris Exposition," 139; Scientific Review 2, no. 8 (November 1866):134-35. Cf ,ScientificReview,, no. 7 (September 1863): io6.
43 Scientific Review i, no. 3 (May 1865): 44; ScientificReview i, no. 7 (September 1865): io6; "Sir David Brewster, K.H., L1.D., F.R.S., etc., on the Patent Laws," Scientific Review, January 1866,169; Scientific Review, February 1866, 185; Scientific Review 7, no. 3 (March 1872): 35; [Sir David Brewster], "The Patent Laws," Westminster Review, n.s., 26 July-October 1864), 322-57, esp. 332.
44 Scientific Review ,, no. 8 (October 1865):121; W. Fairbairn, "The Rights of Inventors," Scientific Review 2, no. i (April 1866): 1-2; T. Richardson, `A Review of the Arguments For and Against the Patent Laws," Scientific Review 2, no.13 (April 1867): 223; T. Richardson, `1A Review of the Arguments For and Against the Patent Laws" (cont.), Scientific Review 2, no. 15 (June 1867): 257-58; Scientific Review 4, no. 6 (June 1869); Scientific Review 4, no. 9 (September 1869): 183-85; Scientific Review 7, no. 2 (February 1872): 19. ForArmstrong's role in industrial conflict at this time, see E. Allen, J. E. Clarke, N. McCord, and D.J. Rowse, The North-East Engineers' Strikes ofr87r: The Nine Hours'League (Newcastle: E Graham, 1971), 79-85, io8-io, 125,148.
45 The Engineer, August 28, 1861, io6; "The Patent Question," The Engineer, September 13,1861,162; "Sir William Armstrong and Patents" (repr. from London Journal ofArts and Sciences), The Engineer, October 18, 1861, 231; "Inventions and Patents," The Engineer, August 23, 1861, 107; Scientific American, n.s., 5, no. ii (September 14,1861):167; ScientifzcAmerican, 5, no. 15 (October 12,1861): 236. See also succeedingweeks of the Scientific American for repeated attacks on Armstrong, and, for an earlier one, see 14, no. 33 (April 23, 1859): 277-
46 Sir William Armstong, "On the Patent Laws," The Engineer, September 13, 1861, 154.
47 A. T. Blakely, A Letter from Captain Blakely, H.P., RoyalArtillery, to the Secretary of State for War, Claiming the Original Invention of an Indispensable Feature of theArmstrongGun (London: J. Ridgway, 1859), esp. 13. For his invention, see also A. T. Blakely, A Cheap and Simple Method ofManufactur- ingStrong Cannon (London: J. Ridgway, 1858).
48 P. Barry, Shoeburyness and the Guns.A Philosophical Discourse (London: Sampson, Low, son, and Marston, 1865),49,52-53,55-57, 6o.
49 D. Treadwell, "Rifled Cannon," in Treadwell, Papers and Memoirs concerning the Improvement of Cannon (Cambridge, Mass.: University Press, 1865), 3-4, 6; D. Treadwell, On the Construction of Improved Ordnance (Cambridge, Mass.: Welch, Bigelow, and Company, 1862), 7-8; A. L. Holley, A Treatise on Ordnance andArmor (New York: D. Van Nostrand; London: Ti-6bner and Co., 1865), 1, 855-70; Armstong, "On the Patent Laws," 154. For the charge of using inferior materials solely to avoid dealing with Blakely, see Blakely, Letter, 13.
5o Coulter, Property in Ideas, 151-53.
51 E.g., Scientific Review 6, no. 6 (June 1871):105; Scientific Review 6, no. 1o (October 1871), 183 (on Grove's testimony in 1871)-
52 Report from the Select Committee (1871),139-40; Report from the Select Committee (1872), 22-23.
53 Sherman andBently,Making ofModernIntellectualPropertyLaw, 133, 138-4o. On Woodcroft, see J. Hewish, The Indefatigable Mr. Woodcroft (London: British Library, 1980).
54 MacFie, Copyright and Patents for Inventions 2:51.
55 R. Hyam, Britains Imperial Century, i8r5-19r4: A Study of Empire and Expansion (New York: Harper, 1976), 33-35,109-10. In general, see D. Bell, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World