Piracy_ The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates - Adrian Johns [340]
71 RMA, POST 33/1559, February 18,1932 and passim.
72 BBC WAC, T16/9o/i, June 1,1953; RMA, POST iio, e.g., PRD Nos. o116, 0159, 0430, 0510, 0536, 0547, 0558, 0583, 0597, o618, 0645, 0646, 0671, 0795,1005-
73 BBC WAC, T16/9o/i, February 27, 1952, May 7,1953; BBC WAC, R78/i, 127/1, September 3,1976.
74 Compare, on the American context, J. Sterne, The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of, SoundReproduction (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2003), 87-36. For writing and reading clubs, see C. Hilliard, To Exercise Our Talents: The Democratization of Writing in Britain (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 34-69 andJ. Rose, The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001), 73-91.
75 R. H. Coase, British Broadcasting: A Study in Monopoly (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1950). For Eckersley's plan, see P. P. Eckersley, The Power behind the Microphone (London: Cape, 1941),195-236, M. Eckersley, Pro pero's 1Vireless: A Biography of Peter Pendleton Ecker ley (Romsey, Hants, UK: Myles Books, 1998), 187-88, 234, and W.J. West, Truth Betrayed (London: Duckworth, 1987), 120-25.
76 C. Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).
14 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
I A. K. Rai and R. S. Eisenberg, "Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine," Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (2003): 289-314.
2 F. L. Vaughan, "Suppression and Non-working of Patents, with Special Reference to the Dye and Chemical Industries," American Economic Review 9 (1919): 693-700; F. L. Vaughan, Economics of OurPatent System (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 225; F. I. Schechter, "Would Compulsory Licensing of Patents Be Unconstitutional?" Virginia Law Review 22 (1936): 287-314; G. E. Folk, Patents and Industrial Progress (New York: Harper, 1942) 257-78.
3 A. D. Chandler, The Vsible Hand.- The Managerial Revolution inAmerican Business (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), 88-89, 188-89, 200-203, 464-76;j. Yates, Control through Communication: The Rise of,System inAmerican Management (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989),2i-64;J. Guillory, "The Memo and Modernity," Critical Inquiry 31(2004):108-33, esp. 114-22. See also J. R. Beniger, The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986), e.g., 221-87.
4 The origin of this story is slightly obscure. Merton cited Stamp as having given his speech at the BAAS's Aberdeen meeting in 1934, but he in fact spoke rather innocuously on "The Need for a Technique of Economic Change" (BAAS, Report, 1934,341-42). However, Stamp did speak at the previous year's meeting on the more controversial question, "Must Science Ruin Economic Progress?" Here he called attention to the prevalent claim that the rapidity of scientific change caused mass unemployment. This being so, he claimed, "the world might be better served in the end if scientific innovation were retarded to the maximum rate of social and economic change." Among the principal problems Stamp identified was the fact that new technologies might render existing ones outmoded before their real utility were exhausted, and see them scrapped for marginal benefits. `A responsible socialist community would see each time that the gain was worth while," he observed. But it would take "a tour de force of assumptions" to construct such a system. In short, Stamp steered clear of a call for the scientific planning of society or the social planning of science, but he did advocate that "all classes" should become "economically and socially minded, [by] large infusions of social direction and internationalism, carefully introduced" (BAAS, Report, 1933, 578-83). It seems that Stamp revisited some of these arguments a year later, so he may also have made remarks about scientific research that were not reported in the published abridgment. In 1936, as president, Stamp again addressed "The Impact of