On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 1:16:20 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Patent Office
> At the Swiss Patent Office, Einstein’s job was to consult with
> inventors. Only
> one of his written opinions on patent applications is left , the
> administrative
> documents having been routinely destroyed. This opinion is on an
> alternatingcurrent
> machine with short- circuit brushes and opposing auxiliary spools for
> spark prevention. Einstein off ers not a single good word for the patent
> claim:
> it is “incorrect, inaccurate, and unclear.” He also gave the
> requirements for a
> correct application: it should note only characteristics of the subject
> of the
> patent that are in the claim, and each par tic u lar embodiment should
> correspond
> to the main claim of the main patent and the claims of the actual
> patent.
> ? His advice did not help the inventor. A revised application was
> submitted
> two months later, but Einstein was still not satisfi ed with it.
> We have indirect evidence of a further case. A certain Ignacy Moscicki,
> inventor
> of a way to produce nitrogen acid from the atmosphere, of a new method
> of concentrating nitrogen acid and sulfuric acid, and of high power
> capacitors,
> submitted an application to the Swiss Patent Offi ce in 1906. It dealt
> with an arc furnace for the production of nitric acid, in which the arc
> was
> rotated by an electromagnet.? As the designated expert, Einstein was
> espechapter
> three
> Expert Opinions
> 38 The Practical Einstein
> cially interested in why the electric arc changed its orientation in a
> magnetic
> fi eld. He gave a positive opinion of the application. The story, fi rst
> aired in
> 1934,? was rediscovered by Zofi a Golab-Meyer.?
> That Moscicki and Einstein did meet in Bern is confi rmed by an exchange
> of letters in 1932. Einstein asked Moscicki for help in getting a
> position for an
> acquaintance of his. In the introductory sentences, he remarked that “I
> know
> that you were originally a physical chemist, and I hear that even now
> you work
> as an or ga niz er for scientifi c and technological research.” ? The
> letter was addressed
> “To Mr. President of Poland Professor Dr. Moscicki.” Moscicki, the
> successful inventor and scientist, returned to Poland in 1912, where he
> was
> named professor of chemical physics and technical electrochemistry at
> the
> Technical University of Lwów (present- day Lviv, Ukraine), and in 1926
> was
> elected president of Poland.
> In reply, Moscicki emphasized the meager prospects in Poland for
> Einstein’s
> protégé, but he also mentioned that Einstein’s letter gave him par tic u
> lar pleasure,
> because it reminded him of their meeting in Bern and later in Fribourg.?
> From Einstein’s next letter we learn that he remembered their meeting
> with great satisfaction, especially the one in Fribourg with Kowalski.?
> The
> encounter in Bern may have been in the patent offi ce, but the
> University of
> Bern cannot be excluded either, for Einstein succeeded in getting the
> venia
> legendi (permission to teach) there around February 28, 1908, and he was
> Privatdozent
> there from April 21, 1908, to August 4, 1909. In May and June 1908, he
> also worked at the University of Fribourg in Professor Albert Gockel’s
> laboratory
> on his fi rst invention, an electrometer for small quantities of
> electricity
> (see chapter 4), and on May 24, 1909, he attended a physics colloquium
> there.?
> In addition, Professor Joseph Kowalski (Józef Wierusz- Kowalski),
> professor
> of physics at the university, was interested in this electrometer,?? so
> there was
> ample opportunity to meet Moscicki, for he served as Assistent to
> Kowalski
> from 1896 to 1912.
> Three more patents are supposed to have gone through Einstein’s hands:??
> an electrical typewriter with shuttle- type carrier,?? a gravel
> sorter,?? and a meteorological
> station controlled by ambient humidity.??
> Gyrocompasses
> Hermann Anschütz- Kaempfe, the inventor of the gyrocompass and own er of
> a
> gyrocompass factory in Kiel, Germany, sued the American Sperry
> Gyroscopic
> Expert Opinions 39
> Company.?? The competition between them had turned fi erce when, in
> 1914,
> Sperry sold a compass to the German navy. Selling gyrocompasses was a
> promising
> business at the time. They could be used on ships, submarines, and
> airplanes,
> because metal structure does not distort their indication as it does
> with magnetic compasses. In addition, in the de cade before the First
> World
> War, Germany intended to build a navy comparable to or outrivaling
> Britain’s.
> One of the Anschütz patents allegedly infringed was DE182855,?? which
> protected the original design. Sperry claimed that the patent was void,
> for it
> was not new when compared to a previous patent of Marinus G. van den
> Bos.??
> The other patent that Anschütz claimed to be infringed, DE236200,??
> described
> a means of damping unwanted oscillations.
> The fi rst hearing of November 10, 1914, was adjourned, but the court
> advised the parties to choose an impartial expert living not far from
> Berlin
> in order to keep expenses low. The court submitted a list of potential
> experts,
> including Arnold Sommerfeld, professor in Munich, and Felix Klein,
> professor
> in Göttingen, who were coauthors of a book on gyroscopes.?? The fi rst
> name
> on the list was, however, Einstein’s, perhaps because he was a Berliner,
> and the
> court selected him. A court expert’s duty was to answer questions
> impartially,
> to attend the proceedings, and to provide oral testimony.??
> The next hearing took place on January 5, 1915. Einstein failed to
> impress
> the court; he was not well prepared. To make his task easier, the court
> formulated
> four questions to be answered in a written report and presented at the
> next hearing:
> 1. What are the physical principles of gyrocompasses?
> 2. What are the diff erences between Anschütz’s compass and other
> gyrocompasses, in par tic u lar the compass patented by Van den Bos as
> DE34513?
> 3. What is the gist of the invention patented in DE236200; and did this
> invention make it possible to produce the fi rst, perfectly working
> gyrocompass?
> 4. What are the similarities and diff erences between the Anschütz and
> Sperry compasses, and had Sperry made use of Anschütz’s two
> inventions to such an extent that his compass was technically similar
> to Anschütz’s compass?
> Einstein answered the questions on February 6, 1915.?? He gave a clear
> exposition
> of the principles of gyroscopes and gyrocompasses (question 1) and
> 40 The Practical Einstein
> declared that Anschütz was the fi rst to produce the fi rst usable
> gyrocompass
> with damped oscillations (question 3), which he achieved in his second
> patent
> with a method better than Van den Bos’s. Einstein denied the novelty of
> Anschütz’s fi rst patent, giving priority to Van den Bos (question 2).
> Finally, he
> declared that Sperry did make use of Anschütz’s fi rst patent but
> doubted that
> the second was infringed (question 4), that is, he accepted Sperry’s
> damping
> as an original idea.
> Apparently neither the court nor Anschütz was happy with Einstein’s
> voting
> for Sperry. In the second hearing on March 26, Einstein did not convince
> the court with his opinion, so he was given two further questions.
> The fi rst question practically repeated the previous question 2, asking
> him
> to explain the relationship between Anschütz’s and Van den Bos’s
> patents.
> The second question reformulated the earlier question 4: How far had
> Sperry
> made use of the ideas in Anschütz’s two patents in his own compass
> delivered
> to the German navy?
> Einstein prepared a supplementary opinion on August 7.??
> Aft er a meticulous study of the patent specifi cations, he concluded
> that
> Anschütz’s fi rst patent did indeed diff er from Van den Bos’s
> invention.
> To answer the second question, Einstein tested a Sperry compass. He
> confi rmed that Sperry made use of Anschütz’s fi rst patent, but, in
> contrast
> to his fi rst opinion, he declared that the same is true for the second
> patent.
> This time he received no further questions, and the court decided in
> favor
> of Anschütz.
> Why did Einstein change his mind? Apparently he had not immersed himself
> in the case deeply enough. When in 1918 Anschütz asked him to serve as
> his private expert in another proceeding, Einstein expressed the self-
> critical
> hope that in the future “the insuffi cient understanding of impartial
> experts”
> would not cause damage to Anschütz and make him angry.??
> In this case, Anschütz- Kaempfe considered that a patent application of
> the
> Gesellschaft für nautische Instrumente (GNI)?? infringed upon his patent
> DE241637.?? The GNI invention was an arrangement to avoid erroneous
> indication
> of gyrocompasses when the ship is rolling. He asked Einstein to serve
> as a private expert on his behalf?? and solicited an opinion from him on
> whether
> the method proposed by the GNI fell within the scope of protection of
> his patent
> or not.?? Einstein’s opinion submitted on July 7, 1918, is not
> available. Apparently
> Anschütz was not satisfi ed with it, and he requested another one.??
> Expert Opinions 41
> Einstein began his second opinion with an analysis of how the motion of
> a
> ship infl uences the gyroscope (fi g. 3.1).??
> Let the rotating gyroscope be suspended from P by a solid rod a. If it
> swings
> between A" and A' in a plane to which its axis of rotation stays
> perpendicular,
> it will not change its direction. But if it swings perpendicular to the
> previous
> plane (between B" and B'), its axis of rotation will oscillate
> perpendicular to
> the plane of its swing, but the time average is zero. Consequently, the
> direction
> change will not present an insurmountable diffi culty in indicating the
> correct cruising direction.
> If, however, the gyro swings in a direction that is a combination of
> these
> two directions, a torque may appear that makes the gyroscope’s axis of
> rotation
> rotate with respect to the vertical. Both the Anschütz and the GNI
> inventions
> aim to eliminate this eff ect.
> Anschütz’s patent gives two ways to avoid or minimize this eff ect: to
> prevent swings from A" to A' (which is eff ectively the same as allowing
> only
> swings from B" and B'), or to use two or more gyroscopes with their axes
> not
> parallel to each other. If two gyros are mounted in a frame this way,
> any rotation
> Figure 3.1. Gyroscope motion.
> 42 The Practical Einstein
> of the axes is prevented by inertial forces if the angle between the
> axes is kept
> fi xed by a nonrigid connection. The patent does not stipulate that the
> gyroscopes
> be horizontally arranged; the only requirements are that the resulting
> moment of all the gyros has a horizontal component on which gravitation
> acts
> and that the gyro axes be nonrigidly connected and not positioned
> parallel to
> each other. Einstein declared that the claims are expounded so clearly
> that, by
> following them, any engineer with a knowledge of the subject can build a
> usable
> gyrocompass.
> Then he turned to the GNI patent application. It also uses two
> gyroscopes
> with nonparallel axes and connected with a nonrigid connection, so it is
> evident
> that it falls within the main claim of the Anschütz patent. The only
> question
> left is whether its construction represents a technical improvement.
> Einstein said no.
> He concluded that the subject of the GNI application fell within the
> scope
> of protection of the Anschütz patent, and its specifi c features are
> neither novel
> inventions nor practical developments.
> Maybe the applicant succeeded in presenting arguments to prove that
> these specifi c features did represent novel invention; maybe the
> lawsuit took a
> diff erent course for other reasons. We do not know, because the
> documents of
> the court and patent administration are no longer available. We only
> know that
> Anschütz lost the case and that a patent,?? along with two additional
> patents,??
> was granted to GNI in 1918.
> The encounter was, however, not settled at this point. In the spring of
> 1922,
> the manager of GNI, Professor Oscar Martienssen, approached Einstein and
> requested that he withdraw his opinion of 1918 because Anschütz intended
> to
> use it against GNI.?? He argued that Einstein’s opinion was based on
> errors,
> and he wanted to avoid protracted and time- consuming discussions in
> various
> courts that would take Einstein’s “invaluable talent” away from “more
> important
> things.” If Einstein agreed, there would be no need of attacking him in
> court. From the formulation, one may infer that Anschütz had lodged
> another
> suit against GNI.
> Martienssen called Einstein’s attention to a mistake that he himself had
> made in an earlier publication,?? but later corrected.?? He also added
> that Richard
> Grammel followed the same erroneous considerations in his book on
> gyroscopes,
> ?? but later he also realized it was a mistake. Apparently Martienssen
> supposed that Einstein had relied on these publications when he prepared
> his
> opinion.
> Expert Opinions 43
> Martienssen’s second objection was that Einstein had given no reason why
> the patent application was dependent on Anschütz’s patent. The Anschütz
> patent states explicitly that the invention refers to a supplementary
> gyro in the
> moving system and not to a system with a gyro for stabilizing the
> cardanic
> suspension. The GNI application, however, uses a stabilizing gyro.
> Furthermore,
> Anschütz’s patent can be constructed using two auxiliary gyros but not
> with only one, with its axis perpendicular to the northward directing
> gyro.
> The spring that joins the two gyros is of fundamental importance for the
> Anschütz patent, whereas for the GNI application the vertical gyro is fi
> rmly
> mounted on the ground plate.
> “You may rest assured,” Martienssen added, “that I feel terrible about
> writing
> these lines to you whom I sincerely hold in high esteem for your eminent
> achievements.”
> Einstein did not understand the letter, simply because he did not
> remember
> the proceedings that had taken place four years earlier.?? He asked
> Martienssen
> for clarifi cation, forwarded Martienssen’s letter to Anschütz the same
> day,??
> and doubted that Martienssen was right, “despite his arrogant tone.” The
> following day, Martienssen replied to him and attached copies of the
> relevant
> patents,?? as well as a copy of Einstein’s 1918 opinion. He also added a
> further
> objection: in his opinion, Einstein had explicitly stated that
> Anschütz’s
> direction- indicating system was equipped with two or more gyroscopes
> and
> that in the patent of GNI the same system has only one gyro. Why was it
> then
> that in his further considerations Einstein mentioned two gyros in the
> GNI
> patent application? In it, the stabilizing gyro has nothing to do with
> the direction
> indication.
> The hearing began on April 11, 1922, in Kiel.?? On April 12 Einstein
> prepared
> a supplementary opinion, but it is not available. Anschütz won the
> case.??
> GNI submitted an appeal to the Higher Regional Court on June 9.
> Einstein prepared a second supplementary opinion.?? In the particulars
> of
> the appeal, he wrote, a patent was mentioned to demonstrate that there
> were
> patents on gyrocompasses with constructions similar to Anschütz’s
> invention
> but had not been considered to infringe upon it.?? This patent did not
> include
> means to eliminate or minimize the rolling error. The opposite
> statements in
> the particulars are untrue.
> Then he refl ected on the opinions of two experts. The fi rst maintained
> that
> the GNI application had a specifi c feature that Anschütz’s patent does
> not.
> Einstein replied that the same feature was explicitly described in it
> and that,
> 44 The Practical Einstein
> at present, it is not the complete in de pen dence of the patents at
> stake but the
> question of whether the GNI patent is dependent on Anschütz’s patent or
> not.
> He summarized his reply to the opinion of the second expert in three
> points:
> 1. Anschütz’s patent is the fi rst to realize that the rolling error
> depends
> on the swing period of the directional system around the gyro axis,
> and it is the fi rst to off er a means to avoid or signifi cantly reduce
> this
> error.
> 2. The inspected instruments (apparently each fi rm presented one of its
> own) use gyroscopes to reduce swinging.
> 3. In these instruments, the gyros that slow down the swing are not
> mounted directly on the base of the directional gyro but on a component
> part, which is connected to the others with rigid connection.
> Anschütz’s patent would be already infringed if only the fi rst point
> were a
> feature of the GNI patent, but because all three points are shared by
> it, the
> GNI patent is technically the same as the Anschütz patent.
> There was a second session on July 10, 1922. Einstein’s main role was as
> a
> “bogeyman.” ?? Anschütz won again. The last information on this suit is
> that
> “the scoundrel did not get away with his tricks” ??— an impolite and
> unjust
> remark from Einstein’s pen for, as we saw, Martienssen was polite and
> raised
> clear technical objections to Einstein’s opinion. While Einstein’s fi
> rst reaction
> to Martienssen’s approach was to call his tone “arrogant,” we have ample
> evidence
> for Schell’s remark, that “the impartial expert had long since become a
> good and thoroughly partial friend of Anschütz- Kaempfe and his fi rm.”
> ??
> In Einstein’s next case, the defendant was Franz Drexler, and again the
> plaintiff Anschütz- Kaempfe.?? Drexler, a trained pi lot, had been
> working on
> a gyrocompass with Anschütz and, aft er having left the company, tried
> to
> sell it through his newly founded company, the Kreiselbau Co. The
> invention
> was a gyrocompass for indication of vertical and horizontal turns of
> airplanes.??
> In his opinion of July 23, 1919, Einstein set out by explaining the
> behavior
> of a gyroscope that has two degrees of freedom (fi g. 3.2).??
> Let a gyroscope be mounted in an inner gimbal R, which can turn around
> axis B–B in an outer gimbal G. Springs F restore the position of R
> whenever it
> is forced to leave the plane of G. Let the gyroscope be mounted on an
> airplane
> with the plane of G parallel to the wings. When the airplane gains or
> loses
> Expert Opinions 45
> height, R will not leave the plane of G, because its axis of rotation
> A–A is
> shift ed parallel. When, however, the airplane turns to the right or
> left , R will
> step out of this plane by turning around B–B and will keep the new
> position
> until the turn is fi nished. Einstein calls this arrangement the “turn
> indicator.”
> How can up and down turns be indicated? Maybe with a simple plumb line.
> Let us suspend such a line L in a plane P and keep P horizontal (fi g.
> 3.3). Until
> they move uniformly, L and P will make a rectangle. If P is accelerated,
> L will
> lag behind, and so they will not stay perpendicular to each other. The
> same
> happens should P turn up or down.
> This simple pendulum cannot provide a precise indication of up and down
> turns, for it is possible that if the airplane is accelerated and turned
> downward
> at the same time, L and P could remain perpendicular. Let us call this
> device,
> as Einstein did, the “plumb indicator.”
> Now return to the gyrocompass and fi x R on G in a line lying higher
> than
> the center of mass of R and K. In addition, remove the springs F. By
> doing so,
> we combine a gyroscope and a plumb indicator, which, however, cannot
> indicate
> directly whether the airplane is turning or not. Einstein calls this a
> “gyro
> pendulum.”
> Aft er these preparatory considerations, Einstein answered fi ve
> questions
> put by the court. Because we do not have the original court document,
> and
> Einstein’s answers do not follow the numbering of the questions, I can
> only
> summarize them.
> Figure 3.2. Gyrocompass.
> Albert Einstein, “Court Expert
> Opinion in the Matter of
> Anschütz & Co. vs. Kreiselbau
> Co.,” July 23, 1919. Courtesy
> Albert Einstein Archives, The
> Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
> 46 The Practical Einstein
> Anschütz’s patent consists of a gyro pendulum and a plumb indicator.??
> The
> indications of the two instruments must be compared to follow the fl
> ight on a
> general curve. Even though this is not the fi rst patent that indicates
> the change
> of orientation,?? it is the fi rst to indicate vertical turns.
> Anschütz can claim priority not in the application of a gyro pendulum
> but
> in the combination of this pendulum with the plumb indicator, and,
> because
> it is only this combination that can help fl ight in a curve, the patent
> represents
> technical progress of inventive importance.
> Drexler’s patent follows the same principle as Anschütz’s, Einstein
> continued:
> it makes use of two gyroscopes with horizontal axes (even though
> arranged
> as a turn indicator) and of a plumb indicator. Whether the plumb
> indicator
> is a separate device, as with Anschütz’s, or it is the turn indicator
> itself
> that is turned into a plumb indicator as with Drexler’s, makes no diff
> erence
> of principle. There is, however, a technical diff erence between them:
> Drexler’s
> device indicates right and left turns directly, not as a diff erence
> between the
> indications of two instruments.
> Einstein felt that this opinion sounded obscure for the lawyers, so he
> appended an explanation, as he put it, in a “freer form,” an application
> of
> set theory.
> Figure 3.3. Turn indicator.
> Albert Einstein, “Court Expert Opinion in the Matter of Anschütz & Co.
> vs.
> Kreiselbau Co.,” July 23, 1919. Courtesy Albert Einstein Archives, The
> Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
> Expert Opinions 47
> Consider a plane P whose points represent all the possible technical
> realizations
> of all the patent inventions. The embodiments of a par tic u lar
> invention
> make a region G of this plane. Had the inventor a complete knowledge of
> all the embodiments of his invention, that is, of G, he should be
> considered as
> the only own er of them. He has, however, only a limited knowledge of G;
> there
> can be various technical embodiments of his idea of which he does not
> know,
> and which may have novel technical features. Such cases can be called
> “dependent
> inventions.” Whether such an invention may have some legal rights
> is a problem for lawyers.
> Drexler’s patent is a “dependent invention” in this sense: dependent on
> Anschütz’s patent, for it serves the same goal and uses the same
> gyroscopes,
> but it is a genuine invention, too, for it uses only one indicator in
> place of two,
> and so it produces its result more safely and with greater precision.
> Drexler’s
> patent covers Anschütz’s patent, but it does not copy or circumvent it.
> Neither parties were satisfi ed with Einstein’s opinion. According to
> Anschütz’s patent lawyer, Hugo Licht, it was “not negligibly weak”;??
> therefore,
> Einstein was requested to fi nd new arguments in Anschütz’s favor.
> Einstein called the director of regional court and explained that when
> he had formulated his opinion, he was staying in Switzerland and, upon
> returning to Berlin, he found documents that he had not been able to
> use.
> He would like to complete his opinion by taking them into
> consideration.??
> He submitted a supplementary opinion on October 9, 1919, of which only
> one
> paragraph is extant, quoted in Licht’s letter to Anschütz.?? In it, he
> declares
> that it was Anschütz’s patent that fi rst proposed a gyroscope with two
> degrees
> of freedom and with a horizontal axis of rotation to keep track of the
> direction change of the aircraft , and Drexler’s turn indicator is also
> based
> on this idea.
> On the hearing of November 4, under the pressing questions of Drexler,
> Einstein admitted that if a pi lot had known of a paper published in
> 1910 on
> a turn indicator,?? it would not have been necessary to wait for an
> invention.
> With this, he weakened the technical importance and priority of
> Anschütz’s
> 1917 patent. Licht explained Einstein’s point by saying that an eminent
> scientist
> uses stronger criteria than a judge for what can be considered an
> invention.??
> Anschütz won the case, but Drexler appealed. Einstein was again proposed
> as an expert, but because the court expected a second expert who was
> “well
> 48 The Practical Einstein
> informed in both the theory of gyroscopes and the behavior of airplane
> during curved fl ight,”?? Anschütz proposed two further candidates,
> Richard
> Grammel, professor at the Technical University of Stuttgart, and Ludwig
> Prandtl, professor of aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen, an
> international
> authority and pioneer in the theory of fl ight. Prandtl confessed that
> he could not qualify as a practical expert because he had never actually
> fl own,
> but he could not resist to add, “When Professor Einstein, who certainly
> has a
> weaker knowledge of fl ight than I do, appears as an expert, that will
> be very
> interesting indeed.”?? In the end, the court picked a third person, Hans
> Wolff ,
> an engineer at the German Test Institution for Aviation (Deutsche
> Versuchsanstalt
> für Luft fahrt) in Berlin- Adlershof, as a fl ight expert partner of
> Einstein.
> In its session of January 7, 1922, the court solicited a comment on
> Wolff ’s
> opinion from Einstein, which he presented on January 18.?? Wolff ’s
> opinion is
> not available.
> Einstein essentially maintained his earlier opinion that Drexler’s
> invention
> falls within the area of protection of Anschütz’s patent, even though a
> British
> patent from 1916,?? not known to him when preparing his fi rst opinion,
> might
> restrict this area. He proposed a formulation of the specifi c novelty
> of
> Anschütz’s patent that would stand even in this case as “a clearly
> arranged
> combination of a gyro pendulum and an apparatus for indication of the
> direction
> of the apparent gravity.”
> The case ended with a settlement out of court, and Kreiselbau retracted
> the
> appeal
I find I don't have the attention span to read this entire post, Starmaker. Boil it down for us. Did Einstein use his privileged position in the patent office to steal and plagiarize other applicant's ideas then file on them hizself? RH has claimed with great credulity that Einstein was on the make to get his fortune by any means necessary