There is no question in my mind that John M. Browning was a gun genius. He invented most of the basic handgun systems in use today, and patented many ideas that never saw development or production. (I am not in ignorance of his rifle and shotgun designs, just staying on topic.)
But was this good overall for the gun industry and shooters? By patenting every feature of his designs and patenting ideas he probably never intended to use (like the rotating barrel), he forced competitors to adopt convoluted and unsuccessful designs to work around his ideas. Since his patents covered almost every basic system that had not yet been used by others and some that had been, the competition was unable to come up with viable designs and the U.S. auto pistol market by the end of WWII had one maker, Colt, and one designer, Browning.
Even major American gun companies and competent designers had not been able to work around Browning's patents and compete successfully with Colt. All eventually threw in the towel.
That situation could have improved with the expiration of those patents, but by that time, Browning's ideas and patents had stifled the American pistol design field.
While Browning certainly became rich, and his designs have stood the test of time, would it have been better if there had been real competition in the pistol field? Did Browning set the American gun industry back three decades compared with the rest of the world? Was this good or bad? Is a monopoly good, even if its product is good?
Let's see what the board says.
Jim
But was this good overall for the gun industry and shooters? By patenting every feature of his designs and patenting ideas he probably never intended to use (like the rotating barrel), he forced competitors to adopt convoluted and unsuccessful designs to work around his ideas. Since his patents covered almost every basic system that had not yet been used by others and some that had been, the competition was unable to come up with viable designs and the U.S. auto pistol market by the end of WWII had one maker, Colt, and one designer, Browning.
Even major American gun companies and competent designers had not been able to work around Browning's patents and compete successfully with Colt. All eventually threw in the towel.
That situation could have improved with the expiration of those patents, but by that time, Browning's ideas and patents had stifled the American pistol design field.
While Browning certainly became rich, and his designs have stood the test of time, would it have been better if there had been real competition in the pistol field? Did Browning set the American gun industry back three decades compared with the rest of the world? Was this good or bad? Is a monopoly good, even if its product is good?
Let's see what the board says.
Jim