10
10
0
On June 21, 1834, C. H. McCormick patents the first practical reaper. From the article:
"Cyrus McCormick was born on February 15, 1809 in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. He was the eldest of eight children born to inventor Robert McCormick Jr. (1780–1846) and Mary Ann "Polly" Hall (1780–1853). As Cyrus' father saw the potential of the design for a mechanical reaper, he applied for a patent to claim it as his own invention. He worked for 28 years on a horse-drawn mechanical reaper to harvest grain; however, he was never able to reproduce a reliable version.
Cyrus took up the project.[5] He was aided by Jo Anderson, an enslaved African American on the McCormick plantation at the time.[6] A few machines based on a design of Patrick Bell of Scotland (which had not been patented) were available in the United States in these years. The Bell machine was pushed by horses. The McCormick design was pulled by horses and cut the grain to one side of the team.
Cyrus McCormick held one of his first demonstrations of mechanical reaping at the nearby village of Steeles Tavern, Virginia in 1831. He claimed to have developed a final version of the reaper in 18 months. The young McCormick was granted a patent on the reaper on June 21, 1834,[7] two years after having been granted a patent for a self-sharpening plow.[8] However, none were sold, because the machine could not handle varying conditions.
The McCormick family also worked together in a blacksmith/metal smelting business. The panic of 1837 almost caused the family to go into bankruptcy when a partner pulled out. In 1839 McCormick started doing more public demonstrations of the reaper, but local farmers still thought the machine was unreliable. He did sell one in 1840, but none for 1841.
Using the endorsement of his father's first customer for a machine built by McPhetrich, Cyrus continuously attempted to improve the design. He finally sold seven reapers in 1842, 29 in 1843, and 50 in 1844. They were all built manually in the family farm shop. He received a second patent for reaper improvements on January 31, 1845.[7]
As word spread about the reaper, McCormick noticed orders arriving from farther west, where farms tended to be larger and the land flatter. While he was in Washington, DC to get his 1845 patent, he heard about a factory in Brockport, New York, where he contracted to have the machines mass-produced. He also licensed several others across the country to build the reaper, but their quality often proved poor, which hurt the product's reputation. "
"Cyrus McCormick was born on February 15, 1809 in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. He was the eldest of eight children born to inventor Robert McCormick Jr. (1780–1846) and Mary Ann "Polly" Hall (1780–1853). As Cyrus' father saw the potential of the design for a mechanical reaper, he applied for a patent to claim it as his own invention. He worked for 28 years on a horse-drawn mechanical reaper to harvest grain; however, he was never able to reproduce a reliable version.
Cyrus took up the project.[5] He was aided by Jo Anderson, an enslaved African American on the McCormick plantation at the time.[6] A few machines based on a design of Patrick Bell of Scotland (which had not been patented) were available in the United States in these years. The Bell machine was pushed by horses. The McCormick design was pulled by horses and cut the grain to one side of the team.
Cyrus McCormick held one of his first demonstrations of mechanical reaping at the nearby village of Steeles Tavern, Virginia in 1831. He claimed to have developed a final version of the reaper in 18 months. The young McCormick was granted a patent on the reaper on June 21, 1834,[7] two years after having been granted a patent for a self-sharpening plow.[8] However, none were sold, because the machine could not handle varying conditions.
The McCormick family also worked together in a blacksmith/metal smelting business. The panic of 1837 almost caused the family to go into bankruptcy when a partner pulled out. In 1839 McCormick started doing more public demonstrations of the reaper, but local farmers still thought the machine was unreliable. He did sell one in 1840, but none for 1841.
Using the endorsement of his father's first customer for a machine built by McPhetrich, Cyrus continuously attempted to improve the design. He finally sold seven reapers in 1842, 29 in 1843, and 50 in 1844. They were all built manually in the family farm shop. He received a second patent for reaper improvements on January 31, 1845.[7]
As word spread about the reaper, McCormick noticed orders arriving from farther west, where farms tended to be larger and the land flatter. While he was in Washington, DC to get his 1845 patent, he heard about a factory in Brockport, New York, where he contracted to have the machines mass-produced. He also licensed several others across the country to build the reaper, but their quality often proved poor, which hurt the product's reputation. "
Cyrus McCormick - Wikipedia
Posted from en.m.wikipedia.orgPosted in these groups: 
American History
InventingUnited States Patent and Trademark Office
Farming
Manufacturing
American History InventingUnited States Patent and Trademark Office Farming Manufacturing
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
MBA Cases: Cyrus McCormick - The Business of Agriculture and Reaper Invention
http://fitbody365.club/r/lean-belly-breakthrough/ - The 2-minute Ritual Proven To Eliminate 1 Pound Per Day Of Dangerous Belly Fat. Cyrus McCormick is a grea...
Thank you my friend SGT (Join to see) for making us aware that on June 21, 1834 Cyrus Hall McCormick obtained the patent for the first practical mechanical reaper.
Thankfully the suit by Cyrus Hall McCormick against competitor inventor John H. Manny, who had first obtained a patent for his own reaper, was denied - otherwise there would have been a monopoly on mechanical reapers
Image: 1834 Cyrus McCormick, his invention the mechanical reaper
Background from ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cyrus_McCormick
Cyrus McCormick, American inventor of the mechanical reaper.
Cyrus McCormick was born on February 15, 1809, near Lexington, Virginia. Hoping to reduce the workload on his farm, Robert McCormick, Cyrus's father, had tried to develop a mechanical harvester in the early nineteenth century. Unfortunately, all of his attempts had failed. In 1831, Cyrus succeeded in developing a horse-drawn reaper that successfully harvested six acres of oats.
McCormick devoted the next few years to improving his machine. In 1832, a new version of his reaper harvested fifty acres of wheat. By 1833, McCormick had produced a machine that harvested approximately one dozen acres of grain per day. Unfortunately for the inventor, difficult financial times during the middle 1830s, which culminated in the Panic of 1837, prevented farmers in the East from purchasing his machine for several years. He did not sell his first reaper until 1839. McCormick's desire to perfect his machine allowed Obed Hussey, an Ohioan, to patent his version of the reaper first. Hussey had much more success selling his reaper to people in Ohio and further west, as there was an abundance of land and a shortage of labor. Hussey's invention helped alleviate the lack of workers. Many of McCormick's potential customers, primarily farmers in Virginia, owned slaves and did not see the need for a machine to reduce workloads, since they already had enslaved African Americans to do the hard physical labor common with farming.
In the early 1840s, McCormick decided to expand his market to the Midwest. He franchised his business, authorizing several business owners, including one in Cincinnati, Ohio, to manufacture his reaper. By 1844, McCormick was selling fifty reapers per year. McCormick's harvester was of a significantly better quality than Obed Hussey's reaper, and McCormick quickly outsold his chief competitor. In 1846, McCormick moved his base of operations from Virginia to Chicago, Illinois, constructing a factory that would begin mass-producing his reapers in 1848. Chicago was an ideal location for McCormick's plant. Located in the American West, most people migrating to the frontier hoped to acquire land to become farmers. McCormick hoped that the migrants would want to purchase his reaper to ease the workloads on their farms. McCormick was correct in his assumption. By 1856, McCormick's company was producing four thousand reapers per year with a workforce of two hundred men. McCormick also had begun to sell his reaper in Europe.
McCormick continued to direct his company until 1880, when his son, Cyrus McCormick, Jr., assumed control. Cyrus McCormick, Sr., died in 1884. By the time of McCormick's death, his company had produced approximately six million reapers, had lessened the amount of work for farmers, and had dramatically increased farm production."
Background from scientificamerican.com/article/the-decision-in-the-reaper-patent-c/
In our last issue we briefly announced the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, between the rival Tliventors and manufacturers of reaping machines, Cyrus H. Mc-Cormick and John H. Manny, which was delivered by Justice Grier, as our paper was going to press.
As then promised, we now lay before our readers the following abstract of the decision, embracing everything it contains of general interest:— "McCormick charged an infringement of the fourth and fifth claims of his patent of 1845, and of the second claim of his patent of 1847, re-issued in 1853. I.
The first infringement charged is that of the divider—a part of the reaping machine which is of a wedge form, and projects in advance of the sickle, to separate the grain to be cut in the swath from that which is to be left standing until the next swath is cut. McCormick's claim to the divider, as set forth in his patent, is : * Fourth, I claim the combination of the bow, L, and the dividing iron, M, for separating the wheat in the way described.' For the purposes of this case, the divider, although a component part of the complex machine called * the reaper,' may be considered by itself as a machine, or combination of devices, attached to the reaper to perform certain functions necessary to complete the whole operation.
In order to ascertain whether the divider used by the defendants infringes that of the complainant, we must first inquire whether McCormick was the first to invent the machine called a divider, toper-form the functions required, or has merely improved a known machine by some peculiar combination of mechanical devices which perform the same functions in a better manner. But if the invention claimed is only an improvement on a known machine by a new change of form or combination of parts, (and the evidence in this case shows it is nothing more,) the patentee cannot treat another as as infringer who has improved the original machine by the use of a different form or combination performing the same functions. The inventor of the first improvement cannot invoke the doctrine of equivalents to suppress all other improvements which are not mere colorable evasions of the first. McCormick's claim is for the combination of the outside bow with an inside dividing iron of a certain form. This dividing iron is" but a new form or substitution of that side of the wedge or divider, which in other machines performed the function of separating the inside grain, and raising it to the cutters and reel. The machine constructed under Manny's patent has a wooden divider, somewhat in the form of a wedge, but it has no dividing iron, nor substitute or equivalent device possessing the peculiar qualities of that instrument. It more resembles the wedge in use before McCormick's patent of 1845, and is certainly no infringement of his claim. II. The second infringement charged is that of the reel post, a standard on the end of the platform for supporting the axle of the reel immediately over the divider. McCormick's claim to the reel post, as set forth in his patent, is : * Fifth, I claim setting the lower end of the reel post, R, behind the blade, curving it at R2, and leaning it forward at top, thereby favoring the cutting, and enabling me to brace it at top by the front brace, S, as described, which I claim in combination with the post.' Manny does not support his reel by a post, or use a brace ; he uses a horizontal arm pico-jecting forward from the back part of 1:he frame. This device was used many years Ibe-fore McCormick's first patent of 1834. It is said to be superior to McCormick's braced post, and cannot be an mfnngement of McCormick's claim. III. The third infringement charged is that of the raker's seat, which is claimed in McCormick's patent as follows : * Second, And I also claim the combination of the reel for gathering the grain to the cutting apparatus and depositing it on the platform, with the seat or position for the raker, arranged and located as described, or the equivalent thereof, to enable the raker to rake the grain from the platform and deliver and lay it on the ground at the side of the machine, as described.' By this device McCormick obtained a place for the raker over the finger bar just back of the driving wheel, and at the end of the reel, where he could have free access to the grain, and rake it off the machine at right angles to the swath. It was by limiting his claim to this arrangement, location, and combination that the complainant obtained his patent; and without this construction of it, the claim is neither patentable nor original. The arrangement, combination and location of the raker's seat used by defendants has been patented to Manny as an independent contrivance and distinct invention. The place for the raker is obtained by a change in the shape of the platform, different from any before employed. It differs from the complainant's device in principle as well as in form and combination, and is, consequently, no infringement of his patent."
[Thus has terminated a suit which, if McCormick had been successful, would have subjected the "Reaping Machine" to his own private monopoly, and made him lord of the harvest. It is a matter of great individual hardship to Manny & Co. that they should have been compelled, in order to shield themselves from a grasping monopoly, to maintain, single-handed, a defence—expensive beyond example—in the most important patent suit, perhaps, ever tried in this country, while the benefits of their success will ensue chiefly to other manufacturers, whom the suit has not cost a single dollar.—Eds."
MBA Cases: Cyrus McCormick - The Business of Agriculture and Reaper Invention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHIlFuj1yZI
FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC (Join to see) Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Lt Col Charlie Brown Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. "Bill" Price Maj Marty Hogan SCPO Morris Ramsey SSG John Ross SGT Mark Halmrast Sgt Randy Wilber Sgt John H. SGT Gregory Lawritson CPL Dave Hoover SPC Margaret Higgins SrA Christopher Wright Cpl Gabriel F.
Thankfully the suit by Cyrus Hall McCormick against competitor inventor John H. Manny, who had first obtained a patent for his own reaper, was denied - otherwise there would have been a monopoly on mechanical reapers
Image: 1834 Cyrus McCormick, his invention the mechanical reaper
Background from ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cyrus_McCormick
Cyrus McCormick, American inventor of the mechanical reaper.
Cyrus McCormick was born on February 15, 1809, near Lexington, Virginia. Hoping to reduce the workload on his farm, Robert McCormick, Cyrus's father, had tried to develop a mechanical harvester in the early nineteenth century. Unfortunately, all of his attempts had failed. In 1831, Cyrus succeeded in developing a horse-drawn reaper that successfully harvested six acres of oats.
McCormick devoted the next few years to improving his machine. In 1832, a new version of his reaper harvested fifty acres of wheat. By 1833, McCormick had produced a machine that harvested approximately one dozen acres of grain per day. Unfortunately for the inventor, difficult financial times during the middle 1830s, which culminated in the Panic of 1837, prevented farmers in the East from purchasing his machine for several years. He did not sell his first reaper until 1839. McCormick's desire to perfect his machine allowed Obed Hussey, an Ohioan, to patent his version of the reaper first. Hussey had much more success selling his reaper to people in Ohio and further west, as there was an abundance of land and a shortage of labor. Hussey's invention helped alleviate the lack of workers. Many of McCormick's potential customers, primarily farmers in Virginia, owned slaves and did not see the need for a machine to reduce workloads, since they already had enslaved African Americans to do the hard physical labor common with farming.
In the early 1840s, McCormick decided to expand his market to the Midwest. He franchised his business, authorizing several business owners, including one in Cincinnati, Ohio, to manufacture his reaper. By 1844, McCormick was selling fifty reapers per year. McCormick's harvester was of a significantly better quality than Obed Hussey's reaper, and McCormick quickly outsold his chief competitor. In 1846, McCormick moved his base of operations from Virginia to Chicago, Illinois, constructing a factory that would begin mass-producing his reapers in 1848. Chicago was an ideal location for McCormick's plant. Located in the American West, most people migrating to the frontier hoped to acquire land to become farmers. McCormick hoped that the migrants would want to purchase his reaper to ease the workloads on their farms. McCormick was correct in his assumption. By 1856, McCormick's company was producing four thousand reapers per year with a workforce of two hundred men. McCormick also had begun to sell his reaper in Europe.
McCormick continued to direct his company until 1880, when his son, Cyrus McCormick, Jr., assumed control. Cyrus McCormick, Sr., died in 1884. By the time of McCormick's death, his company had produced approximately six million reapers, had lessened the amount of work for farmers, and had dramatically increased farm production."
Background from scientificamerican.com/article/the-decision-in-the-reaper-patent-c/
In our last issue we briefly announced the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, between the rival Tliventors and manufacturers of reaping machines, Cyrus H. Mc-Cormick and John H. Manny, which was delivered by Justice Grier, as our paper was going to press.
As then promised, we now lay before our readers the following abstract of the decision, embracing everything it contains of general interest:— "McCormick charged an infringement of the fourth and fifth claims of his patent of 1845, and of the second claim of his patent of 1847, re-issued in 1853. I.
The first infringement charged is that of the divider—a part of the reaping machine which is of a wedge form, and projects in advance of the sickle, to separate the grain to be cut in the swath from that which is to be left standing until the next swath is cut. McCormick's claim to the divider, as set forth in his patent, is : * Fourth, I claim the combination of the bow, L, and the dividing iron, M, for separating the wheat in the way described.' For the purposes of this case, the divider, although a component part of the complex machine called * the reaper,' may be considered by itself as a machine, or combination of devices, attached to the reaper to perform certain functions necessary to complete the whole operation.
In order to ascertain whether the divider used by the defendants infringes that of the complainant, we must first inquire whether McCormick was the first to invent the machine called a divider, toper-form the functions required, or has merely improved a known machine by some peculiar combination of mechanical devices which perform the same functions in a better manner. But if the invention claimed is only an improvement on a known machine by a new change of form or combination of parts, (and the evidence in this case shows it is nothing more,) the patentee cannot treat another as as infringer who has improved the original machine by the use of a different form or combination performing the same functions. The inventor of the first improvement cannot invoke the doctrine of equivalents to suppress all other improvements which are not mere colorable evasions of the first. McCormick's claim is for the combination of the outside bow with an inside dividing iron of a certain form. This dividing iron is" but a new form or substitution of that side of the wedge or divider, which in other machines performed the function of separating the inside grain, and raising it to the cutters and reel. The machine constructed under Manny's patent has a wooden divider, somewhat in the form of a wedge, but it has no dividing iron, nor substitute or equivalent device possessing the peculiar qualities of that instrument. It more resembles the wedge in use before McCormick's patent of 1845, and is certainly no infringement of his claim. II. The second infringement charged is that of the reel post, a standard on the end of the platform for supporting the axle of the reel immediately over the divider. McCormick's claim to the reel post, as set forth in his patent, is : * Fifth, I claim setting the lower end of the reel post, R, behind the blade, curving it at R2, and leaning it forward at top, thereby favoring the cutting, and enabling me to brace it at top by the front brace, S, as described, which I claim in combination with the post.' Manny does not support his reel by a post, or use a brace ; he uses a horizontal arm pico-jecting forward from the back part of 1:he frame. This device was used many years Ibe-fore McCormick's first patent of 1834. It is said to be superior to McCormick's braced post, and cannot be an mfnngement of McCormick's claim. III. The third infringement charged is that of the raker's seat, which is claimed in McCormick's patent as follows : * Second, And I also claim the combination of the reel for gathering the grain to the cutting apparatus and depositing it on the platform, with the seat or position for the raker, arranged and located as described, or the equivalent thereof, to enable the raker to rake the grain from the platform and deliver and lay it on the ground at the side of the machine, as described.' By this device McCormick obtained a place for the raker over the finger bar just back of the driving wheel, and at the end of the reel, where he could have free access to the grain, and rake it off the machine at right angles to the swath. It was by limiting his claim to this arrangement, location, and combination that the complainant obtained his patent; and without this construction of it, the claim is neither patentable nor original. The arrangement, combination and location of the raker's seat used by defendants has been patented to Manny as an independent contrivance and distinct invention. The place for the raker is obtained by a change in the shape of the platform, different from any before employed. It differs from the complainant's device in principle as well as in form and combination, and is, consequently, no infringement of his patent."
[Thus has terminated a suit which, if McCormick had been successful, would have subjected the "Reaping Machine" to his own private monopoly, and made him lord of the harvest. It is a matter of great individual hardship to Manny & Co. that they should have been compelled, in order to shield themselves from a grasping monopoly, to maintain, single-handed, a defence—expensive beyond example—in the most important patent suit, perhaps, ever tried in this country, while the benefits of their success will ensue chiefly to other manufacturers, whom the suit has not cost a single dollar.—Eds."
MBA Cases: Cyrus McCormick - The Business of Agriculture and Reaper Invention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHIlFuj1yZI
FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC (Join to see) Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Lt Col Charlie Brown Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. "Bill" Price Maj Marty Hogan SCPO Morris Ramsey SSG John Ross SGT Mark Halmrast Sgt Randy Wilber Sgt John H. SGT Gregory Lawritson CPL Dave Hoover SPC Margaret Higgins SrA Christopher Wright Cpl Gabriel F.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google