Talk:Samuel Hopkins (inventor)

Canadian Patent
I've removed this from the article:
 * According to the present-day Canadian Office of Intellectual Property, Hopkins also received the first Canadian patent, in 1791, from "the Governor General in Council to Angus MacDonnel, a Scottish soldier garrisoned at Quebec City, and to Samuel Hopkins, a Vermonter, for processes to make potash and soap from wood ash."

Notwithstanding what the government is saying this makes no sense at all. The position of Governor General was established by the Constitution Act of 1791, and that became effective Dec. 26 of that year. The first occupant was Guy Carlton, who had previously been military governor, but he was in England at the time, and did not return until 1793. The Canadian patent office was not established until 1842. Eclecticology (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Famous Canadian Patents


 * Restored the information with further clarification. The patent was issued by Lower Canada (now Quebec). —MJBurrage(T•C) 12:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Two Samuel Hopkins
One of the sources points out some confusion over which Samuel Hopkins was the patent holder: It seems clear to me from the related United States and Lower Canada patents, that the first S. Hopkins is the patent holder. Given the dates, and that both lived in Pittsford, Vermont; the second S. Hopkins is almost certainly the son of the first.
 * Samuel Hopkins (1743–1818) of Philadelphia and Pittsford, Vermont. Married in 1765.
 * Samuel Hopkins (1765–1840) of Pittsford, Vermont and Pittsford, New York.

While I do not have a source for this case, it is not unusual for a father and son with the same name to become conflated in the historical record. It is also not unusual that an inventor from Philadelphia & Vermont in 1790 would apply for a patent though his Philadelphia address for work in Vermont since at the time Vermont was disputed territory claimed by the State of New York, The State of New Hampshire, and the self-declared independent Vermont Republic (the dispute was only settled a year later when the Vermont Republic became the State of Vermont). —MJBurrage(T•C) 12:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maxey: wrong Hopkins
changed the article to refer to the article in Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, which is available here. I have restored the prior information, as I think this is quite a shift from "popular opinion". I've printed out the article and will review it in the next few days.

If Maxey's assertion is correct, I think this warrants a more detailed explanation in the text. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What we really need are copies of:
 * The "patent" issued by Lower Canada to "Samuel Hopkins, a Vermonter"
 * In particular the Canadian patent should clarify whether two unrelated Samuel Hopkins have become conflated, or if my assumption (above in the talk page, not in the article) of confusion about a father and son both in the Pot-Ash business is more likely.
 * Going just by Paynter's original article, and Maxey's original article; we have a residents of Pittsford and Philadelphia respectively debating whether credit should go to Pittsford or Philadelphia. —MJBurrage(T•C) 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Going just by Paynter's original article, and Maxey's original article; we have a residents of Pittsford and Philadelphia respectively debating whether credit should go to Pittsford or Philadelphia. —MJBurrage(T•C) 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the jpatos article. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the JPTOS article available online anywhere? What I want to know from the Lower Canada patent, is if it actually mentions Vermont, or if it just described that way today by historians.
 * Does the JPTOS article claim to prove that there is no connection between Pittsford and the patent holder, or just that the Hopkins born in Philadelphia is the patent holder, without addressing whether he or a son operated a business in Pittsford. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I skim read both articles last night. I think the Canadian patent will be found in the legislative documents, which are probably online.  I agree that we need to find a scan of the original document.  I've never looked into the Canadian aspect; the sources we are using (ref 4-6) are not good enough, and the "A Brief History of the Canadian Patent System" link is a dead link - an electronic resource is provided here, but that also goes to a dead link.
 * The JPTOS contains a lot of similar material, but focuses more on how the 'wrong' person ended up taking the honours. I don't recall it addressing any confusion due to a son.  IIRC, the JPTOS mentions only two daughters of the patent holder, and no son. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The JPTOS does a pretty good job of laying out the author's case, and refuting the earlier assumptions made by others. Unless the Canadian patent does actually mention Vermont, than I would suggest rewriting the article to reflect the information in the JPTOS article with a section near the end on the younger Hopkins, and the past confusion. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a feel for protocol, but I now see some talk about my previous attempt to set the record straight about the holder of the first patent. He was Samuel Hopkins, of Philadelphia. Samuel Hopkins of the two Pittsfords, somebody else entirely, has no claim to the status of being the first patentee, although through a comedy of errors, he has been given that credit in the past. The holder of the first US Patent also received a patent from Canada, all as laid out in two articles of mine published in 1998. For an accurate view of the corrected record, see www.carnegielibrary.org/research/pittsburgh/patentees/samhopkins.html

David W. Maxey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.62.250 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Maxey, the Canadian Patent Office website once said the patent was issued to "Samuel Hopkins, a Vermonter". Is there a place where one can see a picture or a complete transcription of the actual patent issued by Lower Canada?
 * If it does not, than the website just got pulled into the mistake made by other historians.
 * If it does, perhaps the Samuel Hopkins from Philadelphia did some production in Vermont, and that led to the two becoming conflated.
 * I ask because, since there were multiple Samuel Hopkins alive back then, the historians presumably had some reason to link the patent to Vermont; and such original reasoning would be both useful and interesting to include in the article. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Samuel Hopkins (inventor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028213733/http://cbac-cccb.ca/epic/site/cbac-cccb.nsf/vwapj/Duy_CdnPatents_e.pdf/$FILE/Duy_CdnPatents_e.pdf to http://cbac-cccb.ca/epic/site/cbac-cccb.nsf/vwapj/Duy_CdnPatents_e.pdf/$FILE/Duy_CdnPatents_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)