Who really invented Liquid Paper?

[chemisttree]

Bette Nesmith Graham is credited with the invention but she had help. Anyone know who and why she needed the help?

 

[Evo]

Bette Nesmith Graham is credited with the invention but she had help. Anyone know who and why she needed the help?

I'm not sure what you are asking. She was a secretary and decided to find a better way to correct typing errors.

What do you mean by help? I've always read that she came up with it alone in her kitchen.

http://inventors.about.com/od/lstartinventions/a/liquid_paper.htm

A more detailed write-up.

http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/nesmith.html

 

[jim mcnamara]

I'd go with what Evo says, except that the old liquid paper had solvents that folks did not just happen upon at the corner store. Evo, did she have courses in Chemistry?

See this page for a hint about what I mean:

http://www.liquidpaper.com/main.taf?p=5&q=3
I think the solvent was an ether - definitely not diethyl ether, but I'm not sure. Obviously it was toxic/explosive or both toxic && explosive. It doesn't pass OSHA muster nowadays. But then, when I was a kid, every paint (with driers) known to man, had lead based driers. Boy, those paint chips had real flavor back then. The modern ones are no good they need, um, they need salt or something. um.

 

[chemisttree]

Both of you are close. Her original product dissolved the ink from the paper and caused an off white spot. She got help from a fabulous chemist to perfect her idea. Any idea who?

 

[Evo]

Both of you are close. Her original product dissolved the ink from the paper and caused an off white spot. She got help from a fabulous chemist to perfect her idea. Any idea who?

Are you talking later on when she patented the formula? The only reference I've seen to a chemist after her product started getting popular is to an un-named high school chemistry teacher.

White out would smear the ink, and it still does so today if you rub the whiteout back and forth.

 

[chemisttree]

Yes, someone helped perfect her idea which made it a salable product.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Okay. Upon further googling, her son Michael Nesmith, had a Chemistry teacher in high school. He collobarated with her on LP. caveat: This is wickedpedia speaking. All the other sites are essentially devoid of information or disinformation about LQ.

I see no mention of a putatively famous chemist though. Any futher googlage will require your fingers, not mine.

 

[chemisttree]

I'd go with what Evo says, except that the old liquid paper had solvents that folks did not just happen upon at the corner store. Evo, did she have courses in Chemistry?

See this page for a hint about what I mean:

http://www.liquidpaper.com/main.taf?p=5&q=3
I think the solvent was an ether - definitely not diethyl ether, but I'm not sure. Obviously it was toxic/explosive or both toxic && explosive. It doesn't pass OSHA muster nowadays.

The original (not the one Nesmith Graham developed independently) had chlorinated solvents which are toxic. The new formula doesn't have them.

 

[Evo]

The original (not the one Nesmith Graham developed independently) had chlorinated solvents which are toxic. The new formula doesn't have them.

So you are claiming someone else also invented a type of "white-out", but not the famous one which became liquid paper that Graham invented by herself? That's a completely different question.

What was the name of this other independantly invented product? Did it ever sell?

 

[chemisttree]

So you are claiming someone else also invented a type of "white-out", but not the famous one which became liquid paper that Graham invented by herself? That's a completely different question.

What was the name of this other independantly invented product? Did it ever sell?

No, I'm saying that the Wiki article is wrong (gasp). It wasn't her son's high school chemistry teacher.

 

[Evo]

No, I'm saying that the Wiki article is wrong (gasp). It wasn't her son's high school chemistry teacher.

This is the first time you've mentioned wikipedia. I haven't read the wiki article. The only reference I've seen to a high school teacher is this on the Liquid paper site. It doesn't mention it being her son's teacher.

Ever resourceful, Graham recruited an office supplier, a school chemistry teacher and a friend from a paint company to help her perfect her product which was becoming increasingly popular. Her son Michael and his friends helped fill bottles of Mistake Out with the whiteout in the garage. Graham had a good product, and renamed it Liquid Paper in 1958, but it was certainly no overnight success. She continued to work in the bank, managing the business after hours, making batches in her kitchen, packing and distributing from the garage.

 

[Gokul43201]

jim mentioned the wiki.

If I had one guess, I'd go with Cotton.

Incidentally, Michael Nesmith is the Michael Nesmith of The Monkees!

 

[Evo]

Gokul invented White-Out! (He's much older than he leads us to believe).

 

[chemisttree]

The inventor was indeed a Chemistry teacher (at a local university) but his day job was as a professional chemist.

Graham continued experimenting with the makeup of the substance until she achieved the perfect combination of paint and several other chemicals. The refined product was renamed “Liquid Paper” in 1958 and, amid soaring demand, Graham applied for a patent and a trademark that same year.

http://www.women-inventors.com/Bette-Nesmith-Graham.asp
A minor correction here. Graham didn't continue to experiment with the makeup of the substance until she achieved the perfect combination of paint and several other chemicals but, rather, caused it to be done by another. And then patented the improvement and the rest is history.

 

[Evo]

The inventor was indeed a Chemistry teacher (at a local university) but his day job was as a professional chemist.

So, you're saying Graham did not invent White-Out/Liquid paper? Please post a link to where you are getting this information. I've only seen Graham credited with inventing the product ALONE. Subsequent improvements had input from others, so what?

You first said she had help, then you said some chemistry teacher invented an alternative to it, now you're saying some chemistry teacher invented it. I can find nothing to back up either of your claims that she did not invent it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Evo, I think Chemistree is asking us a trivia question (probably from personal experience).

Cotton is wrong. Who is it?

 

[Evo]

Evo, I think Chemistree is asking us a trivia question (probably from personal experience).

Cotton is wrong. Who is it?

Read my last post. He keeps changing who invents what. He's not making any sense.

Chemistree if you are saying that it's not true that Graham invented the original product, then you need to back that up.

If you mean to ask if anyone knows the name of the chemist that later helped her, then ask that.

 

[chemisttree]

So, you're saying Graham did not invent White-Out/Liquid paper?

I never said that. I said that she had help.

Please post a link to where you are getting this information. I've only seen Graham credited with inventing the product ALONE.

What happened to the chemistry teacher that you mentioned in post #5 and #11?

Subsequent improvements had input from others, so what?

So, by law she must include the chemist as a co-inventor.

You first said she had help, then you said some chemistry teacher invented an alternative to it, now you're saying some chemistry teacher invented it. I can find nothing to back up either of your claims that she did not invent it.

I'm saying that a professional chemist developed the formula that she ultimately sold to Gillette. And yes, that professional chemist also taught night courses at a local university.

Google found it for me.

 

[Evo]

I never said that. I said that she had help.

You said it in these two posts

The original (not the one Nesmith Graham developed independently)

The inventor was indeed a Chemistry teacher (at a local university) but his day job was as a professional chemist.

What happened to the chemistry teacher that you mentioned in post #5 and #11?

I have no idea, you were the one asking who helped her in your OP.

So, by law she must include the chemist as a co-inventor.

No, someone that either volunteers advice or is paid for advice on IMPROVEMENTS to a product already being sold is NOT a co-inventor.

I'm saying that a professional chemist developed the formula that she ultimately sold to Gillette. And yes, that professional chemist also taught night courses at a local university.

So what? That happens to be posted in the FAQ on the Liquid Paper site. Apparently he doesn't get credit for much. And neither does the office supplier or the painter. I don't get what your point is. Are you saying that the chemist is claiming he should be recognized more? That he was somehow cheated? I don't see any such claims.

Seriously, most products on the market have been improved upon after they were invented. The people that made the improvements are not retroactively credited with being the inventor.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So, by law she must include the chemist as a co-inventor.

Did she?

 

[chemisttree]

No, he wasn't cheated. He was under contract, however.
But that still counts for co-inventorship in the US. The story he recounted to me was a little different than those on the web. The story as he told it was that Bette showed up at his office with a can of flat wall paint and an empty fingernail polish bottle and said that she needed help.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

No.

In that case, I would say we're finished here.

 

[chemisttree]

No, someone that either volunteers advice or is paid for advice on IMPROVEMENTS to a product already being sold is NOT a co-inventor.

My patent attorney would be horrified...
(I hope I don't get banned for this...)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Legally, today anyway, if the contract said "works for hire", then there is no legal claim to ownership. If not, then it might be argued in court. Of course this assumes that the changes made were significant enough [to justify another patent?]. I don't think something considered to be an improvement would ever lead to ownership.. well, again, unless the change made was signficant and innovative.

 

[Evo]

My patent attorney would be horrified...
(I hope I don't get banned for this...)

Maybe you should get a new patent attorney. I'm not overly familiar with Patent law, but I don't know of any cases where someone was hired to make improvements to an existing product and got credit for the original invention. Take the telephone, for instance. The invention is credited to Alexander Graham Bell, even though he and Thomas Watson worked on it together. Bell is credited with the invention, not Watson. This chemist you mention wasn't even around when White-Out was invented, his help in improving it came much later, unless your chemist has proof otherwise, which would be interesting, but then why hasn't he filed suit?

While Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Watson worked on the harmonic telegraph at the insistent urging of Hubbard and other backers, Bell nonetheless met in March 1875 with Joseph Henry, the respected director of the Smithsonian Institution, who listened to Bell's ideas for a telephone and offered encouraging words. Spurred on by Henry's positive opinion, Bell and Watson continued their work. By June 1875 the goal of creating a device that would transmit speech electrically was about to be realized. They had proven that different tones would vary the strength of an electric current in a wire. To achieve success they therefore needed only to build a working transmitter with a membrane capable of varying electronic currents and a receiver that would reproduce these variations in audible frequencies.

In the 1870s, two inventors Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell both independently designed devices that could transmit speech electrically (the telephone). Both men rushed their respective designs to the patent office within hours of each other, Alexander Graham Bell patented his telephone first. Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell entered into a famous legal battle over the invention of the telephone, which Bell won.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltelephone.htm

 

[Evo]

Legally, today anyway, if the contract said "works for hire", then there is no legal claim to ownership. If not, then it might be argued in court. Of course this assumes that the changes made were significant enough [to justify another patent?]. I don't think something considered to be an improvement would ever lead to ownership.. well, again, unless the change made was signficant and innovative.

I agree.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I hope there is no confusion concerning the difference between the inventor and the 'owner' of a patent. I am about to get a patent myself along with two colleagues. We are all employed under a 'work for hire' agreement. Although the company owns our work, the company is not mentioned as an inventor, only we three. Just yesterday we signed the assignment document. The patent office recognizes this as an agreement by the inventor(s) that someone else (the assignee) owns the rights to the patent.

So, someone writes on the net that he met someone who said that he was the inventor of liquid paper. That's two stories I have to believe. But why did the OP ask if I knew that? How could I possibly?

 

[Moonbear]

Maybe you should get a new patent attorney. I'm not overly familiar with Patent law, but I don't know of any cases where someone was hired to make improvements to an existing product and got credit for the original invention. Take the telephone, for instance. The invention is credited to Alexander Graham Bell, even though he and Thomas Watson worked on it together. Bell is credited with the invention, not Watson.

Yes, but a quick skim through patent records will show that there are many more "inventors" of improved-upon telephones out there. They just aren't the inventor of the FIRST phone, so don't get that level of recognition. They are still inventors. The phone sitting on your desk right now was not invented by Bell or Watson, you can find out who did invent it by looking at the patent stamp on it and looking up who the inventor is.

She may have had the product idea, but it's possible the chemist actually made it happen. Though, as Ivan points out, if he did it under contract to her, and the contract specified patent rights, then he has no claim on it. On the other hand, if there was no stipulation of that sort, he could potentially claim inventorship if he has the records to prove it (and the contract might even help prove it), and sue...how strong his case is would determine if he could win or not (and how deep his pockets...he'd be battling some very well-established companies with some of the best patent lawyers at their beck and call).

 

[Evo]

Yes, but a quick skim through patent records will show that there are many more "inventors" of improved-upon telephones out there. They just aren't the inventor of the FIRST phone,

Exactly. Bell is acknowledge as the inventor of the original phone, just as Graham is the acknowledged inventor of White-Out. Someone that comes along later and makes improvements cannot retroactively claim to be the original inventor if they were not actually involved in the original invention. That this chemist never tried to lay claim to a patent for a formula change in his own name makes me believe that he didn't have the legal right to do so. Even if he could claim a patent for the formula change, he still cannot claim to be the original inventor. He's just improved on the invention.

It seems that chemistree is confusing the possiblity of getting a patent on an improvement with being recognized as the original inventor.

 

[BobG]

I hope there is no confusion concerning the difference between the inventor and the 'owner' of a patent. I am about to get a patent myself along with two colleagues. We are all employed under a 'work for hire' agreement. Although the company owns our work, the company is not mentioned as an inventor, only we three. Just yesterday we signed the assignment document. The patent office recognizes this as an agreement by the inventor(s) that someone else (the assignee) owns the rights to the patent.

So, someone writes on the net that he met someone who said that he was the inventor of liquid paper. That's two stories I have to believe. But why did the OP ask if I knew that? How could I possibly?

Yes, there's a difference between the 'inventor' and the person(s) that own the rights to the invention. Getting one's name on the patent as the inventor is important even if the rights belong to the company that the inventor works for. It's a big boost for his future employment even if he doesn't get any money from the invention itself.

Who's listed as the inventor (and the order listed) is more an ethical question than a legal question, especially if a team of workers invented something. You get an 'inventor' like 'Jones, Davis, Johnson, etal' and some of the inventors get ignored. Or the etal might not even be on the patent, leaving the impression that only the inventors listed did all the work.

If she paid someone to help her with a key part of the invention, it would probably be more ethical to list him as an inventor, even if he doesn't get any rights to the invention.