Why didn't Seiko patent quartz technology?

I wondered if anyone knows the answer or can give some insights to this question. I am thinking about using it as an example of why patents aren't the be-all and end-all when it comes to commercialising research for some training I'm delivering to biotech companies.

Scientists are often obsessed with the idea of patents, either finding them massively off putting and associate them with the idea of hiding research from others, or think they grant a licence to print money.

In an effort to illustrate the wider picture I'd like to use quartz technology as an example of something which was not patented. It seems to be because the technological advantage was already in Seiko's hands, and a wider adoption and ensuing quartz crisis was beneficial to the brand, who presumably supplied movements for many brands around that time (but before my time, so not sure).

Answers on a postcard :)

Cheers
Chris

I’d say you’re about spot on.
You can either be the only company making something or the biggest.

My answer is because they couldn't patent it.
First because they were not the first, but your question would then apply to the Swiss industry; and second because while they may be the first to have used quartz as a high frequency oscillator, the theory preexisted and had been published, making any patent claim a very expensive and hazardous venture.
On top of all the other reasons you are undoubtedly familiar with as to why you should take the patent and why you shouldn't. But I do not believe philanthropy got in the way :icon_biggrin:

Thanks folks. I wondered if Japanese culture played a part in things. Thanks for the article, I'll have a look. We have academics who only want to publish, so I can see how something derived from research (especially where the technology is being evolved/miniaturised) becomes fair game for technology transfer into commercial products, and Seiko were minded to take advantage of it, perhaps less wedded to the mechanical.