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