‘new’ but scientifically ‘obvious’. As far as industrial applicability was concerned, there was no hint of a discussion on how the ‘eventual difficulties’ i.e.,
the expected engineering problems, would be overcome and so one could not
possibly deem it as applicable in that sense. Now Ostwald’s foray into the
ammonia arena in 1904 had unfortunate consequences, as the BASF’s Carl
Bosch could well testify (Chap. 3). Because of this weakness he was not seen
as the principal opponent despite his eminence, although challenging his
notion of applicability would undoubtedly lead to the BASF divulging the
progress they had made and the engineering solutions employed, and so his
opinion still needed to be discredited. Nernst however was a different
proposition and it was the BASF’s cunning manipulation of his opinion that
led to a resolution in their favour. Although Nernst had allied himself with
Griesheim, the BASF suddenly remembered that he had earlier also helped
them [with their objections], so they approached him again with two questions to address
2 viz, are the declarations in patent 238450 correct, and could
these have been predicted on the basis of publications known to you before
the establishment of the patent?
Their approach however was ‘sugar coated’, as the BASF appealed to his
vanity offering him an annual ‘honorarium’ of 10,000 marks for five years.
3
The BASF put various apparatus at Nernst’s disposal in order to ‘help him
formulate his opinion’. After going through the motions of conducting a few
experiments, Nernst suddenly pledged it a ‘national duty’ for him to defend
Haber’s patent and his observation was now that;
I cannot but express my active conviction that patent document 238450 deals
with results of a completely new type, and the declarations therein form a solid
experimental foundation for an extremely important new technical process …
it seems to me without a doubt the … patent under discussion is … worthy of
the protection given by the granting of a patent.
4
The opinions of the ‘old master’ Ostwald, and his ‘apprentice’ Nernst, were
therefore at odds and what was surprising to contemporary observers was the
subsequent astonishing union of former academic ‘adversaries’ such as Nernst
and Haber.
5 But what a difference an honorarium makes, and how adroitly
the BASF played their hand. In February 1912 the BASF informed Haber of
Nernst’s ‘miraculous’ support for his process and a date was set for hearing
the counter claims to the patent(s) at the national court in Leipzig on 04
March 1912. A few days before, the BASF team of Haber, Nernst, Bernthsen
and Bosch
6 met to discuss tactics, but their unanimous opinion was that their
position was weak. During the morning of the hearing, claims and counter
12 Berlin 1911–1914
225
the expected engineering problems, would be overcome and so one could not
possibly deem it as applicable in that sense. Now Ostwald’s foray into the
ammonia arena in 1904 had unfortunate consequences, as the BASF’s Carl
Bosch could well testify (Chap. 3). Because of this weakness he was not seen
as the principal opponent despite his eminence, although challenging his
notion of applicability would undoubtedly lead to the BASF divulging the
progress they had made and the engineering solutions employed, and so his
opinion still needed to be discredited. Nernst however was a different
proposition and it was the BASF’s cunning manipulation of his opinion that
led to a resolution in their favour. Although Nernst had allied himself with
Griesheim, the BASF suddenly remembered that he had earlier also helped
them [with their objections], so they approached him again with two questions to address
2 viz, are the declarations in patent 238450 correct, and could
these have been predicted on the basis of publications known to you before
the establishment of the patent?
Their approach however was ‘sugar coated’, as the BASF appealed to his
vanity offering him an annual ‘honorarium’ of 10,000 marks for five years.
3
The BASF put various apparatus at Nernst’s disposal in order to ‘help him
formulate his opinion’. After going through the motions of conducting a few
experiments, Nernst suddenly pledged it a ‘national duty’ for him to defend
Haber’s patent and his observation was now that;
I cannot but express my active conviction that patent document 238450 deals
with results of a completely new type, and the declarations therein form a solid
experimental foundation for an extremely important new technical process …
it seems to me without a doubt the … patent under discussion is … worthy of
the protection given by the granting of a patent.
4
The opinions of the ‘old master’ Ostwald, and his ‘apprentice’ Nernst, were
therefore at odds and what was surprising to contemporary observers was the
subsequent astonishing union of former academic ‘adversaries’ such as Nernst
and Haber.
5 But what a difference an honorarium makes, and how adroitly
the BASF played their hand. In February 1912 the BASF informed Haber of
Nernst’s ‘miraculous’ support for his process and a date was set for hearing
the counter claims to the patent(s) at the national court in Leipzig on 04
March 1912. A few days before, the BASF team of Haber, Nernst, Bernthsen
and Bosch
6 met to discuss tactics, but their unanimous opinion was that their
position was weak. During the morning of the hearing, claims and counter
12 Berlin 1911–1914
225