Haber from the effects of hyper-inflation, but nobody gives an exact amount.
About the same time, there was also a change in the German patent law (09
July 1923) which should also have benefitted Haber but he seems to have
been unaware of it. This change extended the duration of a patent from 15 to
18 years meaning that the ‘circulation’ and ‘high pressure’ patents—which
would have expired in 1923/24 respectively—now continued through to
1926/27. He should therefore have received substantial royalties from the
BASF in hard currency for the years 1924–1926/27, but in the event he did
not. It seems that the BASF had ‘conned’ him.
61 Friends advised him to go to
court, but by now his health was already too weak and he let the matter rest.
Even so, putting the loss of the additional revenue aside, Haber’s 1920
‘compensation’ for the reduction Mayer had arranged to protect Haber’s
finances from scrutiny by the Allies,
52 (and Chap. 14) the Nobel Prize money
and a possibly ‘generous’ settlement with the BASF for the hyper-inflation
years, should have put enough money ‘in the pot’ to honour his financial
obligation to Robert for 1918, possibly even through to the end of the
original patent protection.
Whether Haber made Robert aware of the extent of these settlements we
don’t know. But what we do know is that the payment for 1918 does not
seem to have been made and that around the time Haber was receiving his
Nobel Prize in Stockholm, Robert traveled to Berlin to check on his ‘affairs’.
In a letter from St Johns Road written to ‘Bertie’ dated 22 July 1920 which
remains in the family, we gain some insight into Roberts financial arrangements, which appear to have been a little insecure. The salient points are;
Dear Bertie,
… I have a suggestion which I would like to make and which I hope you will
agree to. Unfortunately, I have to put a condition on it for the present but I
am sure you will understand. Years ago, you suggested jokingly that when
the ammonia turned trumps, I should give you a car. I would like to do that
now; you said when I was last in Jersey you would sell me your car for
£600. I wish to buy it, for which I enclose a cheque for £600 and I wish you
to accept the car from me as a present, I hope you will like the car, as far as
I know the last owner looked after it very well. The provision is that if I do
not get some of my money in a year, you sell the car for me, if it fetches more
that £600 you are to take the difference.
Now, I would like to tell you what happened in Berlin. I found my affairs in
good condition but it was a good thing that I went as several matters had to
be seen to. Whilst I was there, I had £1000 from my money which was due
15 The Post-war Years 1919–1930
345
About the same time, there was also a change in the German patent law (09
July 1923) which should also have benefitted Haber but he seems to have
been unaware of it. This change extended the duration of a patent from 15 to
18 years meaning that the ‘circulation’ and ‘high pressure’ patents—which
would have expired in 1923/24 respectively—now continued through to
1926/27. He should therefore have received substantial royalties from the
BASF in hard currency for the years 1924–1926/27, but in the event he did
not. It seems that the BASF had ‘conned’ him.
61 Friends advised him to go to
court, but by now his health was already too weak and he let the matter rest.
Even so, putting the loss of the additional revenue aside, Haber’s 1920
‘compensation’ for the reduction Mayer had arranged to protect Haber’s
finances from scrutiny by the Allies,
52 (and Chap. 14) the Nobel Prize money
and a possibly ‘generous’ settlement with the BASF for the hyper-inflation
years, should have put enough money ‘in the pot’ to honour his financial
obligation to Robert for 1918, possibly even through to the end of the
original patent protection.
Whether Haber made Robert aware of the extent of these settlements we
don’t know. But what we do know is that the payment for 1918 does not
seem to have been made and that around the time Haber was receiving his
Nobel Prize in Stockholm, Robert traveled to Berlin to check on his ‘affairs’.
In a letter from St Johns Road written to ‘Bertie’ dated 22 July 1920 which
remains in the family, we gain some insight into Roberts financial arrangements, which appear to have been a little insecure. The salient points are;
Dear Bertie,
… I have a suggestion which I would like to make and which I hope you will
agree to. Unfortunately, I have to put a condition on it for the present but I
am sure you will understand. Years ago, you suggested jokingly that when
the ammonia turned trumps, I should give you a car. I would like to do that
now; you said when I was last in Jersey you would sell me your car for
£600. I wish to buy it, for which I enclose a cheque for £600 and I wish you
to accept the car from me as a present, I hope you will like the car, as far as
I know the last owner looked after it very well. The provision is that if I do
not get some of my money in a year, you sell the car for me, if it fetches more
that £600 you are to take the difference.
Now, I would like to tell you what happened in Berlin. I found my affairs in
good condition but it was a good thing that I went as several matters had to
be seen to. Whilst I was there, I had £1000 from my money which was due
15 The Post-war Years 1919–1930
345