1837 Ice Hockey in Montreal

[Theokritos]

Sorry the ''Starr Acme Club Skate'' was invented in 1863 by the way and Renamed the ''Starr Hockey Skate'' in 1866.

This is not true, although the claim gets repeated again and again. As mentioned above the SIHR guys actually looked into the contemporary (1860s) evidence (including Nova Scotia patent records) and found that the skate was not yet referred to as "Hockey Skate" back in 1866.

 

[James Laverance]

This is not true, although the claim gets repeated again and again. As mentioned above the SIHR guys actually looked into the contemporary (1860s) evidence (including Nova Scotia patent records) and found that the skate was not yet referred to as "Hockey Skate" back in 1866.

''SIHR guys?''

''WHO CARES!"

 

[Theokritos]

''SIHR guys?''

''WHO CARES!"

Everybody who cares for historical accuracy. They refer to the contemporary sources – the only ones that really matter in the end. To say you don't care is, frankly, the same as to say you're not interested in the facts at all. Which would surprise to me hear, considering your dedicated efforts to look into questions of hockey history.

 

[James Laverance]

This is not true, although the claim gets repeated again and again. As mentioned above the SIHR guys actually looked into the contemporary (1860s) evidence (including Nova Scotia patent records) and found that the skate was not yet referred to as "Hockey Skate" back in 1866.

Listen I'm sorry I mentioned that.
SIHR were quite helpful to me at one point before
and still occasionally help me out.
Thanks.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Patents

This is not true, although the claim gets repeated again and again. As mentioned above the SIHR guys actually looked into the contemporary (1860s) evidence (including Nova Scotia patent records) and found that the skate was not yet referred to as "Hockey Skate" back in 1866.

Sadly the SIHR guys while recognized amateur historians, are not Patent lawyers or intellectual property lawyers.

Sound legal advice of any era would not have limited the Patent application to a single specific use. You patent the item for the broadest application, not the narrowest.

Patenting the skate in question as a "Hockey" skate as the SIHR proposes would have opened the door to legal infringement and the production of the skate design by other companies. Simply calling the skate a recreational skate would have trumped the the Hockey Skate Patent because the manufacturer was producing a skate for recreation and that buyers chose to play ice hockey while wearing it was a coincidence.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Historical Accuracy

Everybody who cares for historical accuracy. They refer to the contemporary sources – the only ones that really matter in the end. To say you don't care is, frankly, the same as to say you're not interested in the facts at all. Which would surprise to me hear, considering your dedicated efforts to look into questions of hockey history.

This is a rather interesting but limiting viewpoint.

Historical accuracy within a paragraph gets funneled very quickly to hockey history.

To the specifics of the comment. While it may be historically accurate to research and point out that in the Patent application the word Hockey or phrase Ice Hockey was not used, is this evidence alone sufficient or meaningful.

Was research done to determine if the actual patent application was an example of the best possible contemporary legal advice that offered the applicant the the best, broadest and strongest legal protection for the patented skate or was the advice deficient.

Did the actual patent as found by SIHR research withstand challenges while allowing Starr to take action against infringement? Unless the SIHR cann document the follow-up issues their efforts stopped well short of exhaustive research of the issue.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Talking Metaphorically

This touches on the core of the issue with John T. Knox. The claim that "Canada won the American Civil War for the North" is a massive exaggeration by someone who obviously loved to talk big. Yet it is indeed true that some 40,000 (or so) Canadians did fight for the Union in the Civil War.

People talk metaphorically all the time. Donald Trump building "a wall" along the USA/Mexico border is a prime example.

Yet most buy the comment as a real physical wall with no understanding of the logistics or appreciation of the metaphor.

 

[James Laverance]

^^^Thanks for info!

Very well said!

PS Hope to learn more interesting facts or ideas from you in the near future.

 

[Sanf]

I wish that the Birthplaceofhockey site would actually provide somesort of evidence that it was Hockey skate. I haven´t seen that mentioned in the old ads. I understand that it was first mentioned to be hockey skate in 1893? Isn´t it tiny bit suspicious that hockey skate is created in 1866 and it is first called a hockey skate in 1893. I understand that it would not be good to advertise it as hockey spesific skate, but to not even mention that it is good for hockey, hurley, shinney... is weird.

Also I´m still interested if they patented several type of Forbes skate models or was the patent just for the self-fastening mechanism for which they just added different blade types? Because like in here you see several different Forbes Patent Skates sold... link

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

I wish that the Birthplaceofhockey site would actually provide somesort of evidence that it was Hockey skate. I haven´t seen that mentioned in the old ads. I understand that it was first mentioned to be hockey skate in 1893? Isn´t it tiny bit suspicious that hockey skate is created in 1866 and it is first called a hockey skate in 1893. I understand that it would not be good to advertise it as hockey spesific skate, but to not even mention that it is good for hockey, hurley, shinney... is weird.

Also I´m still interested if they patented several type of Forbes skate models or was the patent just for the strap mechanism for which they just added different blade types? Because like in here you see several different Forbes Patent Skates sold... link

You are absolutely correct. As far as I know it wasn't until ca 1893 that a specific hockey skate was patented by Starr Manufacturing Co.
If anyone have a contemporary source saying otherwise earlier than that, then please post it here. That would be great.

As far as we know today, the "Standard Hockey Skates" were the first skates manufactured with hockey specifically in mind.
These were made in Sheffield, England.

The “Standard Hockey Skates†had two crossed sticks and a ball, with the letters S.H (Standard Hockey) upon the blade and upon the straps. They were authorized to be used by the National Skating Association on October 14, 1881.

But it would be great if someone can find a contemporary source before this date (1881) with some other specific hockey skates.

 

[James Laverance]

You are absolutely correct. As far as I know it wasn't until ca 1893 that a specific hockey skate was patented by Starr Manufacturing Co.
If anyone have a contemporary source saying otherwise earlier than that, then please post it here. That would be great.

As far as we know today, the "Standard Hockey Skates" were the first skates manufactured with hockey specifically in mind.
These were made in Sheffield, England.

The “Standard Hockey Skates” had two crossed sticks and a ball, with the letters S.H (Standard Hockey) upon the blade and upon the straps. They were authorized to be used by the National Skating Association on October 14, 1881.

But it would be great if someone can find a contemporary source before this date (1881) with some other specific hockey skates.

Found this...
1891-''THE STARR MFG. COMPANY, Halifax, N. S.: Genuine Acme Club Skates. Acme VC. Skeleton, Hockey and Racing Skates. In this, their twenty-fifth annual pricelist , the manufacturers state that the Genuine Acme Skate is used in Great Britain.''

https://books.google.ca/books?id=b6...=0CEcQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwiLw7WevuDHAhWOfpIKHapqBds

Also it mentions This skate in a book from 1868!
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Da...ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMIkcjnr8DgxwIVw3uSCh1gNguk

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent

Found this...
1891-''THE STARR MFG. COMPANY, Halifax, N. S.: Genuine Acme Club Skates. Acme VC. Skeleton, Hockey and Racing Skates. In this, their twenty-fifth annual pricelist , the manufacturers state that the Genuine Acme Skate is used in Great Britain.''

https://books.google.ca/books?id=b6...=0CEcQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwiLw7WevuDHAhWOfpIKHapqBds

Also it mentions This skate in a book from 1868!
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Da...ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMIkcjnr8DgxwIVw3uSCh1gNguk

Great contribution especially the Scientific American article. Nice to see research extending beyond traditional sport sections in newspapers to scientific and industrial journals which are more appropriate for the discussions pertaining to the technical détails of patents.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Patent Definition and Lifetime

You are absolutely correct. As far as I know it wasn't until ca 1893 that a specific hockey skate was patented by Starr Manufacturing Co.
If anyone have a contemporary source saying otherwise earlier than that, then please post it here. That would be great.

As far as we know today, the "Standard Hockey Skates" were the first skates manufactured with hockey specifically in mind.
These were made in Sheffield, England.

The “Standard Hockey Skates†had two crossed sticks and a ball, with the letters S.H (Standard Hockey) upon the blade and upon the straps. They were authorized to be used by the National Skating Association on October 14, 1881.

But it would be great if someone can find a contemporary source before this date (1881) with some other specific hockey skates.

The definition of patent : http://www.thefreedictionary.com/patent

As you may see the granting of a patent is not dependent how the product is described in advertising or everyday usage after the patent is granted.


Usually a patent was/is valid for twenty years, so there was no benefit to change a strong all use inclusive patent to a specific use "hockey" patent.

Prime example would be a patent for scissors. To obtain a patent the inventor would have to show some unique detail(s) for the scissors in question as cutting implements. Years later after renewal or not of the original patent, the inventor or someone else may obtain a distinct patent for "Paper Scissors" designed to cut paper. This new patent for "Paper Scissors" is just that, something slightly new that is use specific.

It does not mean that people wishing to cut paper did not use the old all purpose scissors to cut paper until the year the new patent was issued. Nor does it mean that they must from this day forward only use the new "Paper Scissors" to cut paper.

So back to ice hockey. The 1860s Starr Skate patents were found to be very advantageous when it came to playing ice hockey. No obligation or need for the patent holder to change the patent to hockey specific since the specific use for the skate fell under the general use umbrella.

In other words your objections or search for pre 1881 specific hockey skates brings no benefit to the discussion. Conversely if you could show what was unique or beneficial to hockey about the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates patent then there may be some interest.

As things stand you have the irony of the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates being approved by the National Skating Association(not a Hockey specific association but a skating association) October 14, 1881 or more than 10 years after the Starr patents were issued and used for multiple skating activities in Canada including ice hockey.

Basically an early licensing agreement disguised as a patent is what you have in 1881. The skates were authorized but not mandated as exclusive for the playing of ice hockey. Major difference. Patrt of a long line of possible skate options for those wishing to play ice hockey in the jurisdiction.

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

So back to ice hockey. The 1860s Starr Skate patents were found to be very advantageous when it came to playing ice hockey.

I don't think anyone is questioning that. I am sure these skates were used in the first Montreal games 1875, but they were still not specific "hockey skates" or advertised as such at the time.

In other words your objections or search for pre 1881 specific hockey skates brings no benefit to the discussion. Conversely if you could show what was unique or beneficial to hockey about the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates patent then there may be some interest.

It may not bring benefit to the discussion in your opinion, but it's still a fact that these specific hockey skates from at least 1881 (maybe earlier) are the earliest known skates made specifically for the game of hockey. The Starr skates were not as far as we know.
I have already posted info on the "Standard Hockey Skates" in another thread.

As things stand you have the irony of the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates being approved by the National Skating Association(not a Hockey specific association but a skating association) October 14, 1881 or more than 10 years after the Starr patents were issued and used for multiple skating activities in Canada including ice hockey.

I would say that the irony here is that you have absolutely no clue what the National Skating Association was all about.
When it was formed in Cambridge 1879 the object was specifically, and I quote:

" to promote and reward speed-skating by the establishment and management of amateur and open skating championships of England ; to promote and encourage figure-skating by the establishment of standards at which figure-skaters may aim, and by bestowing badges of merit on those who attain these standards ; to provide
rules for the game of hockey on the ice ; to promote the establishment of international skating contests in various countries under the direction of an international council "

When their first hockey rules came in 1883 they were the first known rules drawn up by a national association, predating the Montreal AHAC rules by more than three years.

Basically an early licensing agreement disguised as a patent is what you have in 1881. The skates were authorized but not mandated as exclusive for the playing of ice hockey. Major difference. Patrt of a long line of possible skate options for those wishing to play ice hockey in the jurisdiction.

Completely irrelevant. As early as 1881 we know for sure that specific skates were manufactured in Sheffield for the game of hockey in mind, nothing else, nothing less. It is simple as that.

The Starr skates were obviously very good for the game of hockey, but they were not specifically manufactured for it. That is the difference here. Unless you show me a contemporary ad from a newspaper or catalogue before 1881 that specifically say they were used for hockey, then the fact still remains, the Sheffield skates were the first ones produced with hockey specifically in mind.
It is not that hard to comprehend, is it ?

Laverance wrote that the ''Starr Acme Club Skate'' was invented in 1863 and Renamed the ''Starr Hockey Skate'' in 1866.
Theokritos corrected him on that.

I think you agree with me that we should try to deal with facts and not assumptions and fuzzy interpretations.

Do you have any sort of contemporary source dated before 1881 that says anything about the Starr skates being "Starr Hockey Skates" ? If you do, then I would love to see it and it would be awesome.

As I said, I don't think anyone doubt they were used before 1881 for hockey, but were they really called "hockey skates", or advertised as such at the time?

Are you saying that the "Standard Hockey Skates" from (at least) 1881 were not skates manufactured specifically for hockey?

To be perfectly honest with you, I have no idea what you are arguing against. I am providing you with facts and you are giving me some weird arguments in return.

 

[Theokritos]

Sound legal advice of any era would not have limited the Patent application to a single specific use. You patent the item for the broadest application, not the narrowest...

Conceded, but the fact remains that the popular notion the Starr Skate patented in 1866 was specifically developed for hockey is not supported by the historical evidence at this point.

the manufacturer was producing a skate for recreation and that buyers chose to play ice hockey while wearing it was a coincidence.

Exactly, it was a coincidence. I don't think anybody is denying the design features of the 1866 Starr Skate would have been benefitial for hockey and might have contributed to an increase in the popularity of playing the game (possibly to a decisive degree), if that's what you think the SIHR guys are aiming at. What they are really doing is disproving the notion the skate was developed for hockey and that the patent proves there was a viable demand for hockey skates as early as 1866.

Did the actual patent as found by SIHR research withstand challenges while allowing Starr to take action against infringement? Unless the SIHR cann document the follow-up issues their efforts stopped well short of exhaustive research of the issue.

Regardless, the SIHR researchers deserve credit for looking into the actual patent. Prior to that everybody was happy to accept the claim that Starr brought out a skate specifically for hockey in 1866, a notion that some still keep repeating.

As things stand you have the irony of the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates being approved by the National Skating Association(not a Hockey specific association but a skating association) October 14, 1881 or more than 10 years after the Starr patents were issued and used for multiple skating activities in Canada including ice hockey.

Fact of the matter is that the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates are the first known to be explicitly designed for hockey.

 

[Theokritos]

Let's be very precise here.

Talking of precision, it was an error on my part to think the manuscript mentioned in the article had been written by Michael Knox (the father) himself.

Mr. Knox has compiled bulky documents from information passed along to him by his late father. These pages, carefully written in long hand and bound with clothespins, give all the details attendant upont he origin of the game...

Picking out spots in his manuscript, in his own hand-writing and covering close to 100 pages, Mr. Knox described how the first goalposts were made and the original rules of hockey, then known as ice hurling, were drawn up.

These two passages are of course not referring to Michael Knox but to this son. I will give it a closer look and a better try when I've got time.

 

[James Laverance]

To be perfectly honest with you, i have no idea what you are arguing against. I am providing you with facts and you are giving me some weird arguments in return.

My reference stated that in 1891 the starr hockey skates had been purchased for 25 years before that so... thats 1866.
I still think it's an 1863 invention (based on photo) and BY 1866 IT WAS THE Hockey Skate.
http://www.birthplaceofhockey.com/origin/starr-hockey/

SO SRY FOR ANY SIGNS OF ARGUEMENT JUST LIKE THE DEBATE BOBBY THX

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

My reference stated 1891 starr hockey states been purchased for 25 years thats 1866 so i still think it's 1863 invention based on photo and BY 1866 IT WAS THE Hockey Skate.
SO SRY FOR ANY SIGNS OF ARGUEMENT JUST LIKE THE DEBATE BOBBY THX

No problem, but you still are not having your facts straight.
Nowhere can we see that by 1866 the Acme skate was "the Hockey skate", that is your own interpretation, big difference from being an established fact.

We know that this Acme skate was patented in 1866, that is a fact. We also know that the patent application didn't mention any hockey or similar game and it wasn't called "the Hockey skate".

Also that particular reference didn't state that "hockey skates" had been purchased for 25 years. That is your own interpretation.
What it said is that in their twenty-fifth annual pricelist they stated that the Acme skate was also used in Great Britain.

The argument here is not if in fact the Starr Acme skates were sold in 1866/1867, the argument here is that we have no contemporary evidence before 1891 or so that the skates were called "Hockey skates" or that they were advertised as such.

From what we know today the 1866 Acme skate was just ment for regular skating, we haven't seen anything from these days in newspapers that it was promoted for hockey, shinny, hurley or bandy. Not until the early 1890s, possibly late 1880s (pure speculation from my part).

As far as we know today (and that might change in the future), is that the "Standard Hockey Skates" from Sheffield were manufactured with the specific sport of hockey in mind as early as 1881 (at least). These are the earliest known skates produced for hockey as far as we know at this point. This is supported by the fact that it appeared in a contemporary book from 1881/1882 talking about it.

If you find any earlier instances of any other skate models manufactured specifically for hockey, then please provide them. I would be the first to applaude the effort because it would be a significant discovery in our hockey research.

Keep on diggin', that's the only way to push our hockey history back in time.
Hopefully you'll be able to come up with an earlier instance of a hockey skate than 1881, that would be awesome.

 

[James Laverance]

Thanks Bobby for your suggestions and advice.
The topic is getting complicated so...
I'll do my best to find any contemporary sources mentioning "HOCKEY"
When referring to these skates pre-1881
Thanks again

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hockey / Ice Hockey

I don't think anyone is questioning that. I am sure these skates were used in the first Montreal games 1875, but they were still not specific "hockey skates" or advertised as such at the time.



It may not bring benefit to the discussion in your opinion, but it's still a fact that these specific hockey skates from at least 1881 (maybe earlier) are the earliest known skates made specifically for the game of hockey. The Starr skates were not as far as we know.
I have already posted info on the "Standard Hockey Skates" in another thread.



I would say that the irony here is that you have absolutely no clue what the National Skating Association was all about.
When it was formed in Cambridge 1879 the object was specifically, and I quote:

" to promote and reward speed-skating by the establishment and management of amateur and open skating championships of England ; to promote and encourage figure-skating by the establishment of standards at which figure-skaters may aim, and by bestowing badges of merit on those who attain these standards ; to provide
rules for the game of hockey on the ice ; to promote the establishment of international skating contests in various countries under the direction of an international council "

When their first hockey rules came in 1883 they were the first known rules drawn up by a national association, predating the Montreal AHAC rules by more than three years.




Completely irrelevant. As early as 1881 we know for sure that specific skates were manufactured in Sheffield for the game of hockey in mind, nothing else, nothing less. It is simple as that.

The Starr skates were obviously very good for the game of hockey, but they were not specifically manufactured for it. That is the difference here. Unless you show me a contemporary ad from a newspaper or catalogue before 1881 that specifically say they were used for hockey, then the fact still remains, the Sheffield skates were the first ones produced with hockey specifically in mind.
It is not that hard to comprehend, is it ?

Laverance wrote that the ''Starr Acme Club Skate'' was invented in 1863 and Renamed the ''Starr Hockey Skate'' in 1866.
Theokritos corrected him on that.

I think you agree with me that we should try to deal with facts and not assumptions and fuzzy interpretations.

Do you have any sort of contemporary source dated before 1881 that says anything about the Starr skates being "Starr Hockey Skates" ? If you do, then I would love to see it and it would be awesome.

As I said, I don't think anyone doubt they were used before 1881 for hockey, but were they really called "hockey skates", or advertised as such at the time?

Are you saying that the "Standard Hockey Skates" from (at least) 1881 were not skates manufactured specifically for hockey?

To be perfectly honest with you, I have no idea what you are arguing against. I am providing you with facts and you are giving me some weird arguments in return.

Bolded - the flaw in your argument. The presumption you make is that by 1863 or 1866 the word "hockey" or the phrase "ice hockey" was used in consensus to describe the specific activity that by 1881 had become known as "hockey" or "ice hockey". So requesting that advertising or patents refer to "hockey" or "ice hockey" from a perspective 150+ years down the road does not work.

In the 1860s the activity that became "hockey" or "ice hockey" had many synonyms which have been listed to exhaustion here. Simply patenting a skate as a "hockey skate" per your insistance would have been absolute folly as it would have opened the door to multiple other manufacturers producing identical skates but calling them "shinty skates" or what every other synonym they would choose as a preface in their description.

Second bolded NSA- know exactly what it was about. Three reality checks for you. First getting a patent and having a patent upheld when challenged are two different things. Enforcing a patent is a third. Specifically was the 1881 Standard Hockey Skate patent enforced? Were legal remedies taken against skaters using the patented hockey specific skates for skating activities other than playing hockey? If the patent was not enforced then it was abandonned and as such is of little. value or consequence to the discussion.

Previously you stated that the NSA authorized the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates but did they mandate their use or prohibit the use of other skates for the activity of playing hockey? If they did not then perhaps you have a an example of an early licensing agreement for a patent that was quickly abandoned.

In summary your points are understood but they are not supported by the usage of the word hockey or its synonyms. Neither are they supported by concepts of patent protection and usage. Nor are they supported by early examples of sports licensing or relationships between governing bodies and manufacturers of sports equipment.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hockey

Conceded, but the fact remains that the popular notion the Starr Skate patented in 1866 was specifically developed for hockey is not supported by the historical evidence at this point.



Exactly, it was a coincidence. I don't think anybody is denying the design features of the 1866 Starr Skate would have been benefitial for hockey and might have contributed to an increase in the popularity of playing the game (possibly to a decisive degree), if that's what you think the SIHR guys are aiming at. What they are really doing is disproving the notion the skate was developed for hockey and that the patent proves there was a viable demand for hockey skates as early as 1866.



Regardless, the SIHR researchers deserve credit for looking into the actual patent. Prior to that everybody was happy to accept the claim that Starr brought out a skate specifically for hockey in 1866, a notion that some still keep repeating.



Fact of the matter is that the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates are the first known to be explicitly designed for hockey.

Assuming of course that there was complete consensus that in 1866 "hockey" was the unique word to describe the activity. Of course not - there were multiple synonyms.

So limiting the skate to "Hockey" as many wish to do, would have been counter-productive.

While the SIHR is to be applauded for researching the original patent, they deserve criticism for not asking the obvious follow-up question. Why would any lawyer, representing a manufacturer/inventor apply for a patent in a fashion that would be to their client's detriment?

 

[Theokritos]

In the 1860s the activity that became "hockey" or "ice hockey" had many synonyms which have been listed to exhaustion here.

And none of these terms appear in any relation to the Starr Skate prior to 1891, at least not in any contemporary source anybody is aware of.

Simply patenting a skate as a "hockey skate" per your insistance would have been absolute folly as it would have opened the door to multiple other manufacturers producing identical skates but calling them "shinty skates" or what every other synonym they would choose as a preface in their description.

Not the point as demonstrated above:

It may not bring benefit to the discussion in your opinion, but it's still a fact that these specific hockey skates from at least 1881 (maybe earlier) are the earliest known skates made specifically for the game of hockey. The Starr skates were not as far as we know.
I have already posted info on the "Standard Hockey Skates" in another thread... As early as 1881 we know for sure that specific skates were manufactured in Sheffield for the game of hockey in mind, nothing else, nothing less. It is simple as that.

Conceded, but the fact remains that the popular notion the Starr Skate patented in 1866 was specifically developed for hockey is not supported by the historical evidence at this point... Fact of the matter is that the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates are the first known to be explicitly designed for hockey.

This is wherein the value of these findings lie. And with that in mind...

Specifically was the 1881 Standard Hockey Skate patent enforced?... If the patent was not enforced then it was abandonned and as such is of little. value or consequence to the discussion.

... I can't see why they would be of little value.

Previously you stated that the NSA authorized the 1881 Standard Hockey Skates but did they mandate their use or prohibit the use of other skates for the activity of playing hockey?

Now this is a question that strikes me as having little value or consequence to the discussion.

In summary your points are understood...

Frankly, your post doesn't give me the impression the points are really understood, let alone appreciated.

Assuming of course that there was complete consensus that in 1866 "hockey" was the unique word to describe the activity. Of course not - there were multiple synonyms.

Unfortunately there is not a single reference to one of the synonyms either before 1891.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Patent Law vs History

^^^Simply good patent law in the 1860s conflicts with good historical research in the 21st century.

Asking that in retrospect good history procedures supercede good patent law does not work.

Effectively you and RGO are saying that the Starr Company or its legal advisors should have been poor patent applicants in the 1860s to conform with good history in 2015. They had no responsibility to do so. The Starr Company acted on the soundest legal advice to protect their property rights. That was the limit of their responsibility.

By doing so they did not conform to good history as defined in 2015. So what? They were not futuristic, but then no one was. This does detract from the importance of the skates they produced or the patents that they held.

 

[Theokritos]

Effectively you and RGO are saying that the Starr Company or its legal advisors should have been poor patent applicants in the 1860s to conform with good history in 2015.

Actually we're not even touching on what the Starr Company or anybody else should have done back in 1866. We're only touching on what people interested in hockey history should do today: Stop acting as if there is any evidence supporting the claim that the Starr Company designed and marketed a skate specifically for hockey as early as 1866 AD.

 

[Killion]

Not sure if accurate, but Ive read (cant remember where) that the first advertisement for skates that featured the word "hockey" prominently was from
Peck & Snyder circa 1870's. Peck & Snyder was a leading manufacturer & retailer of sporting goods & games, even musical instruments & novelty items based in the US. They started out retailing & even producing baseball equipment (and player/team cards, considered the "Granddaddy's of All Time" in that regard) just after the Civil War, eventually bought out by Spaulding. The skates called "American Standard" Hockey Skates. Based in NY, P&S claimed to be The Largest Dealers in Games of Sports in the World. There are in fact a couple of books written on the company tracing its history, and very likely trade in early ad panels & catalogs' though I cant find anything on-line that features their skates before 1890.