The ‘clock spring’ affair

In the fifties, Emmanuel Steverlynck wanted to penetrate the important American market at all costs. However, this was no small task. Until then, two national companies had established a firm monopoly position in this market, which had a noticeable effect on prices. When Picañol's breakthrough in the American market occurred, it was partly due to the ‘clock spring’ affair. The largest American competitor, the Draper firm, was willing to do anything to prevent Picañol from selling its looms on American soil. In fact, during one of their efforts, they sued Picañol for infringement of a patent of theirs, deposited in 1952. This patent describes the use of coil springs ('clock springs') for retracting the weaving frames. However, the Bockstael Patent Office was able to demonstrate that Picañol had exhibited such a retraction system at the ITMA-exhibition in Lille (1951), and that consequently this had been preceded by several years of research. Moreover, the Picañol family from Sabadell had already filed a patent on 'the use of coil springs for raising roller blinds' before their arrival in Ieper. Due to the fact that in the meantime Picañol had also filed its own patent for the use of multiple 'clock springs', Draper was never able to market broad and heavy fabric machines.