Editing Cordite (section)

=== Nobel and Abel patent dispute ===
{{See also|1895 vote of no confidence in the Rosebery ministry}}
Alfred Nobel sued Abel and Dewar over an alleged [[patent]] infringement. His patent specified that the nitrocellulose should be "of the well-known soluble kind". After losing the case, it went to the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]]. This dispute eventually reached the [[House of Lords]], in 1895, but it was finally lost because the words "of the well-known soluble kind" in his patent were taken to mean the soluble collodion, and hence specifically excluded the insoluble guncotton.<ref name="life of nobel-7">{{Harvnb|Schuck|Sohlman|1929|pages=136–144}}</ref> The ambiguous phrase was "soluble nitro-cellulose": soluble nitro-cellulose was known as ''Collodion'' and was soluble in [[ethanol|alcohol]]. It was employed mainly for medical and [[photograph]]ic use. In contrast, insoluble in alcohol, nitrocellulose was known as ''gun cotton'' and was used as an explosive.<ref name="life of nobel-7"/><ref name="life of nobel-I">{{Harvnb|Schuck|Sohlman|1929|loc=Appendix I: ''Alfred Nobel's English lawsuit. Mr justice Romer's judgment in the "Cordite Case"''}}</ref> Nobel's patent refers to the production of [[Celluloid]] using [[camphor]] and soluble nitrocellulose; and this was taken to imply that Nobel was specifically distinguishing between the use of soluble and insoluble nitrocellulose.<ref name="life of nobel-I"/> For a forensic analysis of the case, see The History of Explosives Vol II; The Case for Cordite, John Williams (2014).  However, in her comprehensive 2019 biography of Alfred Nobel<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Carlberg |first1=Ingrid |title=Nobel: Den gåtfulle Alfred, hans värld och hans pris |year=2019 |publisher=Norstedts |place=Stockholm |language=sv|isbn=978-91-1-306939-5  }}</ref> [[Ingrid Carlberg]] notes how closely Abel and Dewar were allowed to follow Nobel's work in Paris, and how disappointed Nobel was with how this trust was betrayed. The book argues for Nobel as the original inventor and that the case was lost because of an unimportant technicality.