Part IThe Story
On February 3, 1913, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in a case whose caption carried the name of a Salem shoemaker's son. United States v. Sidney W. Winslow, Edward P. Hurd, George W. Brown, William Barbour, and Elmer P. Howe, No. 620, had been argued on January 10 and was decided twenty-four days later. The government's brief went in under the name of Solicitor General Bullitt. The defense needed four men: Charles F. Choate Jr., Frederick P. Fish, Malcolm Donald, and William A. Sargent. Whatever they said to the Court has not survived in the official report, which marks pages 203 through 214 with a bracketed editorial shrug: Argument of Counsel intentionally omitted. Eleven pages of the best legal talent in Boston, reduced to a typographical gap. What remains is Holmes, and Holmes began with the facts.
"For the last twenty-five years practically all the shoes worn in the United States have been made by the help of machines," he wrote, and then he named them as a cobbler might name his tools. Lasting machines. Welt-sewing machines. Outsole-stitching machines. Heeling machines. Metallic fastening machines. He gave the percentages: before February 7, 1899, Winslow, Hurd, and Brown, through the Consolidated and McKay Lasting Machine Company, made 60 percent of all the lasting machines in the United States. Barbour and Howe, through the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company, made 80 percent of the welt-sewing and outsole-stitching machines and 10 percent of the lasting machines. A defendant named Storrow, against whom the indictment had since been dismissed, made through the McKay company 70 percent of the heeling machines and 80 percent of the metallic fastening machines. Then, on a single day in 1899, the three groups, "up to that time separate," turned their stock over to a new company that made everything at one new factory in Beverly, Massachusetts.
And then the sentence that matters, or rather the half of it that matters most: "The defendants have ceased to sell shoe machinery to the shoe manufacturers. Instead—"
Everything Sidney Wilmot Winslow built hangs on that word. Instead. Instead of selling, he leased. Instead of a market of a dozen rival patent-holders, each chasing royalties on its single clever device, he assembled a system: one company, one factory, one relationship with every shoe factory in America, renewed every year and priced, in its purest form, against the shoes that came off the line. The government had indicted him for it. The district court in Boston had thrown out the indictment on demurrer in March 1912. Holmes and his colleagues now let that ruling stand. The prosecution of Sidney Winslow failed.
He was fifty-eight that winter, a descendant through his mother of a man who had crossed on the Mayflower, and he had become, in his own lifetime and in his own name, a legal citation — 227 U.S. 202 — in a body of law that would still be arguing with his company forty years after his death. He left almost nothing in his own voice. No memoir, no collected letters in the record available here, no famous maxim. What he left was an arrangement. A way of standing between a craftsman and his tools and charging rent on the space.
By the Numbers
The Shoe Machinery Colossus
$25,000,000Authorized capital of the United Shoe Machinery Company at its New Jersey incorporation, February 1899
80%Share of the U.S. shoe machinery market by 1910
$40MCompany assets by 1910
24,000Machines shipped from Beverly per year by 1916
9,000Workers employed at the company's peak
200 acresSite of the reinforced-concrete factory complex in Beverly known as 'The Shoe'
$400MRaised in the court-ordered divestiture that finally came half a century after Winslow's death
A Commonwealth That Forbade Combinations
In 1651 the Massachusetts General Court authorized the shoemakers of Boston to organize, and in the same breath it told them what they could not do. "No unlawful combination may be made at any time by the said company of shoemakers," the act read, "for enhancing the price of shoes, boots or wages whereby either owner or people may suffer." No shoemaker was to refuse to make shoes for any inhabitant, at reasonable rates, from the customer's own leather. The Puritans, as Fred A. Gannon puts it in his little history of American shoemaking, printed by Newcomb & Gauss in Salem, tried to make the laws of Moses the laws of the land, and the laws of Moses apparently had views on the leather trade. Butchers were forbidden to tan. Tanners were forbidden to make shoes. Shoemakers were forbidden to make leather. Persons "of mean estate" were not to wear great boots. The colony wanted its shoes made honestly, cheaply, and by many hands, none of which held the others by the throat.
Two and a half centuries later, a federal prosecutor would accuse a descendant of that colony's founding families of doing precisely the thing the General Court had prohibited.
Sidney Wilmot Winslow was born on September 20, 1854, in Brewster, on Cape Cod — that is what his obituary says, and what the Thomas Rogers Society's genealogical directory says, and what Historic Salem says. A student's page on the history of Beverly, written in 2002, says he was born in Lynn. The weight of the record sits with Brewster, but the confusion is instructive: Lynn was the shoe city, the place where the craft lived, and it is easy to see how a man so thoroughly identified with shoes might be retroactively relocated there, as if his birthplace ought to match his trade. His mother was Lucy H. Rogers, born July 5, 1827, descended from Thomas Rogers, a passenger on the Mayflower. His father was Freeman Winslow Jr., born June 1, 1824, descended from Kenelm Winslow, an early settler of the Cape. The grandfather, another Freeman Winslow, married a woman named Fanny Berry, lived in Brewster, and died there on July 3, 1863. The line is as old as English New England gets.
The father moved the family to Salem during Sidney's boyhood and opened a shoe factory. The boy grew up at 15 Dean Street, a house later razed to make room for St. James Catholic Church, built between 1891 and 1900 — one of those small municipal palimpsests in which a Yankee boyhood is paved over by the arriving Irish, and nobody thinks much of it. He went to the Salem grammar and high schools. Then he went to work for his father, and he stayed for fourteen years.
The trade he entered was still half medieval. Gannon catalogues its folkways with an antiquarian's affection: the "ten-footer" workshops where farmers made shoes through long storms and winters; the "shin boards" that let a man sit close to the fire without burning his knees; the shoemaker's candle, two candles pressed into one with two wicks. There was a test, Gannon reports, for whether it was too cold to work — wet a lapstone, seat an unlucky apprentice on it, and if the boy's trousers froze to the stone, the shop took the day off. Shoemakers got drunk on St. Crispin's Day, once a holy day. The shops were a loafing place, a parliament. Henry Wilson, "the Natick Cobbler," talked politics over the bench and went on to become Vice President of the United States. In Salem there were "the Musical Shoemakers," who once contracted out to a circus for a summer.
And in Lynn — this is the detail that ought to stay with you — shoemakers established a general store, the Union store, and paid their employees not in cash but in orders on it. Scrip was exchanged for provisions. Men who demanded cash were refused employment. The captive transaction, the arrangement in which the person who controls your work also controls what you must buy, was not invented in the twentieth century. It was a local custom.
Young Winslow's obituary, published after his death in 1917, says that "the boy when in his teens was familiar with the tools of St. Crispin." He rose to foreman of the stitching room in his father's factory. The McKay sewing machine, which sewed soles to uppers, had only recently arrived, "a machine which marked the beginning of the supplanting of hand labor by machinery." Other machines followed, one at a time, each from a different maker. The foreman watched them come in.
In 1877, at twenty-two, he married Georgiana Buxton of Peabody, whom everyone called Georgie, and they bought a house at 140 Federal Street in Salem, built in 1794. Their first son, Sidney Wilmot Jr., was born in Salem on June 24, 1880. Historic Salem says the couple had four children in that house, two girls and two boys; the genealogical record says the younger son, Edward Harrison Winslow, was born on February 18, 1888 — some sixteen months after his father had sold the Federal Street house. The records do not quite agree, and I have not been able to reconcile them. It is a small thing. It is also the kind of small thing that reminds you how thin the documentary skin is over a life that, at its height, controlled the machinery that shod a nation.
Every Invention Its Own Company
The problem the foreman saw from the stitching-room floor was not, in the first instance, a problem of technology. It was a problem of organization.
"In those days," Historic Salem's account explains, "every time there was an innovation in shoe manufacturing, a special company was formed to exploit the invention." A small manufacturer who wanted to mechanize had to deal with one company for lasting, another for welting, another for heeling, another for fastening — each with its own patents, its own terms, its own mechanics, its own lawyers. The disadvantage to the small shop was obvious to anyone who had to keep fifty different machines running at once. A boot factory, the Wikipedia history notes, could use fifty different machines to stay competitive. Fifty machines; potentially a dozen vendors; no one responsible for whether the whole thing worked.
The history of the lasting machine alone is a case study in how much money a fragmented industry could burn. Lasting — pulling the upper tight over the wooden form, the "last," and fastening it to the insole — gave the shoe most of its visible shape, and because every shoe was a slightly different negotiation between leather and wood, it was the last great holdout against the machine. There were English patents in 1844 and American patents in 1859 and 1860. In 1864 the American Lasting Machine Company was organized to market the invention of William Wells of Danvers, who had previously invented a pegging machine. In 1872 Colonel Gordon McKay, James W. Brooks, and Charles W. Glidden formed the McKay Lasting Machine Association, bought the American company's patents, and spent $120,000 — "an immense sum in those days" — trying to make them work. In 1876 George Copeland patented and exhibited at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia the first practical bed-type lasting machine. The McKay group, meanwhile, absorbed a machine invented by Henry G. Thompson of Hartford, on which $100,000 had been spent since 1873, and formed the McKay and Thompson Lasting Machine Association.
Then the two camps sued each other. The litigation lasted four years and cost more than $300,000, "and neither group was making money." McKay won, and then — having won — combined with the loser, forming the McKay and Copeland Lasting Machine Association in 1881. The result was a practical machine, but limited to heavy work. The royalty was set at half a cent per pair of shoes and three-quarters of a cent for pegged boots.
Read that sequence again and notice its shape. Inventors spend fortunes. Rivals sue. The winner absorbs the loser. The combined entity charges by the pair. The entire logic of what Sidney Winslow would later do at continental scale is already present in miniature, two decades before the United Shoe Machinery Company existed — enacted by other men, at a loss, in a single product category. Winslow did not invent the pattern. He noticed it, and he noticed it from the customer's side of the counter.
His first move was close to home. In 1883, before he was thirty, he secured a controlling interest in the Naumkeag buffing machine — a machine invented by his father. Naumkeag is the old Algonquian name for Salem. The son's first act as a capitalist was to take control of the father's invention and make it a business, which is either a story about filial devotion or a story about the generational transfer of intellectual property, and is probably both.
The Laster From Paramaribo
The second move made his fortune, and it depended on a man whose biography could hardly have been further from Cape Cod.
Jan Earnst Matzeliger was born in Paramaribo, in Dutch Guiana, in 1852, the son of a well-educated Dutchman sent out to oversee government works and a native woman of the colony. At ten he began training as a machinist in a government shop under his father's supervision, and he showed a remarkable ability to repair complex machinery, often doing so when he accompanied his father to a factory. His apprenticeship ended at nineteen. He went to sea on an East Indian merchant ship for a couple of years. By the early 1880s he was in Lynn, Massachusetts, working a McKay stitcher at the Harney Brothers shoe factory, speaking only broken English.
All around him were inventors and expert machinists "with ample financial backing" trying to produce a good lasting machine. Matzeliger, working alone, made the breakthrough. The principle of his hand-method lasting machine, according to the shoe-industry historian whose account survives on the C. T. Williams blog, "has never changed during the course of its production life." The same writer insists he is "a man worthy to be remembered along with Howe and Blake" — Elias Howe of the sewing machine, Lyman Blake of the sole-sewing machine that McKay commercialized. The United States Post Office eventually put Matzeliger on a stamp.
Winslow, the foreman's son, a little more than two years Matzeliger's junior, saw what the machine was. His obituary is unusually emphatic on the point: "The idea that machinery could ever do the work of hand lasters had always been ridiculed, but Matzeliger solved the problem... Mr. Winslow saw the value and the possibilities of this invention at the start, and in the 1890s made a commercial and financial success of it." Winslow "took hold" of the machine. Lasting patents came to be owned by the Consolidated & McKay Lasting Machine Company, in which Winslow, Edward P. Hurd, and George W. Brown were the controlling figures. By the time of the 1899 merger, that company made 60 percent of all the lasting machines in the United States.
There is a symmetry here that New England's industrial histories tend to pass over without comment. The man with the Mayflower lineage did not invent the thing that made him rich. The man who invented it was a sailor-machinist from South America who learned his trade in a colonial government shop and arrived in Lynn speaking a language few around him understood. The Yankee supplied the organization, the capital structure, the patents' legal armor, and the commercial terms. The immigrant supplied the idea. One of their names became a company president's; the other became a postage stamp. Both, in their way, lasted.
Three Groups, Up to That Time Separate
On February 7, 1899, Winslow brought the industry together.
The government's 1915 bill in equity, quoted at length in Judge Putnam's opinion of March 18 of that year, preserves the cast list. The defendants included Sidney W. Winslow, William Barbour, Elmer P. Howe, John H. Hanan, George E. Keith, Edward P. Hurd, George W. Brown, Rudolph Matz, and others — "owners, officers, directors, and agents" of a roster of companies: the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company, the International Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company, the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company of Canada, the Consolidated & McKay Lasting Machine Company, the McKay Shoe Machinery Company, the Eppler Welt Machine Company, the International Eppler Welt Machine Company, and the Davey Pegging Machine Company. Lasting, welting, stitching, heeling, fastening, pegging. Each company a fiefdom built around a patent cluster; each, by the late 1890s, dominant in its own narrow category.
The trick — and it was a trick in the magician's sense, a thing that looks simple once you've seen it done — was that these companies mostly did not compete with one another. Goodyear owned welt-sewing. Consolidated & McKay owned lasting. The McKay Shoe Machinery group owned heeling and metallic fastening. They were not rivals so much as adjacent monopolies, each holding one station on the same assembly line. Combining them did not, on the face of it, eliminate a competitor. It completed a catalog.
In February 1899 they incorporated the United Shoe Machinery Company under the laws of New Jersey, with an authorized capital of $25,000,000 — $12,500,000 preferred, $12,500,000 common — and a charter broad enough to "manufacture, buy, sell, lease, operate, and deal in and with all kinds of machinery, tools, and implements." New Jersey was where great American combinations went to be born in those years; the state's corporate law asked few questions. The capital came, per Historic Salem, from a syndicate of New York and New England businessmen, and they chose Winslow as the first president. He was forty-four.
The corporate geography that followed resembles a set of Russian dolls. A 1904 court petition refers to "the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company, of Portland, Maine, otherwise known as the United Shoe Machinery Company, of Portland, Maine." Putnam's 1915 opinion mentions "subordinate organizations made respondents and known as the United Shoe Machinery Company of Maine, etc." — the etc. doing considerable work. A separate United Shoe Machinery Corporation, also a New Jersey entity, was incorporated in 1905 (the Beverly student history gives September 25, 1903, for its opening; the Smithsonian account, via Wikipedia, says 1905), and in 1917, the year of Winslow's death, it absorbed the original Company. Headquarters were in Boston. The Boston building, photographed for the Leslie Jones Collection in 1930, still stands and is now called the Landmark.
The government's lawyers, writing in 1915, had their own theory of what all this was for. It is worth reading in full, because it is the most complete account of Winslow's strategy anyone ever set down — written by his adversaries.
— Bill in equity, United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. of New Jersey, as quoted by Judge Putnam, March 18, 1915Not being satisfied with the benefit of the lawful monopolies and rights belonging to them under letters patent of the United States and of other countries, which they had enjoyed for many years, pertaining to shoe machinery, and parts thereof, and designing and intending unduly, unreasonably, and unlawfully to extend, expand, and perpetuate said monopolies and rights... determined to acquire a complete monopoly of the manufacture, sale, and lease of shoe machinery.
The bill goes on: the plan was to acquire "the ownership or control of all concerns engaged in manufacturing and dealing in any and all kinds of shoe machinery, and then to refuse to sell or lease any of the essential machines to the manufacturer of shoes, except on condition that he buy or lease of them practically all other machinery of whatever kind necessary or useful to such manufacturer of shoes."
Strip the legal cadence away and what remains is a description of a platform. Patents are temporary; they expire. A customer relationship that covers every station on the factory floor does not expire. The government's complaint was that Winslow had converted a set of time-limited legal monopolies into a permanent structural one. Winslow's defenders would have said — did say, at length, in the pages the Supreme Court reporter omitted — that he had simply solved the small manufacturer's problem of fifty machines from a dozen vendors. Both descriptions are accurate. That is what made the case hard.
The Grammar of Instead
The lease was not Winslow's invention either. The Digital Public Library of America's exhibition on the Massachusetts shoe industry is plain about it: shoe manufacturers "did not have the option of purchasing the machines." Gordon McKay and Charles Goodyear Jr. had rented their inventions and collected royalties on every shoe produced, which allowed "the innovators of the shoemaking industry... to receive a steady flow of royalties from each shoe produced in factories that rented their technologies." The new company, per the Smithsonian's account, "continued the practice previously followed by its constituent firms of renting machinery that it manufactured instead of selling it."
What Winslow did was make the lease total.
A Danish engineer named E. F. Arnesen visited Beverly and wrote it up in 1916 for Ingeniøren under a title that translates as "A premier American factory." His summary is the clearest outside description of the model: the factory "maintains its market by a special lease system for its machines. This factory mainly does not sell its machines, but leases them to shoe manufacturers for an annual payment, or payment related to shoe production." Historic Salem's description of "the successful formula" adds the other two legs of the stool: "leasing, not selling, machinery, providing excellent equipment and service, and requiring the purchase of manufacturing supplies by the equipment lessees."
Consider what that does to the shoe manufacturer's position. He owns no machines, so his capital requirement is low; a small shop can mechanize without a bank loan. The machines are serviced by the company that built them, so when the laster jams, a United Shoe man comes to fix it. The payments scale with his output, so in a bad year he pays less. He is, in a narrow sense, extraordinarily well served. Two economists, Roger D. Blair and Jill Boylston Herndon, would later title a paper on the case "United Shoe Machinery and the Antitrust Significance of 'Free' Service" — and the quotation marks around free are the whole argument. The service was not free. It was paid for in a currency the manufacturer could not easily see: his inability to leave.
Because he cannot leave. If the essential machines come only on condition that he lease practically everything else from the same source, then a rival's better heeling machine is useless to him; installing it would jeopardize his access to the lasting machine without which he cannot make shoes at all. If his supplies must be bought from the lessor, his consumables are captive too. He has traded ownership for convenience, and the trade is permanent.
The old Lynn shoe bosses who paid in scrip on the Union store and refused work to men who wanted cash would have recognized the shape of it. So, presumably, would the General Court of 1651. What made Winslow's version different was its sophistication, its scale, and the quality of what the customer actually received. The Union store sold indifferent provisions to men with no choice. United Shoe leased superb machines to factories that, by most accounts, did not want a choice — until they did.
There is a phrase in Holmes's opinion that captures the arrangement from the government's side, though Holmes was only summarizing the indictment. The defendants, he wrote, "have ceased to sell." Ceasing is an act. It implies a prior state of selling, a market where machines changed hands and became the property of the men who ran them, and a deliberate decision to end it. The craftsman of the ten-footer shop owned his awl and his lapstone. The manufacturer of 1913 owned neither the machines on his floor nor, in any meaningful sense, the terms on which he used them.
The Shoe
The factory was the argument made in concrete.
Construction began in 1903 on 200 acres in Beverly — an immense reinforced-concrete complex of three buildings that took three years to finish and that everyone in town came to call, simply, "The Shoe." Reinforced concrete was still a novel material for a plant of that size, and the choice says something about how its builders thought about permanence. Holmes's opinion would note that the new company "now makes all the machines that had been made in different places, at a single new factory at Beverly." One plant, consolidating what had been scattered across the competing firms. The company designed the machines there, built them, tested them, and then — this is the detail that stays with you — disassembled them and shipped them in pieces to customer factories, where they were reassembled. By 1916 the factory was sending out 24,000 machines a year.
At its peak the company employed 9,000 workers and produced, by the Smithsonian's figure, eighty-five percent of all shoemaking machines in the United States. By 1910 it had an eighty percent share of the shoe machinery market, assets of forty million dollars, and control of branch companies in foreign countries, including what would become British United Shoe Machinery.
And it was, by contemporary reputation, the best place in New England to work. The 2002 Beverly history page — written by a student named Andrea Guidara, with all the earnestness the form implies — reports that "The Shoe received the reputation as the most enlightened employer in New England." The buildings were "clean, spacious, airy, and well lighted." The company tried to prevent injuries and kept a hospital on site for when they happened anyway. There were food halls seating 700, break rooms, an apprenticeship program. There were clubs for the workers, "from golf to cricket and a shooting range." People, the page says, wanted to work there.
The same page claims that the machines reduced labor costs "from 5.65 dollars to 74 cents per shoe," and that this made workers' salaries higher, and that in 1911 Beverly had higher earnings than any other city in the state. I cannot verify the per-shoe figure from the sources available and would treat its precision with some care. But the direction is unmistakable, and the physical evidence survives: the Shoe brought workers to Beverly, and the workers needed houses, and the houses filled in neighborhoods with names like Goat Hill and Ryal Side.
In 1911 the company assembled its entire workforce — several thousand people — on the green lawn in front of the factory buildings for a group photograph. It is a remarkable image to contemplate in the abstract: the whole human apparatus of a near-monopoly standing still on the grass, facing a single camera, in the same year that the federal government was preparing to put its president's name at the top of a criminal indictment. Within months the district court would be ruling on the demurrers. The lawn photograph is the company as it wished to be seen — a community, a town, a benevolent order. The indictment was the company as the government saw it. Both were taken from life.
Winslow's personal fortune moved in step with the factory's. In October 1886 he had split the Federal Street property in Salem into two parcels, selling the 1794 house and its lot for $5,000 to Mary Ann (Ropes) Bertram, widow of Captain John Bertram, who intended it for rental income, and the back parcel running to the newly extended Bridge Street to one John Redmond for $1,000. By the time the Shoe was running, the family lived in a large, art-filled mansion on an estate on upper Cabot Street in Beverly — 545 Cabot Street, per a postcard in the Beverly Public Library's collection. Next door, at 555, stood the home of Herbert F. Winslow. The postcard's caption identifies Sidney as president both of United Shoe and of the Beverly Gas & Electric Company. The man who leased the machines that made the shoes also had a hand in the light by which they were made.
A Name Becomes a Citation
The lawsuits started almost as soon as the company did, and they are, in a sense, the most complete biography of Sidney Winslow that exists — a portrait drawn in subpoenas and demurrers.
On November 20, 1903, complainants named Dancel, residents of Kings County, New York, who were suing the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company of Portland, Maine — "otherwise known as the United Shoe Machinery Company, of Portland, Maine" — in the Southern District of New York, served notice that they intended to take the testimony of two Massachusetts residents: Elmer P. Howe, vice president and a director, and Sidney W. Winslow, president and a director. The depositions were to be taken before a notary named George Hogg at his office at 87 Milk Street, Boston, on November 27, 1903, beginning at 10:30 a.m. and "continuing from day to day until completed." The clerk of the federal court in Massachusetts refused to issue the subpoena. The complainants petitioned. Judge Colt took the petition on March 14, 1904. Among the lawyers listed for the defendant was Elmer P. Howe himself — vice president, director, and counsel of record, in a single person, which tells you something about how tightly the company's leadership was wound around its legal apparatus.
On March 30, 1912, Judge Hale took up a suit brought by Charles A. Strout, trustee of the Goddu Sons Metal Fastening Company, a citizen of Maine, against the United Shoe Machinery Company, Sidney W. Winslow, George W. Brown, and Edward P. Hurd. The damages claimed were $2,000,000, and Strout invoked section 7 of the Sherman Act, under which an injured party could recover "three-fold the damages by him sustained." The company's first response was jurisdictional: a citizen of Maine, it argued, could not haul a New Jersey corporation into federal court in Massachusetts in an ordinary civil action. A Maine trustee, a New Jersey corporation, a Massachusetts courtroom, a fastening company that had presumably once competed in a category United Shoe now dominated. The writ listed Winslow as "of Orleans in the county of Barnstable" — back on the Cape, a few miles down the road from Brewster, whatever his mansion in Beverly suggested about where he actually spent his days.
Four weeks before Strout, on March 2, 1912, Judge Putnam had ruled on the criminal case. Winslow and others had been indicted under the Sherman Antitrust Act of July 2, 1890, in two indictments, Nos. 113 and 114. Putnam held the counts bad on demurrer. The government took a writ of error to the Supreme Court, and Holmes, writing for the Court on February 3, 1913, described the two counts as alleging "substantially the same facts; the first laying them as a combination in restraint of the trade of the defendants themselves, the second, as a conspiracy in restraint of the trade of others, shoe manufacturers." The lower court's judgment stood. The criminal prosecution of Sidney Winslow was over.
It had been an era with little patience for men like him. In a 1905 speech at Harvard, a Boston lawyer named Louis Brandeis had complained that "able lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people. We hear much of the 'corporation lawyer,' and far too little of the 'people's lawyer.'" Brandeis would be confirmed to the Supreme Court on June 1, 1916, after a fight in which, for the first time, the Senate Judiciary Committee held public hearings and heard forty-seven witnesses. The city that produced Winslow's defense table — Choate, Fish, Donald, Sargent, and the ubiquitous Howe — also produced the most famous critic of what such tables did. Boston argued with itself about monopoly in the same buildings, sometimes in the same clubs.
The government did not stop. The civil suit in equity, United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. of New Jersey, reached Judge Putnam, sitting with Judges Brown and Dodge, and was decided on March 18, 1915. Putnam opened with a sentence that sounds like a man clearing his throat before a long argument: "Of course, a proceeding on the criminal side of the court cannot operate as an estoppel in a civil proceeding; but it may be referred to safely in an introductory way." The general features of the case, he noted, were largely stated in United States v. Winslow. The criminal case had become the reference text for the civil one. Winslow's name had become a way of describing his own company.
The Holmes opinion itself is a curious document to read today, because its facts are so plain and its sentences so unhurried. Here is the core of it, the passage that set the terms of everything that followed:
— Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202 (1913)For the last twenty-five years practically all the shoes worn in the United States have been made by the help of machines... There is a great number of shoe factories, and because the machines are expensive and the best of them patented, the manufacturers have had to get them principally from the defendants.
Had to get them. Holmes was summarizing an indictment, not endorsing it, but the phrase carries a whole economics. The government's case and the company's defense were both contained in it. The manufacturers had to come to Winslow because his machines were the best and because his patents said so. Whether that was a sin or a reward depended on what you thought the patent system was for.
Portraits by Other Hands
Because Winslow spoke so little for the record, his image was made almost entirely by other people — and the portraitists tell you as much about the age as about the man.
The most elaborate was by Elbert Hubbard, the East Aurora sage and impresario of uplift, whose essay "A Message to Garcia" was published in 1899, the same year Winslow formed his company. Hubbard specialized in a form of business hagiography that now reads like a genre unto itself: short, ardent biographical essays about industrialists, later collected in volumes with titles like Olympians. His twenty-page portrait of Winslow was eventually reprinted as a standalone pamphlet, Sidney W. Winslow, a 48-page facsimile whose modern publisher's blurb praises its subject's "entrepreneurial spirit and his ability to innovate" in the sort of language that would have pleased Hubbard enormously. That a man celebrated for the innovation of others' inventions should be lionized by the author of the period's most famous essay on doing what you're told without asking questions is one of those coincidences that history arranges without bothering to explain.
His obituary is a portrait of the same school, and its cadence is so perfectly of its moment that it deserves quotation:
— Obituary of Sidney W. Winslow, June 1917He saw the future, grasped the present, mastered his subject, and in 1899 with rare business ability organized the company which by efficiency and services done so much for the shoe manufacturing industry and the wearers of shoes.
Three verbs in a row — saw, grasped, mastered — and then the word "organized," which is the honest one. Winslow was an organizer. The obituary makes no claim that he invented anything, and it is scrupulous about naming his father as the inventor of the Naumkeag and Matzeliger as the inventor of the laster. The writer understood what Winslow's genius was, even if the prose reached for the heroic. "Thus from inheritance and the associations of his youth," the obituary says, "Sidney W. Winslow possessed the foundation a commanding success" — the missing for a small typographical wound in an otherwise ceremonial text.
Historic Salem, a century later, reports that he "shortly became known... as a 'New England financial Colossus.'" The headline on the Historic Salem piece, written by Polly Wilbert in January 2020, is "Long Before That Famous Guy at GE, Salem Had Sidney Wilmot Winslow" — a gesture toward a more recent Salem-bred executive, and a tacit acknowledgment that most readers would know the later name and not the earlier one.
There is a second, unrelated Winslow in the Boston of these years, and he makes a useful foil. Walter Thacher Winslow, architect, born in 1843, made partner in 1872 by Nathaniel Jeremiah Bradlee, whose firm — Bradlee & Winslow, then Bradlee, Winslow & Wetherell, then Winslow & Wetherell, then Winslow, Wetherell & Bigelow, then Winslow & Bigelow, then Winslow, Bigelow & Wadsworth — designed a remarkable share of the late-Victorian city: Chickering Hall on Tremont Street in 1883, the Bijou Theatre, the Hotel Touraine, Steinert Hall, buildings for the Baker Chocolate mills in Dorchester, Union Station in Portland, Maine, Providence's first skyscraper. I have found no evidence connecting the architect to the shoe-machinery man; the shared surname is, as far as the record goes, the ordinary Yankee coincidence of a colony with a limited number of founding families. But the firm's founder offers an odd rhyme. Bradlee, a founding member of the Boston Society of Architects, designed more than 500 buildings in Boston alone, and in 1869 the city hired him to move the Hotel Pelham — 10,000 tons — to permit a street widening. The architectural historian Bainbridge Bunting judged that Bradlee's "many commissions seem to stem from his business acumen and friendships rather than his ability as a designer."
Business acumen and friendships rather than design. It is not a bad description of the shoe-machinery Winslow either, and it is not meant as an insult in either case. In Gilded Age Boston, the man who could move the hotel was worth more than the man who drew it.
What the Lease Outlived
The company Winslow organized went on without him for six decades, and much of what it became would have been unrecognizable to the stitching-room foreman.
It became a weapons maker. The research division, during the interwar years, designed gun mounts, gun turrets, fire control equipment, automatic guns, bomb-release equipment, and automatic rocket projectors. During the Second World War, United Shoe built the 37mm antitank gun M3 and its carriage and the 37mm tank gun M5. It worked with Lockheed on the ball turret of the B-17 Flying Fortress. It designed the T54E1 medium tank. After the war its engineers experimented with modular armored vehicles. Later it machined parts for the UH-1 Iroquois helicopter and the Telstar satellite. It developed the hot glue gun, the pop-top on the soda can, the drive mechanism for the Lunar Roving Vehicle, and pop rivets for the Concorde. Disassembly and precise reassembly — the discipline of shipping a shoe machine in pieces to a factory in Ohio — turned out to translate.
And the government kept coming. In December 1947 the United States brought proceedings alleging that the company had been a monopoly in breach of the Sherman Act since 1912 — the year, as it happens, that Judge Putnam threw out the indictments against Winslow. A "trial of prodigious length" followed. The verdict went against the company; the remedy stopped short of breaking it up; and in 1954 the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment. The government renewed its complaint in 1967. The district court ruled that nothing had changed. This time the Supreme Court ordered the company broken up: it was required to divest a substantial part of its business and change its leasing strategy over ten years, a sell-off that raised $400 million.
The lease — the word instead — was what the courts finally dismantled.
The company renamed itself USM Corporation in 1968. Its diversifications failed to generate enough money, and in 1976, heavily in debt, it was bought by Emhart, a company half its size. In 1987 a management buyout led by British United Shoe Machinery acquired the shoe machinery operations, and control of the business that had begun in Beverly passed to England, to a new United Machinery Group. In 1989, to resist a $2 billion takeover attempt by a New York investment group that included the oil heir Gordon P. Getty, Emhart merged with Black & Decker and closed its Farmington, Connecticut, headquarters that June. In 1995 the United Machinery Group was acquired by Apax Partners. In 2000 it went into administration.
The antitrust case outlived the company too, in a sense. Commentators reached for United Shoe when the government took on IBM in the 1970s and again when it took on Microsoft in 2001 — two companies that, like Winslow's, had built their position on making themselves the indispensable integrator of an ecosystem of other people's components. The Beverly factory is now the Cummings Center, a commercial complex. The Boston headquarters is the Landmark. The Smithsonian holds the records, 1898 to 1987.
Even the estate kept the courts busy. On October 13, 1926, nine years after Winslow's death, Judge Morton heard Old Colony Trust Co. v. Malley, an action to recover an inheritance tax allegedly illegally exacted, "levied under the Act of September 8, 1916, on the estate of Sidney W. Winslow." The federal estate tax had been enacted less than a year before he died. He had spent his life in litigation with the federal government over what he had built; his executors spent the 1920s litigating over what he left.
His Former Home
He wore out. That is the obituary's account, and it does not soften it. "For nearly a year, Mr. Winslow had suffered from nervous exhaustion, due partly to an attack of grip, but more to his ceaseless attention to the cares and responsibilities of business." The winter of 1916 to 1917 he spent largely in the South, "in an unsuccessful endeavor to regain his health." He came back to Boston and kept rooms there. A slight attack of ptomaine poisoning confined him to those rooms for a few days in June.
The company he had founded was, in that same year, absorbing its own parent — the 1905 Corporation swallowing the 1899 Company, a corporate reshuffle that would leave the United Shoe Machinery Corporation as the surviving entity. The federal civil suit had produced its district-court ruling two years earlier and was still making its way upward. The machines were going out of Beverly at a rate of two thousand a month. The man was in a rented room in the city.
On Saturday, June 16, 1917, he was taken north to Beverly, to the house on Cabot Street. It was, by then, no longer quite his. The obituary is precise on this point, in a way it need not have been: he was brought "to the house in Beverly, now occupied by his son, Sidney W. Winslow, Jr." The son born in Salem in 1880, at 140 Federal Street, in the house his father had later sold to a widow for $5,000 so she could rent it out. Fifteen months after the father's death, on September 13, 1918, the younger son, Edward Harrison Winslow, would die too, at thirty, leaving a seven-year-old boy who carried his name until 1988. The record does not say how.
Sidney Wilmot Winslow died on the evening of Monday, June 18, 1917, of heart failure, in his sixty-third year. The obituary says that "the end came peacefully." It says, too, where — and the phrase it chooses would have been unremarkable for any other man, a simple matter of tense. He died, it says, "at his former home on Cabot Street."
Part IIThe Playbook
Sidney Winslow left no business philosophy in his own words, which makes him an unusual subject for a playbook — and a more honest one. What follows is reconstructed from what he did: the deals he assembled, the terms he set, the structures he built, and the consequences that played out over the seventy-odd years between his first merger and his company's court-ordered breakup. Some of these principles are worth emulating. At least two are warnings. A few are both.
The principles
- 1.Diagnose the industry from the customer's floor.
- 2.Organize the breakthrough you didn't invent.
- 3.Merge adjacent monopolies, not rivals.
- 4.Sell the outcome; keep the asset.
- 5.Price against your customer's output.
- 6.Bundle service until it becomes infrastructure.
- 7.Convert expiring rights into durable relationships.
- 8.Concentrate production; let the factory make the argument.
- 9.A legal victory is a dated document.
- 10.Your strongest moat is your regulator's clearest target.
- 11.Capabilities travel further than business models.
- 12.Don't become the only machine that isn't serviced.
Principle 1
Diagnose the industry from the customer's floor
Winslow spent fourteen years in his father's Salem factory and rose to foreman of the stitching room. That apprenticeship was not an incidental biographical fact; it was the source of his strategy. The problem he solved — that small manufacturers suffered from "the challenges of using machines from different companies for separate operations" — was invisible from the vantage point of any single machine company. Goodyear saw welt-sewing. McKay saw lasting. Each saw its own patent, its own royalty, its own lawsuit. Only someone standing in the middle of a working shoe factory, responsible for keeping fifty different machines from a dozen vendors running at once, could see that the real pain was fragmentation itself.
This is the advantage of the operator turned consolidator. The incumbents in a fragmented market are, almost by definition, organized around their own products. The customer is organized around a workflow. Whoever maps the workflow first owns the logic of consolidation.
Tactic: Before designing a roll-up or platform, spend real time inside a customer's operation and list every vendor they must coordinate — the length of that list is the size of your opportunity.
Principle 2
Organize the breakthrough you didn't invent
Winslow's first two moves were to take control of inventions made by other people: the Naumkeag buffing machine, invented by his father, in 1883; and the hand-method lasting machine invented by Jan Matzeliger, which he "took hold of" and made a commercial success in the 1890s. Neither was his idea. Both became his businesses.
The lasting-machine history shows why this matters. Before Matzeliger, inventors and syndicates had spent $120,000 here, $100,000 there, and more than $300,000 in a four-year patent war that left "neither group making money." Invention without organization was a reliable way to go broke. The scarce skill was not creating the machine but recognizing which machine was real — the obituary stresses that Winslow "saw the value and the possibilities of this invention at the start," when the idea of a mechanical laster "had always been ridiculed" — and then wrapping it in capital, patents, distribution, and service.
There is an ethical shadow here that the reader should not skip past. The commercial rewards of the laster flowed overwhelmingly to the organizer, not to the immigrant machinist who solved the problem. Organizing other people's breakthroughs is a legitimate and powerful role. It is also one that history tends to reward the organizer for and remember the inventor for, and the operator who adopts it should think about which of those outcomes they intend.
Tactic: When evaluating a technology everyone else dismisses, ask not "is this proven?" but "if this works, who is positioned to wrap it in the capital, legal protection, and service it needs to scale?" — and make sure that's you.
Principle 3
Merge adjacent monopolies, not rivals
The genius of the 1899 combination was its geometry. As Holmes's opinion lays out, the constituent firms were dominant in different categories: Consolidated & McKay made 60 percent of lasting machines; Goodyear made 80 percent of welt-sewing and outsole-stitching machines; the McKay Shoe Machinery group made 70 percent of heeling and 80 percent of metallic fastening machines. They held separate stations on the same production line. Combining them eliminated relatively little head-to-head competition — which is precisely why the criminal indictment failed. What it eliminated was the customer's ability to assemble a factory from multiple sources.
U
The 1899 Combination
Each constituent firm dominated a different station on the shoe production line. Shares as alleged in the indictment, per the Supreme Court's 1913 opinion.
| Group | Vehicle | Category share before Feb. 7, 1899 | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winslow, Hurd, Brown | Consolidated & McKay Lasting Machine Co. | 60% of lasting machines | Core |
| Barbour, Howe | Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. | 80% of welt-sewing and outsole-stitching; 10% of lasting | Adjacent |
| Storrow | McKay shoe machinery company | 70% of heeling; 80% of metallic fastening | Adjacent |
| Combined | United Shoe Machinery Co. (N.J., $25M authorized) | ~80% of total market by 1910 | System |
The lesson cuts two ways. Complementary consolidation is easier to defend legally in the short run and creates enormous customer value through integration. But the value it creates — a single relationship covering the whole workflow — is exactly the thing that turns, over time, into lock-in. The government's 1915 bill did not accuse the combination of eliminating rivals so much as of using a full line to exclude anyone who might offer a better part of it.
Tactic: Map your industry by workflow stage, identify the dominant player at each stage, and look for combinations where the merged catalog covers the customer's whole process while overlapping on as little as possible.
Principle 4
Sell the outcome; keep the asset
United Shoe did not sell machines. It leased them, as its predecessors had, but it made the practice universal across a full line. The Danish engineer E. F. Arnesen, visiting in 1916, saw the point immediately: the company "maintains its market by a special lease system for its machines."
Leasing does several things at once. It lowers the customer's capital barrier, so even small shoe shops could mechanize. It keeps the asset — and the knowledge of how it works — on the lessor's books and in the lessor's hands. It turns a one-time sale into an annual relationship. And it means that every machine in every customer factory is, in effect, a continuing node of the lessor's business rather than a finished transaction. Winslow's company designed, built, tested, disassembled, shipped, reassembled, and serviced its machines; at no point did it relinquish them.
This is the ancestor of every subscription and as-a-service model in modern business, and its advantages are the same now as then: predictable revenue, deep customer intimacy, and control over upgrades. Its risks are the same too, which later principles address.
Tactic: If your product is capital-intensive for the customer, model what happens to your revenue durability and customer reach if you retain ownership and charge for use instead of selling.
Principle 5
Price against your customer's output
The royalty structures that preceded United Shoe were remarkably granular: the McKay and Copeland Lasting Machine Association charged half a cent per pair of shoes and three-quarters of a cent for pegged boots. Arnesen described United Shoe's lease as payable "for an annual payment, or payment related to shoe production."
Output-linked pricing is one of the subtlest tools in the Winslow arsenal. It aligns the lessor's revenue with the customer's success, which makes the arrangement feel like partnership rather than extraction. It scales automatically as the industry grows — and the American shoe industry, mechanizing rapidly, grew enormously. It also gives the lessor a continuous, detailed view of each customer's production volume, which is a form of market intelligence no seller of machines could match. And in a bad year it cushions the customer, which makes switching less tempting precisely when a rival might otherwise make inroads.
Tactic: Where you can measure the unit of value your customer produces with your product, test pricing per unit of their output rather than per seat or per asset — and treat the resulting data as a strategic asset in itself.
Principle 6
Bundle service until it becomes infrastructure
Historic Salem names "providing excellent equipment and service" as a pillar of the formula. The economists Blair and Herndon later titled a paper on the case "United Shoe Machinery and the Antitrust Significance of 'Free' Service" — and the quotation marks deserve attention.
Bundled service is how a vendor becomes infrastructure. When the company that leases you the laster also sends the mechanic who fixes it, also supplies the consumables, also builds the next-generation model and swaps it in, the customer stops experiencing the vendor as a vendor. It becomes part of the factory, the way plumbing is part of a house. Historic Salem notes that lessees were required to purchase manufacturing supplies from the company — the bundle extended past the machine to what the machine consumed.
The customer value is real: uptime, expertise, simplicity. The strategic value is larger: an unbundled competitor must now compete not against your machine but against your entire relationship. That is the moat — and, as the courts would eventually decide, also the problem.
S
Before and After the Winslow System
How the shoe manufacturer's position changed when mechanization was consolidated under a single lessor.
| Dimension | Fragmented era (pre-1899) | United Shoe system | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendors per factory | One special company per invention | One lessor for the full line | Simplicity |
| Capital required | Royalty-bearing leases from many firms | Leases from one firm; no purchase option | Access |
| Pricing | Per-pair royalties by category | Annual or production-linked payment | Alignment |
| Service | Uncoordinated across vendors | Bundled with lease | Dependence |
| Supplies | Open market | Required purchase from lessor | Lock-in |
| Switching | Possible, machine by machine | Essential machines conditioned on full line (as alleged) | Exclusion |
Tactic: List every adjacent service your customer currently buys from someone else to make your product work, and decide deliberately which to absorb — knowing that each one deepens both loyalty and regulatory exposure.
Principle 7
Convert expiring rights into durable relationships
The government's bill put Winslow's real strategy more precisely than any admirer ever did. The defendants, it said, were "not being satisfied with the benefit of the lawful monopolies and rights belonging to them under letters patent," and intended "to extend, expand, and perpetuate said monopolies."
Patents expire. That is their design. A company whose dominance rests on patents has a clock running. Winslow's structure — full-line leasing, bundled service, captive supplies, a single factory producing the next generation of every machine — was a mechanism for ensuring that when any individual patent ran out, the customer relationship did not. The DPLA exhibit notes the company owned seventy percent of the patents for shoe-manufacturing machines; but the lease outlived any patent in the portfolio.
Every durable technology business eventually faces this transition: from a legal right that will lapse to a structural position that won't. The operators who manage it are the ones who start before the clock runs down.
Tactic: For each source of advantage you hold, write down its expiration date — patent term, contract renewal, first-mover window — and build the relationship-based replacement before you need it.
Principle 8
Concentrate production; let the factory make the argument
The new company made every machine "at a single new factory at Beverly," as Holmes put it — a 200-acre reinforced-concrete complex that took three years to build. It was not just an efficiency play. Consolidating production in one showcase plant let the company design, build, and test entire systems together; it created a single concentration of engineering talent that later pivoted to tank turrets and lunar-rover drives; and it became a public argument for the company's legitimacy.
The Shoe was known as "the most enlightened employer in New England": clean, airy, well lit, with a hospital, food halls seating 700, apprenticeships, and clubs from golf to cricket. In 1911 the entire workforce of several thousand posed on the lawn for a group photograph. When your business model invites accusations of exploitation, a factory that people visibly want to work in is a rebuttal no lawyer can write.
Tactic: If your market position is likely to draw scrutiny, invest visibly in the communities and workforces that depend on you — not as public relations, but because a thriving company town is evidence.
Principle 9
A legal victory is a dated document
Winslow won. The criminal indictments were thrown out on demurrer on March 2, 1912; the Supreme Court let that stand on February 3, 1913; the 1915 civil equity case was argued on the same general facts. By the standards of a contemporary general counsel, this was total vindication.
It was also provisional. In 1947 the government sued again, alleging the company had been a monopoly since 1912 — the very year Winslow's indictments failed. The company lost in 1953, was affirmed in 1954, and was ordered broken up in the next round, divesting assets worth $400 million and abandoning its leasing strategy over ten years.
§
The Long Litigation
Winslow's legal victories were real — and temporary.
1890
Sherman Antitrust Act enacted, July 2.
1899
United Shoe Machinery Company incorporated in New Jersey; combination of February 7.
1903
Dancel complainants seek Winslow's deposition at 87 Milk Street, Boston.
1912
Judge Putnam sustains demurrers to Winslow indictments, March 2; Strout's $2M treble-damages suit heard, March 30.
1913
Supreme Court, per Holmes, decides United States v. Winslow, February 3; prosecution fails.
1915
Civil equity suit decided by Putnam, Brown, and Dodge, March 18.
1917
Winslow dies, June 18.
1947
Government sues, alleging monopoly since 1912.
1954
Supreme Court confirms judgment against the company; no breakup.
1967
Government renews complaint; Supreme Court ultimately orders divestiture and end of leasing strategy.
The deeper lesson is that the law evolves faster than corporate structures do. A model that was defensible under the jurisprudence of 1913 was indefensible under that of the 1950s and 1960s, and the company had spent four decades building on the earlier foundation.
Tactic: Treat every favorable legal ruling as valid for the current composition of the courts and the current political mood only — and stress-test your model against the strongest plausible version of the law twenty years out.
Principle 10
Your strongest moat is your regulator's clearest target
The features that made United Shoe nearly unassailable to competitors — full-line leasing, tied supplies, bundled service, output-linked pricing — were precisely the features the government targeted. The 1915 bill described the tying arrangement in detail. The eventual remedy forced a change to the leasing strategy itself. Later generations of antitrust enforcers reached for United Shoe when they went after IBM and Microsoft, two companies that had also made themselves the indispensable integrator of other people's components.
There is no clean resolution to this tension. A moat that does not inconvenience competitors is not a moat. But a moat whose depth is measured in customer inability to leave will eventually be measured by someone with subpoena power. The most durable dominant firms are those that can show customers stay because they want to, not because they must.
Tactic: For each element of your competitive moat, ask whether customers would stay if switching were costless — and put real engineering effort into making the answer yes.
Principle 11
Capabilities travel further than business models
The leasing model ended under court order. The capabilities did not. The engineering discipline of designing, testing, disassembling, and reassembling complex machines produced, over the following decades, gun mounts and turrets, the B-17's ball turret, the 37mm antitank gun, a medium tank, parts for helicopters and Telstar, the hot glue gun, the soda-can pop-top, the Lunar Roving Vehicle's drive mechanism, and pop rivets for the Concorde.
What the company could not do was turn those capabilities into a business as profitable as the one it lost. Its diversification "failed to generate enough money," and by 1976 it was sold, heavily in debt, to a company half its size. A captive core can fund brilliant engineering for decades; it does not teach a company how to win in markets where customers can choose.
Tactic: While your core is still dominant, run at least one business line where customers face no switching costs — it is the only training ground for the company you'll have to become.
Principle 12
Don't become the only machine that isn't serviced
Winslow's company kept every machine in every customer factory under continuous maintenance. Its founder received no such care. For nearly a year before his death he suffered from nervous exhaustion, which his obituary attributed "partly to an attack of grip, but more to his ceaseless attention to the cares and responsibilities of business." He spent his last winter in the South trying, unsuccessfully, to recover. He died at sixty-two, just as the company was absorbing its predecessor into a new corporate form.
The irony is precise. A man who built an empire on the principle that equipment should never be left to fail on its own died of having been run without maintenance. The company outlived him by decades — the institution was well designed — but the eighteen years he spent as its president consumed him.
Tactic: Apply to yourself the service schedule you would apply to your most critical asset — because to the institution you lead, you are one.
Free playbook
Get The Business Model Playbook
58 business models, one visual page each: how the money flows, the metrics that matter, and who runs it. Free when you join the Faster Than Normal email.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Part IIIQuotes and Maxims
In their words
Sidney Winslow left little in his own voice. The record that remains is written by the people who prosecuted him, judged him, eulogized him, and visited his factory — and by the colony that, two and a half centuries earlier, anticipated the question his life would pose.
— Act of the Massachusetts General Court, 1651, as quoted in Fred A. Gannon's history of American shoemakingNo unlawful combination may be made at any time by the said company of shoemakers for enhancing the price of shoes, boots or wages whereby either owner or people may suffer.
— E. F. Arnesen, 'A premier American factory,' Ingeniøren, 1916 (translated)This factory mainly does not sell its machines, but leases them to shoe manufacturers for an annual payment, or payment related to shoe production.
— Obituary of Sidney W. Winslow, June 1917, on the Matzeliger lasting machineThe idea that machinery could ever do the work of hand lasters had always been ridiculed, but Matzeliger solved the problem... Mr. Winslow saw the value and the possibilities of this invention at the start.
— Bill in equity, United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. of New Jersey, 1915To refuse to sell or lease any of the essential machines to the manufacturer of shoes, except on condition that he buy or lease of them practically all other machinery of whatever kind necessary or useful to such manufacturer of shoes.
— Obituary of Sidney W. Winslow, June 1917For nearly a year, Mr. Winslow had suffered from nervous exhaustion, due partly to an attack of grip, but more to his ceaseless attention to the cares and responsibilities of business.
Maxims
- Stand where the customer stands. The consolidation opportunity is visible only from inside the workflow, never from inside a single product.
- Recognition is a skill. The person who sees that a ridiculed invention works can be worth more, commercially, than the person who built it.
- Combine the stations, not the rivals. Merging complementary category leaders creates a system competitors cannot match one part at a time.
- Ownership is optional; the relationship is not. Keep the asset, sell its use, and every machine in the field becomes a continuing account.
- Grow when your customer grows. Pricing tied to output aligns incentives, cushions downturns, and reveals the market.
- "Free" service is never free. Bundled maintenance and supplies build loyalty — and the dependence regulators eventually name.
- Every patent has a death date. Build the durable relationship before the legal right expires.
- The factory is an argument. A workplace people want to join answers critics more persuasively than counsel.
- Courts change faster than structures. A ruling in your favor describes the law of its decade, not the law of your company's lifetime.
- Maintain the founder. An institution designed to run forever cannot stop its builder from running out.
