Not sure what conclusion the author will come to as an answer to the question in the title (part III is still to come). But if it doesn't include the liberation of inventors (i.e. the protection of intellectual property through patents) and the legal framework for "anyone" to profit from their inventions then I'll be disappointed.
As his story indicates so far it was not for the want of ingenuity that the industrial revolution did not occur before, but the social framework for transforming the society in the way that the industrial revolution did was simply not at hand. Primarily because the decisionmakers that held the power were tied to another mode of production, usually involving fleecing peasants.
That the industrial revolution needed the steam engine goes without saying. But the steam engine without the industrial revolution was a mere party trick.
I reject the idea that patent and IP law would have made these developments occur sooner. In fact, I blame the slow down in technological development partly on patent and IP law. You think the rapid development seen during the industrial revolution could have happened if people were at litigious as they are now? The ability to create derivative inventions is essential to progress.
Your perspective on patents seems colored by the relative recent advent of patent trolls and the use of litigation to stifle innovation and competition. I suggest you look at the situation in England around 300 years ago and compare to the feudal system that was the rule elsewhere at the time - everything had to be approved by the king or the nobility, who had vested interests in land owning and serf systems. This social order was the real inhibitor of technological progress that England was the first country the liberate itself from.
Laws that protected the IP rights of inventors were absolutely crucial to that process.
If you follow what those industrial pioneers were up to, you will find them at least at litigious as people are today. They certainly protected their patents and inventions with teeth and claws
I have written very extensively on the evolution of the early patent system - I actually have a not-yet-completed, so far 9-part series on the context of the Statute of Monopolies - but you’ll be in for something of a surprise in Part III. (Spoiler: the most generous ever English patents was seemingly granted to an early steam engine in the 1660s but to little effect)
Mind that the article mentions a Dutch patent from 1598.
On the other hand, the development of the steam engine and its application is partly grounded in Trevithick's fierce rejection of existing patents (hence high steam pressure) and also in the rather loose enforcements of the Stephenson patents.
> You say the anthill is the result of the amazing collaboration of all the ants in the colony, but look here is an ant that goes off doing nothing. What say you now?
I say the big picture is that the steam engine was developed within a legal system that in general protected IP rights, at least respected them on a completely different level than before. Granted there are more pieces to the puzzle, but let's not forget one of the most important pieces.
Which meant that we would be still stuck with the Newcomen atmospheric engine as the settled technology?
High steam pressure isn't just about a wandering ant, but about the major step in the development of the steam engine, opening the technology to all kinds of applications, beyond just pumping.
As his story indicates so far it was not for the want of ingenuity that the industrial revolution did not occur before, but the social framework for transforming the society in the way that the industrial revolution did was simply not at hand. Primarily because the decisionmakers that held the power were tied to another mode of production, usually involving fleecing peasants.
That the industrial revolution needed the steam engine goes without saying. But the steam engine without the industrial revolution was a mere party trick.