191 1 ] Editorials 155 



linder the non-descriptive, trade-marked name. The name used in 

 the patent becomes free with the expiration of the patent, but the 

 trade-marked name remains the manufacturer's forever — at least 

 according to his claims. In the case of medicines used by phy- 

 sicians, the physician has got into the habit of prescribing them 

 under the trade-marked name; and even after the patent runs out, 

 and the product itself has become common property, the physician 

 who continues to use the trade-marked name continues to play into 

 the hands of the one who patented the product. Thus, the drug 

 first known as phenacetin, but which is designated ofhcially as acet- 

 phenetidin, was originally patented. The patent has expired, but 

 the Word phenacetin has become so fixed with the average physician 

 that he continues to use it. No one can put out the product under 

 the name phenacetin, and when a physician prescribes phenacetin 

 the druggist is supposed to supply phenacetin. The same is true 

 of many other substances, as for instance, sulphonal (sulphonme- 

 thane). The patent on that drug expired long ago, but many 

 physicians continue to use this term — sulphonal — and each time 

 they do it they are helping the sales of those who have reaped the 

 harvest f rom the protection already given them by the patent. 



The abuses of our patent and trade-mark laws may take a 

 number of forms, owing to their imperfections and lax enforce- 

 ment. Because of an unwillingness on the part of one manufac- 

 turer to attack the validity of a patent owned by a competitor, 

 many patents are issued and held on products which present noth- 

 ing new, and hence protection is given where none is deserved. 

 The foUowing are illustrations of these conditions : 



Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) was discovered by Kraut in 1868. 

 In practically all European countries this product is not protected 

 and anyone may make and seil it. In this country the product is 

 protected by a patent, and a permanent injunction has been granted 

 by a circuit court to prevent infringement because the patent 

 contains a process for the purification of the drug, an improve- 

 which is not described by Kraut. The holders of the patent 

 claim the exclusive right to make the product in this country — and 

 they seil it at an exorbitant price — while in the country in which 

 it was originally made it is free. Bisnmth hetanaphtholate is pro- 



