3i8 
Proprietary  Preparations. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharnv 
June,  1897. 
patented  in  1874,  but  on  which  the  patent  has  now  expired.  A 
patent,  says  Dr.  Rice,  not  only  does  away  with  all  secrecy — which 
is  usually  considered  the  objectionable  feature  of  a  proprietary  article 
— but  it  commonly  acts  also  as  a  sort  of  guarantee  of  the  uniformity 
of  the  product  in  composition,  strength  and  purity. 
Dr.  Rice  thinks  that  if  all  these  points  are  taken  into  consider- 
ation, it  will  probably  be  conceded  that,  if  an  article  is  protected  by 
a  patent  alone — the  feature  of  a  copyrighted  name  being  disre- 
garded— it  becomes  practically  impossible  to  separate  patented  sub- 
stances into  classes  of  which  one  may,  and  the  other  may  not,  be 
used  without  a  violation  of  ethics,  and,  therefore,  none  of  these 
articles  should  be  rejected  for  the  reason  alone  that  they  are 
patented.  He  then  proceeds  to  consider  the  three  classes  of  pro- 
prietary articles  previously  mentioned. 
As  to  products  of  the  first  class,  inasmuch  as  copyrights  on 
names  never  expire,  whereas  a  patent  has  a  definite  term  of  years 
to  run,  it  is  evident,  says  Dr.  Rice,  that  the  proprietors  of  the  copy- 
rights would  have  a  perpetual  monopoly  unless,  after  the  expiration 
of  the  patents,  other  producers  should  put  the  same  articles  on  the 
market  under  new  names  not  copyrighted.  All  these  bodies — such 
as  antipyrine,  aristol,  phenacetine,  salol,  salophene,  sulphonal,  trional, 
and  vanillin  (the  last-named  substance  being  now  sold  only  under 
its  proper  chemical  name) — will  undoubtedly,  Dr.  Rice  thinks,  be 
rescued  from  their  present  monopolistic  control,  when  the  patents 
on  them  have  expired.  There  is  no  secret  whatever  about  them,  he 
says.  They  are  definite  chemicals  of  known  composition  and  prop- 
erties, and,  since  some  of  them  have  been  found  to  have  real  thera- 
peutical value,  no  objection,  it  is  believed,  will  be  raised  against  the 
whole  class. 
Dr.  Rice  next  considers  the  products  of  nature  which  have  never 
been,  or  are  not  now,  made  under  patents,  but  are  sold  under 
copyrighted  names,  familiar  examples  of  which  are  antifebrine 
(acetanilid),  dermatol  (bismuth  subgallate),  formalin  or  formol 
(formaldehyde),  pyrozone  (hydrogen-dioxide  solution),  diuretin 
(sodium-theobromime  salicylate),  and  lanolin  (hydrous  wool  fat). 
The  owner  of  the  copyrighted  name,  he  remarks,  usually  professes 
that  his  product  is  "purer"  or  more  "refined"  than  the  article 
found  on  the  market  under  the  common  name,  and  this  pretension, 
he  says,  is  true  in  some  instances,  particularly  in  those  articles  firs  t 
