Aim£ST  iP9hi8rm'  J"     Need  for  Patent-Law  Revision.  193 
and  that  "the  trouble  will  not  be  so  pronounced  in  the  future  as  it 
has  been  in  the  past." 
Flavoring  Epsom  Salt  a  "Discovery" — There  was  issued  early 
in  191 7  U.  S.  Patent  No.  1,212,888  for  a  method  of  flavoring  Epsom 
salt — yet  this  "  discovery  "  is  a  procedure  which  has  been  practiced 
ever  since  the  cathartic  action  of  this  bitter  salt  has  been  known. 
Not  only  does  the  patent  describe  a  process  long  known  to  physi- 
cians and  pharmacists,  but  it  sets  forth  claims  that  the  flavored 
cathartic  salt  produced  by  the  process  cures  flatulency,  indigestion, 
sick  and  sour  stomach,  colic  and  destroys  worms.  In  commenting 
on  this  patent  The  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association 
(June  23,  1917,  p.  1914)  was  constrained  to  remark: 
"The  splendid  conception  of  the  framers  of  our  constitution  in  providing 
a  plan  for  promoting  progress  in  science  and  useful  arts  by  granting  to  in- 
ventors for  a  limited  time  the  exclusive  use  of  their  inventions,  in  exchange 
for  the  publication  of  full  knowledge  thereof,  is  being  debased.  No  branch 
of  our  government  is  of  greater  importance  to  the  progress  of  the  country 
than  the  patent  office,  provided  that  office  is  intelligently  administered.  When 
the  patent  office  is  used,  however,  for  an  extension  of  the  nostrum  business, 
founded  on  the  abuse  of  patent  and  trade-mark  laws,  it  becomes  a  menace 
to  the  public  health.  The  objects  of  the  patent  law  are  being  defeated  by 
the  practices  of  the  patent  office." 
Still  further,  attention  is  called  to  U.  S.  Patent  No.  1,226,394 
for  a  process  of  making  hexamethylenamin  tetraiodide  and  on  the 
product  so  produced.  This  patent  was  issued  after  the  council  had 
notified  the  Patent  Office  that  hexamethylenamin  tetraiodide  had 
been  discovered  in  1888  and  that  a  process  identical  in  principle  with 
that  for  which  patent  application  appeared  to  have  been  made  was 
published  in  1916.  On  the  basis  of  claims  for  which  no  evidence 
is  produced  this  patent  is  issued  for  a  well-known  substance  on  the 
ground  that  as  previously  produced  it  contained  a  little  free  iodine 
or  that  the  known  processes  were  less  economical.  This  patent  ap- 
pears to  be  an  illustration  of  our  patent  procedure  which  obliged 
American  users  of  acetylsalicylic  acid  to  pay  an  exorbitant  price 
because  this  country  granted  a  patent  which  gave  to  the  patentee,  a 
foreigner,  the  exclusive  right  to  the  manufacture  of  the  substance, 
whereas  no  such  patent  was  issued  in  the  patentee's  own  country, 
nor,  as  far  as  we  can  learn,  in  any  other  country.  It  forcibly  illus- 
trates the  need  for  a  revision  either  of  our  patent  laws  or  of  their 
methods  of  enforcement  or  both. 
