502  American  Pharmaceutical  Association.  {AnoctSber.u,99.m* 
of  his  discoveries  is  placed  at  a  decided  disadvantage  unless  he  also  receives 
knowledge  in  exchange.  In  the  light  of  these  facts,  let  us  approach  the  import- 
ant subject  before  us." 
In  referring  to  the  secret-nostrum  trade,  he  said  :  '*  Our  objectors  fail  to  dis- 
criminate between  property  in  goods  and  property  in  marks  used  to  distinguish 
between  brands.  We  have  never  advocated  the  destruction  of  property  rights 
in  either.  What  we  do  say  is  that  the  attempt  of  the  secret-nostrum  trade  to 
create  monopolies  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  medicinal  agents  belonging 
to  the  public,  by  concealing  their  identity  and  advertising  them  under  coined 
names  as  new  discoveries,  is  an  invasion  of  public  rights.  It  is  not  fraud  for 
a  pharmacist  to  substitute  an  open  pharmaceutical  preparation  of  his  own 
manufacture  for  a  nostrum  of  secret  composition  with  the  buyer's  consent.  It 
is  legitimate  competition.  All  competition  is  substitution,  and  competition  is 
what  the  nostrum  manufacturers  fear." 
In  considering  the  subject  of  product  vs.  process  patents,  the  Chairman  said : 
1 1  By  products  is  not  meant  natural  products,  but  those  resulting  from  the 
practice  of  the  chemist's  art.  Shall  we  grant  patents  for  the  latter  when  they 
are  chemical  inventions  in  the  meaning  of  the  patent  law?  The  patent  law 
requires  that  such  products  shall  be  the  result  of  processes  in  which  a  higher 
degree  of  skill  is  displayed  than  what  is  naturally  to  be  expected  from  skilled 
chemists  in  the  ordinary  practice  of  chemistry.  Theoretically,  it  appears 
indeed  as  if  the  limiting  of  patents  to  processes  would  best  stimulate  compe- 
tition in  the  devising  of  new  processes.  So  far  as  known,  however,  no  method 
has  been  suggested  whereby  under  present  laws  the  manufacturers  may  secure 
the  reward  due  them  for  divulging  their  processes  by  patenting  them,  unless 
the  products  themselves  be  also  covered  by  the  patents. 
"However,  if  the  Government  should  conclude  to  limit  patents  to  processes 
only,  the  burden  of  proof  should  be  thrown  upon  those  claiming  to  have 
invented  new  processes  for  producing  the  same  products.  This  might  be  done 
by  compelling  the  inventors,  of  alleged  new  processes  to  divulge  them  by 
applying  for  patents,  so  that  the  novelty  in  each  case  may  be  determined  by 
the  Patent  Office.  It  is  argued  with  force  that  it  is  the  original  inventor  who 
conducts  the  expensive  research  which  points  out  the  way.  It  is  he  who  sows 
the  seed,  and  unless  the  new  process  should  show  decided  novelty,  and  its 
inventor  should  pay  a  royalty  to  the  original  inventor,  great  hardship  would 
often  result,  for  the  harvest  would  in  many  instances  be  reaped  by  those  who 
have  not  sown,  and  the  original  inventor  would  have  only  his  trouble  for  his 
pains." 
In  considering  the  situation  of  the  manufacturers  of  "  proprietary  pharma- 
ceuticals," the  Chairman  said  : 
"Two  suggestions  have  been  made  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  manu- 
facturer in  this  connection.  The  first  secures  the  final  publication  of  exact 
knowledge  of  the  invention,  the  latter  does  not.  The  first  plan  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  commission  on  patents  and  is  now  under  consideration.  The 
Hon.  Francis  Forbes,  Chairman  of  the  commission  calls  it  a  'secret  patent' 
system,  and  says  that  similar  plans  have  been  adopted  by  other  countries,  but 
have  been  given  up.  Why,  he  does  not  know,  except  it  be  to  harmonize  their 
patent  laws  to  ours. 
"The  other  plan  suggested  is  known  as  the  '  British  Analytical  Control/ 
