The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-02-16

ta,aaoc;as Such. for instance, - cosa-
rounds for producing abortion -.nd the like.
For some three mon ms past al applications
Cor medical compounds have been refused
on the following grounds:
l. Given certain conditions of disease, IL
requires no Invention for person skilled
IN the art OF healing, or, more properly
speaking, a physician to prescribe com
pound which shall change these conditions
and produce cure. The physician IL
taught before obtsining bis degree certain
principles in medicine, and their apPlica-
application which enable him to practice
his profession. And
40 MORE INVENTION
is exercised by him in writing prescription
than by lawyer who, after obtaining his
degree, is able from his general knowledge
of what is fundamental in his profession,
even without cases precisely analogous, to
conduct his client successfully through
suit.
2. A medical compound can never become
| q specific 50 long as tenn peramentS are unilAe
| in the human race, and therefore they lack
the certainty in their effects, which the law
contemplates in af1ording protection to
patents.
8. They are injurious to the public, since in
| the hands of persons ignorant of the healing
art, they would be likely to do more harm
than good. the conditions of the disease
which they are to cure. being only cognlza-
BILE by those who have spent their time IN
! profound and exhaustive study into such
matters.
These. then, are in substance the grounds
for refusing patents for medical compounds.
| It NAV be urged, however, that plausible as
these grounds appear, they SAVIOR too much
of the mystic esprit de corps which, from
the dark ages to our own times, has kept the
laitV in aWeof the medical fraternity. Inc
law does not prescribe what compositions OF
matter may be protected by patent. 1t
simply requires that they shall be new,
that they shall require invention. and that
1 they shall not be injurious to the public.
To say that to nix certain medical lngre-
dent REQUIRES no invention in view OF the
I practice of physicians is begging the ques-
ton. Since it can not be seen why a physi-
cian who, for the frat time, makes
a new prescription, and effects cure by IL,
does not invent as much as CIVIL en-
qiueer who constructs a new bridge, or a
mechanical engineer new machine for
weaving cloth. To say that il requires no
more invention than for lawyer to write g
brief amounts 80 no more: since lawyer
may, and often does, create and invent in
highest and nOblest sense, but unfortunately
there is no provision of
TEE LAW WHICH PROTECTS Him
lin the exclusive use of his brief in like cases.
That medical compound can never become
} a specific may be true. Butt is equally true
that lubricating and other compositions, Of
matter for which patents ara constantly
granted, do not and can not always operate
in exactly the same manner. The bearings
for which they are intended may often be SC
hot that they absolutely effect nothing, and
! on the other hand so cold that they are
; practically useless. That ignorant PEG.
Pile may misuse and abuse them is
! OBVIOUS; this can and does occur
3 with every subject OF invention. In the eye
t of the law only those are expected to use
) them who are 'fsxilled in the art TO which
! they sppsrtain." That such compound:
have been granted for many years without
; their having been produced any evidence
( ofinterference with or injury TO the public
at large, and since they are sanctioned by
/; the constitution of the United States, under
r the authority Of which congress has passed
t laws protecting them, is argument, strong
/, and conclusive enough, that the ticturcC
should acinone.