The record-union., 1898-11-20
Al FOREIGNERS ESTIMATE.


|
Al FOREIGNERS ESTIMATE.
Professor Behring patented his anti
toxin, as he had a right to do. But
his act has brought upon him assault
on the ground. for one thing. that 1t
is unprofessional for a physician to
patent any discovery he falls upon in
the course of his study or practice. The
ethics of the profession prohibit it, say
! the assailants of Behring. The scien-
fist now retorts, saying:
1t is true that / have obtained
patent in America for my diphtheria-
: serum, and it is true that American
firms who have made use of my method
are very angry about this. If the
Americans interested in the matter
give expression to their anger in Amer
lean fashion, they must settle that with
themselves; if they however, quite con-
trary to their custom, declare the
claiming of legal protection for a, prac-
teal and important discovery or in
yention immoral and scandalous, / can
not take their Judgment quite seriously
L
mate pecuniary gain dishonoring;
might almost go so far as to look on
the giving up of legitimate and con-
siderable monetary profit as unpardon-
able thoughtlessness. We must wait
and see whether the American courts
will allow themselves to be intimidated
by this newspaper persecution. If, as
l confidently hope, this should not be
the case, the American public will de-
rive great benefit from the patent; they
Will obtain the antitoxin cheaper and
better. Finally, as regards the denial
of my right Of discovery. this can only
rest on ignorance or dishonesty. Let
each one of the investigators who took
part in the discovery Of the antitoxin
be questioned. Not one of them will
contest the priority of my discovery.
The professors reply is strong, but
it is characterized by something of ig-
norance of American methods. He Is
gravely mistaken in supposing for
moment that our courts are easily in
Inundated by the American press upon
the trial of any case in which the right
to protection under letters patent might
arise
OF course it is known that sensational
papers take retainers to warp public
Judgment with a. view of influencing
courts and juries. That this has been
done in San Francisco, for instance, is
notorious. But in no case before a
Federal court, where rights under pat
ents are triable, has there been any
serious attempt on the part of the venal
press to interfere. Moreover, Professor
Behring is probably ignorant of the
fact that the unconscionable press
never puts in it's oar into law suits
save for money, and there must be
goodly purse at that.
Professor Behring's patents are not
assailable by money, nor, in fact, has
the venal press paid much attention to
the matter to which the professor re-
fers. Truth is, most of them know
nothing about it. There is as yet no
formal assault upon Behring's rights,
and even If there is to be, which we
do not believe, unless the scent of blood
money hangs about it, the jackaIs of
the press will not put in an appearance
Let the professor rest in peace; he
had the right to take letters patent;
he may have violated the code of pro-
fessional ethics by doing so, and for
that he may be morally amenable to
the medical faculty; but in America he
can rest assured his rights will have
full protection, and, unless his oppo-
nents turn loose a large sack of coin,
he need fear no assault from the press.
But even if it comes, let him place con-
fidence in the American courts. For,
after all, the press influences them very
little, and the venal press not at all.
Notwithstanding that hundreds of dupes
part with coin under the belief that
newspaper advocacy or antagonism will
effect something with the upright
Judge, or work reversal or affirmation
OF Judgment by an Appellate Court.