[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.153.100.128. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Article
August 22, 1896

THE EMINENTLY SCIENTIFIC NATURE OF OUR PATENT AND COPYRIGHT LAWS.THE KLEBS ANTIPHTHISIN CASE.

Author Affiliations

DETROIT, MICH.

JAMA. 1896;XXVII(8):424-426. doi:10.1001/jama.1896.02430860028001k

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

For the purpose of promoting progress in science and the useful arts the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to grant to authors and inventors for limited times the exclusive use of their respective writings and discoveries. On the clause in the Constitution referred to, our patent and copyright laws are based. The question at issue is the right to copy. The copy right law refers to the right to copy the writings of others; while the patent laws refer to the right to copy the inventions of others. Now I propose to show that it is just as equitable for the medical profession to endorse the patent as applied to medicine, as it is to endorse the copyright as applied to literature. At the same time I hope to make it clear that so-called "Patent" medicine business is a misnomer; and I hope to show that

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×