This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
New York City, May 1, 1904.
To the Editor:
—In The Journal, April 28, there appears a letter from Dr. Summers of the Organic Chemical Company, formerly the Liberty Chemical Company. The letter hardly requires an answer. Still a few remarks may help to throw some light on the entire patent nostrum controversy. Dr. Summers asks the question: If his thermol is nothing but impure acetphenetidin, how did he obtain a patent on it? Dr. Summers did not obtain a patent on thermol. He obtained a patent on acet-salicyl-phenetidin; in the patent the word thermol is not mentioned. The company tries to give the impression that thermol is acet-salicyl-phenetidin, but it will be noticed that on the thermol boxes the name acet-salicyl-phenetidin does not appear, and as a matter of fact the product for which a patent was obtaned and thermol are two different substances! I present one proof which
Robinson WJ. So-Called Synthetics and Ethical Nostrums. JAMA. 1904;XLII(22):1432. doi:10.1001/jama.1904.02490670036018
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: