"PATENT" SECRETS

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 145, 13 March 1908, Page 7

"PATENT" SECRETS

DISCLOSURE' OF 'FOSSUUE,

THE EFFECT ON THE TRAFFIC. AUSTRALIAN BILL. BY TELEGRAPH—rr.ESS ASSOCIATION —-COPYRIGHT. Melbourne, March 12; ~ Messrs. Glover and Kenriingha'm, representatives of tho proprietary articles section'of tho London Chamber 1 of Commerce, . interviewed the Minister for Customs (Sir. Chapman) concerning the proposed legislation dealing with patent medicines. They urged that disclosure of tho. formulas would com-' pletely ruin trade with Australia. They admitted that there were numbers of undesirable articles that legislation should aim at eliminating, but it should not destroy good ones. •!•. Mr. Chapman promised caroful consideration of the represcAtations. of tho delegates. Ho added that the legislation was intended to regulate, not eradicate, business.INCREDIENTS .qiKpAJTlJli^l'^ How to throw sufficient light on a patent medicine to protect the public, but not enough to disclose the'-secret of manufacture, is somewhat of a problem. It has been asserted—• and also denied--that a description which states \ tho ingredients of a patent, medicine, without, stating their does, I nijt; , disclose the secret of -manufacture. ' Whether 'this is true or not probably depends a' gobd deal on the circumstances;,,jt may. be true ono patent medicine and not of. another. It has i been suggested that where there is a possibility of the secret being revealed the description or formula might be disclosed privately to tho health 'instead of being published by being. labelled on the- bottle or. packet., Labelling means that the public buys with ; its ... , (as tar as _ tho description -"ban \ opeii '-'them)'; tho private disclosure system would involve that the public interest-would bo watched by the health officers," who .may be ,expected todo that in any caso. • The' Australian, Bill, it,.,wp.uld, appear,- aims, at labelling; but provides'a .loophole in that' the section compelling disclosure of formulae is subject to the discretion of the' Governor who may allow a modified descrip-. tion to be used, if he. is satisfied .that, tho full formula would reveal the • trade.: secret, and that | its disclosure is • not necessary fort tile public health', or welfare. The renort made last year by the Australian Royal Commissioner, Mr. Beale, recommended the labelling not only of ingredients,' but . of their quantities. ■ When the Commonwealth agent was deputationised in London by the "owners of proprietary articles section" of the London Chamber of. Commerce, it was urged by oiio of : the speakers that disclosure of formulae meant complete loss of proprietary rights, it havingbeen decided by the Court of Appeal that; / manufacturer cannot by any means entitle himself to a monopoly .in the use, after the secret process has been discovered, of. the; name by which the manufactured article is' .known. Another speaker stated that British, ■owners of proprietary articles'were almost unanimously agreed that:rather. tlieiil disclose their trade secrets they .would ceaso; to:.do business - with Australia, and that' not only.' would they refuse to' disclose these trade secrets on packages of goods, ;biit .would, refuse to disclose them' to an. official, of.'the,' Board, of Health. It was further pointed/ out to 1 Captain Collins -that the reason-; for,-the! proposed • stringent• -legislation' .was Vthat 'a 'few, proprietary articles, ; I ,not. .of British : origin; were 'injurious to health, 'and that it would be'-more reasonable for- "tlio Commonwealth Government-to .stop flic'.sale of those , few articles . than -to interfere with'-' 'le^itimaito• trade. To assist , the Australian Governmentin eradicating harmful nostrums the manufacturers represented, by tho deputation expressed their' willingness to make a declaration, that their articles do not contain any of the drugs which maybe sclieduled ; as prohibitctl;-;or,a)iy doleterious drug in .-".quantities-; injurious ;' to health. '.