<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Posts on Little Muddy</title><link>https://lm.jprs.me/posts/</link><description>Recent content in Posts on Little Muddy</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2026 18:57:53 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://lm.jprs.me/posts/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The newspaper edited the insulin patent</title><link>https://lm.jprs.me/posts/2026-08-22-the-newspaper-edited-the-insulin-patent/</link><pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2026 18:57:53 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://lm.jprs.me/posts/2026-08-22-the-newspaper-edited-the-insulin-patent/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;On August 22, 1922, an Eli Lilly patent lawyer named George Schley noticed a problem in the newspaper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reports about Elizabeth Hughes’s dramatic treatment in Toronto identified Frederick Banting as an inventor of insulin. The pending American patent application did not. It named Charles Best and James Collip.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That was not a cosmetic omission. American law required the actual inventors to apply. As &lt;a href="https://definingmomentscanada.ca/insulin100/history/patent-protection/"&gt;Schley warned&lt;/a&gt;, leaving Banting out could invalidate the patent and possibly amount to misrepresentation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Banting had wanted his name omitted for an ethical reason: he thought it improper for a doctor to hold a patent on a medical treatment. The application was trying to honour that position. The press made the compromise difficult to sustain. A public story had become evidence that the private paperwork was wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href="https://collections.library.utoronto.ca/view/insulin:Q10017"&gt;eventual US patent&lt;/a&gt; names Banting, Best and Collip, and identifies them as assignors to the Governors of the University of Toronto. The researchers transferred their rights for one dollar.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That dollar is the part usually remembered. It makes the arrangement sound like a simple refusal to own insulin. It was nearly the opposite. The university needed the patent so nobody else could acquire a blocking monopoly, and so it could control licensing, production standards and distribution while manufacturers learned to make a difficult biological product reliably.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>