PARLIAMENT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1213, 23 August 1911, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

THE - HOUSE. I RIGHTS OF PATENTEES. MR. MILLAR'S BILL. Tho House of Representatives met at 2.30 yesterday afternoon. Tho following Bills were introduced and read a first time:—Ashley Subdivision and the Waimakariri-Ashlcy IVator Supply Board (Hon. D. Buddo); Auckland University College Amendment (Hon. G. Fowlds), University of Otago Council Bill (Hon. G, Tow-Ids), Franklin and Mahukau Counties Bill (Mr; Massey), Universal Saturday Half-Holiday (Mr. G. Laureusou). Notice was given by the Hon. J. A. Millar of his intention to introduce tho Land $or Settlement Amendment Bill. ■ HUTT ROAD BILL. Tho Hon. J. A. MILLAR, Minister for Hallways, asked for a further postponement of the second reading of the Hutt Railway and Bead Improvement Amendment Bill, as the local bodies had not completed their deliberations on the subject. • In reply to a question, the Minister said tho total cost of constructing tho road was getting on for .-£IOO,OOO. The second reading was postponed until cext Tuesday. BILL PASSED. ' Tho Mental Defectives Bill (Hon. G. Fowlds) and the Friendly Societies' Amendment Bill (Hon. J. A. Millar) wero ' read a third time without discussion, and passed. PATENT LAW. THE BILL IN COMMITTEE. The House went into Committee on the ("Patents. Designs and Trade Marks Bill (Hon. J. A. Millar). Dealing with the provision that a patent , not worked in New Zealand by the paten- ■ tee should bo revoked after four years, Mr. E. A. WRIGHT (Wellington South) 16uggested that this provision was too Urastic. Tho English law had been found "defective, and judges, in a number of instances, had expressed regret at having to revoke patents. Mr. F. M. B. FISHER (Wellington Central) read a letter he» had received from a local patent agent stating a enso of possible hardship if tho Act were passed. A New. Zealand inventor might patent an invention here, and finding it unprofitable to manufacture here, have 'his invention manufactured in Great Britain. He would then be liable to have . his- patent revoked and foreign firms, manufacturing in their own countries, would have tho' market at their mercy. The Hon. .). A. MILLAR stated that 'tho English Act, upon which this Bill w>.s based, was working satisfactorily. In '1909 half a million was expeiided in the •country bv foreign firms holding British ■ patents. There had also been large-ex-tensions of British workshops, where ■patents were worked on behalf of foreign 'firms on royalty. The same considerations would apply locally. ■ Any patenteo would bo free to "license, any man in New Zealand to work his patent. Ho. had not heard of any cafe in England in which the judges- had oxpressed regret at having to revoke paients In some instances thev hud 'refused to revoke. An Act similar to this Bill was working satisfactorily in Australia.' Mr. MASSEY, Leader of tho Opposition, ■ asked where any attempt had been made to manufacture article-! abroad that should have been manufactured here to the detriment of New Zealand industries Mr. MILLAR cited a,.case which had .occurred in the bootmaking industry. .An American firm had supplied machines which were ic be paid for by annual payments extending, over a term of years. Three or four years.afterwards these ran-, chines had bfen sold and a- small addition was supplied ostensibly free. At the expiration of the term during which the payments were, to .continue tho Am»ric'im firm made and enforced a demand, based on their patent rights in the additional part, to additional annual payments. One manufacturer was so disgusted that- he told tho foreign firm to remove the machines, additions and all. This sort of thing would bo impossible under the new Act. ■Mr. R. A. WRIGHT (Wellington South) cited the case, of linotype machines. ■ It was impossible :to manufacture these machines here. If the Bill passed it would be open to German. manufacturers- of similar machines to apply to have the linotype patent revoked. It would be fair, under these circumstances, to say to the applicant: "We will revoke it for you, but you must be prepared to manufacture the machine yourself in this -country." • Mr.' MILLAR proposed the following itiddition to the interpretation clause:— •"True and first inventor" includes the nominee or assignee of the actual inventor, and the first importer of a new_invention from any .place outside New ■ Mr. MASSEY and other members obfjectod that this was going too far. - Mr. J. STALLWORTHY (Kaipara) suggested that the importer of . a patent •should not be protected and that the original inventor should also be denied patent protection if his invention had coma into common use locally prior to ■his application. •• Mr. MILLAR contended that the man •who introduced an invention and took ■the risk of developing it. was entitled to ■protection. Mr. MASSEY objected that, as proposed,' the clause would encourage tho • plagiarist—the man who went abroad to .'suck the brains of other men and cam© '■back to levy toll upon his fellow citizens. Mr. MILLAR eventually agreed to doleto tho lattdr part of his amendment, conferring proprietary patent, rights upon tho importer of an invention. Thus al.tcred, tho amendment was carried. Section 7, sub-section 1, was amended to provide that an applicant may a . complete specification at the patent office ' or any local. patent office within nine months, instead of six months, from the date of the application. A number of clauses were amended to provide that announcements and notifications in regard to patents, instead of being printed in the Gazotte, should be • printed in a special Patents Gazette. Section 29, sub-section (1), provides that if a patent is not worked within four years of the timo of its being granted, any person may petition tho Court for the revocation of tho patent.

Mr. AV. H. HERMES (Tauranga) remarked that .this clause migrht leave Now Zealand manufacturers at the mercy of unscrupulous foreigners. Any person upon whose, petition a patent was revoked should be required' to himself manufacture the article in question in this country. Some mutual arrangement might bo made in this matter with the other countries of the Empire. Mr. MILLAR stated that he was prepared to amend the- clause. In Australia the law had been amended to provide that a patent not worked in the country should bo partly revoked. When a patentee failtd to work his potent in the country, it lapsed, but tho original patentee retained the sole right of importation. The Minister stated tint: he would havo a'clause framed on these, lines. The Bill could be recommitted later in order to have the new clause inserted. Mr. MASSE y objected that this might open tho way for a natenteo to make an arrangement with another person, and establish a monopoly. Section 29 was passed, the Minister undertaking to recommit the Bill later, in order to insert a new clause in its place. Sub-sections 2, 3, and i, Section 12G were deleted, and replaced by new subclauses. The principal alterations were an increase from five pounds to twenty pounds of the penalty for falsely describing an article as patented in New Zealand, iind a similar increase in the penalty for continuing to describe an article as patented after the patent has expired. Mr. MILLAR moved the adoption of a ;iew clause governing procedure in actions for infringement of a patent. The clause was adopted, and the Bill v&s reported with amendments. STONE QUARRIES.. The Stone Quarries Amendment Bill was considered in Committee and r eDorted without aniemlnients.