H—loa

may have been granted in New Zealand which, if a proper examination had been made, might have been rejected. The suggestions which we have made in connection with the examination of applications should substantially improve the position in the future. So far as the past is concerned, we have had insufficient evidence submitted to us to enable us to conclude that the position from the Radio Manufacturers' Federation's point of view would have been measurably strengthened even if a strict examination had been made in regard to the subject-matter of the Letters Patent previously issued. The opinion which we have formed makes it unnecessary to consider this submission in detail. 147. It may, however, be pointed out that—(l) Most of the applications in question were based under the convention on applications filed in the United States and Great Britain, and no evidence was submitted to us showing that any material number of such applications were refused in those two countries while being allowed in New Zealand. (2) Although there was some evidence before us which would indicate that, in some cases at least, wider claims were obtained in New Zealand than were granted upon corresponding applications in Great Britain and the United States, there was no evidence of which we can take cognizance that the position would have been altered in this Dominion, so far as the terms of the licence were concerned, if claims similar to those allowed in the United States or Great Britain had been allowed here. Put in another way, on the evidence before us, the broadcast receiving sets in respect of which the licences have been granted might still have infringed the patents in question if such patents had, in fact, been issued with claims limited to those allowed in the United States or Great Britain. (3) Generally speaking, there is no advantage gained by a patentee in seeking in New Zealand claims wider than those in Great Britain. Their 'prima facie invalidity is almost immediately apparent by a comparison of the New Zealand specification with the corresponding printed British specification which is on file in the New Zealand Patent Office Library. There is, in fact, a most substantial disadvantage to the patentee who pursues such a course (see section 64, subsections (2) (a) and (b), of the Patents, Designs, and Trademarks Act, 1939). 148. The matter of improvement of the law relating to abuse of monopoly has given us considerable anxiety, and it is not thought that any proposals will be entirely satisfactory, or will meet every contingency that may arise. However, we think that, having due regard to the proper balance between the rights of the patentee and the interests of the public, the difficulties envisaged can to some extent be met as follows : firstly, by the passing in New Zealand of an Act having substantially similar objects to those of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948 ; secondly, by strengthening the provisions for compulsory licensing in any future Act that is brought into force in New Zealand ; and, thirdly, where anything in the nature of a public utility is involved, by extending the ambit of the section dealing with the rights of the Crown to use a particular invention or inventions so as to include such use by other parties as will enable the full benefit of a Crown monopoly to be obtained and continued. 149. More precisely in this regard, we make the following recommendations : I. (a) So far as the adoption of the broad basis of the British Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control Act), 1948, is concerned, we have already discussed this enactment in paragraphs 111 et seq. hereof. We consider such an enactment to be of particular value when many patents are owned or controlled by one organization or a number of affiliated or associated organizations whereunder a monopoly or a substantial monopoly exists, or may exist, in any industry. Although in such a case the

38