FOREIGN PATENT REVOKED.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 413, 23 January 1909, Page 10

FOREIGN PATENT REVOKED.

: ' PROTECTION FOR BRITISH; LABOUR;:: ' . The benefit which Mr..Lloyd-George's Pa«'"'' tents Act of 1907 will cause to the people of : Great Britain must largely depend upon the manner in which the Act is .interpreted;, and i thus special interest attaches to" the first decision, under Section 27 of the Act given: by the. Comptroller-General of Patents,-Mr;' C. N, Dalton, on December 10, revoking a , foreign: patent;, . . '■'-.."•:■ -V" •■' Tho section in question provides, for-' the ' :revocation of foreign, patents where' the' pa- -. tented article or process is manufactured or carried on outside the United, Kingdom, iini'less, the, grantee of. the' patent can show satisfactory ■ reason: for. such action';.;.,'.'V.; ' An application was mado by Mr.';C. W.. ' ;Zcrenner, • under,this section, for.the.revocation of two British patents granted in .1900 '.-■■ to Sir. Ludwig. Hatschek for the '".'■' ;ture of thin imitation stone slabs "or. tiles.', '■;'■ By. the -process a fibrous -material .is, mixed.. -. :with cement in tkb ordinary mixing: appara-..'-. ;tus of paper or cardboard, works, and is thoa treated as, cardboarij.". The.process was.ope-. ,' .rated.by a_'Belgian''company,-which "heldVthe'. -- lioense'. for"Great Britain ani:had. works.in.:.: Belgium specially: erected" for supplying '''thb''- ' 'British, market.: .....■:,.: ■■•.-.;; ' -\ .",' . The. main arguments urged in behalf of the grantee of the patent were that: he!. could not license the..working of the process , in the United Kingdom without';.- breaking,': faith with the Belgian company; vthat 'the '; process could not be as cheaply carried.out'V;., rh England, owing to. the. higher 1 : cost' of. , : labour and materials; and that he had tried",; in. vain to obtain, a British licensee.- ..-K-',:. "■ '; For' Mr.: Zerenner it was" argued '. : . that '■'■- goods could be . commercially manufactured " in England under "the-, patent;, and' that, hel:v had,fouud people to engage in the .riianufac"-',-';'. tVtfC.'f.' : .;•-;.. .•'.■''.':.'-.- '-.'■:' '/■'■' '- " r-yi'^.~. ' The, Cpmptrolle'rrGeneral,.vin his' decision,.it revoked the patent on .the .ground "that,, no." C proper steps had been .taken' by the- patentee 7 ", to get "the,article:,niade ,in ~ Britain ;;7thaii ~. there "was 'no : inherent reason why the .pro.":"'.' cess,'should-not be carried'out in. England ■:. /. Audi .that,, if the,excuse that; wages','".'; were.higherthan Belgian.was.to.be/allowed ; as ,an ; insuperable.; bar,:if was.' hard to: under-..... Stand-' how. many' industries -which, are car-,;'., j^e L .lJflited .Kingdom could^'con.-;..,,; tinue r ttf^e^carnjed/pnt". He o 'jnade'/the^re-"'"; vocation" immediate, ■'- a'n3i:oMer<;'d'. the tees. to. pay the cost' of ; £47:53. ■■,:.:■.[■;::;. "-';'-. y/y..yy:"f\: .K;.:'.- .. The:effect of. the decision' will'.be, to -hasten',..,.. the "transfer of 'tHe-'manufeetufe-. of .",• patented particle's fo. England; : ...- .";,"■''.,. '.-'■";* .'. "Do you know the value of an,'oath?"' a '.' witness was asked.",'"A sovereign"was what I.got'-to come herel" was'.the reply.-.'-'