COMMONWEALTH WIRELESS APPARATUS.
QUESTION OF INSPECTION BY MARCONI COMPANY.
Melbourne, 25 June 1912.
The High Court to-day continued the hearing of the appeal from the decision by Mr. Justice Higgins refusing to make an order for inspection of the Commonwealth wireless apparatus asked for by the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company. The action is against the Commonwealth Government for alleged infringement of its patents in respect of wireless telegraph apparatus.
Before the court adjourned on the previous day, arguments centred on the point of whether it was against the interests of the State to permit an inspection or whether it was merely against the interests of a department of the State as a trading concern. Mr. Justice Isaacs said he thought that the Postmaster-General must be allowed to file a further affidavit to say what he really meant.
Mr. Starke, for the Commonwealth Government, said to-day that he had the affidavit desired which had been filed that morning and was dated June 25. The affidavit was as follows:
"I, Justinian Oxenham, of 51 Spring Street, Melbourne, am Secretary to the Postmaster-General's Department of the Commonwealth of Australia and subject to the direction of the Postmaster-General. I am responsible for the administration of the said department including the wireless telegraphy branch. The Postmaster-General has directed me to inform the court that he is of opinion that it would be prejudicial to the public interest and the welfare of the Commonwealth to allow any inspection of the wireless telegraph stations of the Commonwealth at Melbourne and Hobart or the plant or apparatus contained therein. This action is solely in the interests of the public welfare and the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth.
It is the intention of the Government of the Commonwealth that within the period of three months from this date, letters patent for the invention of the system of wireless telegraphy employed in the stations at Melbourne and Hobart, shall be applied for under the provisions of the Patents Act, 1903-1909. This statement is not intended to exclude the exercise by the Commonwealth or by any officer of the State thereof the powers contained in part 7 of the said Act upon any application being made as aforesaid by letters patent.
I am informed by Mr. John Graeme Balsillie and believe that the system of wireless telegraphy being employed at the wireless stations at Melbourne and Hobart is an invention of Mr. Balsillie and is not the same as, or even similar to, that contemplated at the wireless station at Pennant Hills, New South Wales. The Pennant Hills station is in course of erection for the Commonwealth by the Australasia Wireless Co., Ltd., and at present no system of wireless telegraphy is being used at Pennant Hills for, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth. The system the company employs is, I am informed by Mr. Balsillie, and believe known as Telefunken.
Mr. Mitchell, for the plaintiff company, said that the position now taken up by the Commonwealth was very different from that suggested in previous arguments. In the former affidavit, there was nothing about as to the way in which the disclosure of the invention might affect the defendant department. How could it be said that the discovery of the way to do something, which was perfectly well known throughout the world, by a different means was a matter which affected the Defence Department?
Mr. Justice Isaacs: Nobody could receive the same message unless it were tuned to the same system.
After further argument, the case was adjourned till the next sitting of the court to enable the Commonwealth in the meantime to patent the process".