R
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
111 C.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
5. What reply should be made by the Government of the Straits Settlements to, and what course should they adopt with reference to, the claim of the Tanjong Dock Company ?
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. That we do not think that the Government of the Straits Settlements are under any legal obligation to grant a lease to the Dock Company. Any contract contained in the letter of the 20th April, 1881 is too indefinite to be enforced in a Court of Equity.
2. No.
3. Any lease should be under the Ordinance for a term not exceeding 100 years. 4. Yes.
5. We think the Government of the Straits Settlements should state that, while they are advised that the letter of the 20th April, 1881 does not contain a binding contract, they are willing to grant a lease if the terms can be agreed upon, and such terms as the Government are willing to concede should be specified.
We have, etc.,
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c., &c.,
&c.
R. B. FINLAY, EDWARD CARSON.
26538/05
No. 99A.
(TRINIDAD: GENERAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to GENERAL POST OFFICE.
[Wireless Telegraphy: Infringement of Marconi's Patents.]
CASE SUBMITTED TO THE LAW OFFICERS.
August, 1901.
In December, 1899,* the Law Officers advised on certain questions connected with the Patents of Wireless Telegraphy taken out by Mr. Marconi; a copy of the case and of the Law Officers' Opinion is forwarded.
In accordance with the advice of the Law Officers, Mr. Marconi's Patents were placed before Professor Oliver Lodge and Professor Silvanus Thompson for their report upon the validity of the Patents from a scientific point of view. Copies of the reports of these gentlemen are now forwarded for the Law Officers' information. Mr. Gavey, the Assistant Engineer-in-Chief and Electrician to the Post Office, has carefully analysed and collated the reports of Professors Lodge and Thompson, and has given his opinion as to the effect of their reports. Sir William Preece, the Consulting Engineer of the Department, has also had the papers before him. His minute and Mr. Gavey's are forwarded herewith.
It will be seen that the electrical experts who have been thus consulted all agree in the view that it is the particular combination of the use of Hertzian waves with a coherer and other apparatus which is alone marked by any novelty in Mr. Marconi's Patents. Professors Lodge and Thompson and Sir William Preece (and Mr. Gavey less confidently) all advise that it would not be difficult to construct an apparatus for the transmission of telegraphic messages without wires which would differ from the particular combination patented by Mr. Marconi and would be no infringement of his Patent.
The expert opinion also tends strongly to the view that Herr Schaefer's device for breaking and making electrical connection differs radically from the Marconi coherer, and that consequently his invention might be used without infringing Mr. Marconi's Patents. It is further stated that Herr Schaefer's device cannot be made the subject of a valid Patent itself, as it is not new.
Experiments in the development of apparatus for the transmission of telegrams without wires are being made by the Department.
Having regard to the scientific opinions thus obtained the Law Officers are requested to advise
(1) Whether the Crown might use some combination, differing from that of
Mr. Marconi, which would utilise Hertzian waves for the purpose of signalling with a reasonable prospect of successfully resisting proceed- ings for infringement of Mr. Marconi's Patents?
(2) Whether Herr Schaefer's apparatus may be used, with a like prospect?
Opinion
1. We cannot see that any such combination has been suggested which could be used without infringing Marconi's Patent, No. 12039 of 1896. The claim in that Patent for the combination appears to be good, and no substitution of what, in effect, are equivalents would dispense with the necessity of getting Marconi's licence under that Patent.
2. Herr Schaefer's apparatus may or may not be an improvement for practical purposes, but we do not think that its substitution would prevent the combination used being an infringement of Marconi's Patent.
Law Officers' Department, August 14, 1901.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
• No. 242B in Vol. V.
25 Wt 2645 11,05 D&S
5
92535