I move amendment No. 2:
In page 29, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following paragraph:
"(f) that a condition which by virtue of section 54 of this Act is null and void has been inserted in a contract made after the commencement of this Act in relation to the sale or lease of, or licence to use or work, any article or process protected by the patent:".
Quite recently, there was a Supreme Court judgment which reversed a decision by the Controller as affirmed by a judge of the High Court. The decision of the Supreme Court was based, in the main, on technical grounds and did not go to the merits of the application that was made before the Controller on which he decided and which decision was affirmed by a judge of the High Court. The purpose of this amendment now is to cure a defect in the law as it stands. I may explain what the defect is by an example: A person in another country, as happened in this case, owns a patent and licenses the use in this country and imposes in the deed a condition that other forms of objects cannot be used by the licensee of that patent. Under existing law, that condition is null and void.
I may go further and mention the particular case. The patent was a method of sealing jam jars. The patent in this respect was assigned to users in this country, with a condition that no other forms of jam jar seal be used. That was regarded as an abuse of monopoly. A small firm making alternative jam jar sealing devices in this country objected to the condition in the licence as being an abuse of monopoly. Our law already provides that such condition is a nullity. Therefore, the Controller decided that the licensee should be entitled to use other forms of jam jar sealing devices. When it got as far as the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that since such a condition was a nullity, nothing flowed from it; therefore, there was nothing before the Supreme Court to decide was an abuse of the monopoly.
We propose now, Sir, to insert in section 39 a new provision to the effect that if such a condition is imposed which, by virtue of section 54 is a nullity, that condition is an abuse of monopoly and may be treated accordingly. I hope I have made the position clear.