Extracts PARIS, 30 April 1946

INTER-ALLIED REPARATIONS AGENCY-SECOND SESSION

Supplementary Report by the Australian Delegate on Patents and
industrial Processes

In my report on the First Session of the Assembly, paragraphs 28
to 33 [1], I dealt with the establishment by the Assembly of a
Committee on Industrial, Technical, Scientific, Artistic and
Literary Property Rights, and with the first meeting of the
Committee. The present report deals with further meetings of the
Committee held prior to and during the Second Session of the
Assembly. [2]

[matter omitted]

General Policy of Delegation
4. The whole subject is a very large one and discussions during
the Assembly revealed many cross-currents, some of which were
based purely on intellectual confusion, although others reflected
divergencies of interest. The matters raised on several occasions
extended beyond the scope of such detailed instructions as had
been given to the Australian delegation and touched on policy
issues that may not yet have been fully considered by the
Australian Government. In the circumstances the general position
adopted by the Australian delegation was that set out in the
following statement which is recorded in the minutes of the third
meeting of the Committee.

'Referring to the Minutes of the second Meeting, Mr. WALKER said
that he wished to make a formal statement on the views of his
Government which were as follows: 1. A distinction is to be drawn
between the technical information disclosed by the specifications
of a patent, on the one hand, and the exclusive monopolistic
rights conferred by the State when it issues the patent, on the
other.

2. With regard to German technical information and processes it is
the view of the Australian Government that they should be made
available to all the United Nations, and that no attempt should be
made to allot them or reserve them for particular countries.

3. With regard to German owned patents in Germany, the Australian
Government would not agree to any attempt to value the property
rights they represent or to allot them among the members of the
Agency. The Australian Government adhered to the Paris Agreement
[3] in the belief that such patents did not fall within its scope.

4. The Australian Government will not object to I.A.R.A. drawing
the attention of Governments to any problems in the patent field
that arise incidentally to the delivery of German industrial
plant. Nevertheless any extensive examination of such technical
questions would be better handled outside I.A.R.A., if necessary
by a special conference of governments.'
5. The delegation has assumed that the Government would welcome
any move that would assist Australia's access to German technical
information and remove obstacles to its practical application in
Australian industry. On the one hand we have resisted any
suggestion that German patent rights could be treated as property
subject to allocation among members of the Agency in accordance
with the table of shares set out in Part I, Article 1 of the Paris
Agreement on Reparations. In this matter we found ourselves in
agreement with the United Kingdom and American delegations and
indeed with the majority of the members of the Agency. Only the
French delegate (the President of the Agency) [4] seemed inclined
to the view that patent rights should be treated in the same way
as other forms of property that might be declared available as
reparation.

[matter omitted]

14. Since the Committee was tending to flounder as to the course
to be followed, I proposed as a basis of discussion a draft
resolution (I.A.R.A./A.S./Doc.19) which referred to the statement
circulated by the delegate of the United Kingdom and to the United
States' resolution [5] and proposed that the Assembly request the
governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and France as
a matter of urgency to call a technical conference to formulate
for the consideration of interested Allied governments rules for
the treatment of German patent and other industrial property
rights.

15. When the report of the Committee came before the Full Assembly
on April 9th, there was a rather confused discussion but finally a
resolution was adopted which differed little from that suggested
[by] myself The final resolution, however, includes words to make
it clear that the Assembly as a whole does not express any opinion
regarding the views contained in the document circulated by the
United Kingdom Government or in the United States resolution
recommended by the Committee on Industrial Rights.

16. I desire to draw the attention of the Government specifically
to the probability that such a conference will be called in the
near future. It will no doubt be the desire of the Government to
be represented at such a conference and it will therefore be
necessary for the Government to approach the United Kingdom
Government direct to ensure that Australia is invited to take part
in these discussions. In pressing Australia's claims for
inclusion, attention could be drawn, if desired, to the part
played by the Australian delegation in the discussions at the
Reparations Agency, which resulted in the initiative being left to
the three governments mentioned rather than with the Reparations
Agency itself. In following this course at the Assembly, the
Australian delegation, of course, expected that Australia would be
a party to the proposed conference. [6]

[matter omitted]

E. RONALD WALKER
Delegate