HC Deb 29 July 1913 vol 56 cc275-7
27. Mr. PIKE PEASE

asked the Postmaster-General if his expert advisers have informed him as to the distances which should separate high-powered wireless stations if disturbance is to be avoided; and whether he can inform this House as to what would be such distance required in. the case of the Telefunken system, the Marconi system, the Goldschmidt system, and the Poulsen system, respectively?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The distance depends upon so many factors that it is impossible to give a definite answer to either part of the question. In the case of the Marconi station at Clifden and the high-power station on the Poulsen system in the south-west of Ireland, for which an experimental licence was granted some months ago, my technical advisers considered that the intervening distance of about sixty miles should suffice.

28. Mr. PIKE PEASE

asked the Postmaster-General whether, as there is nothing in the proposed contract with the Marconi Company which imposes any restriction with regard to the granting of licences to private companies to carry on competing business along the same route as is to be followed by the Imperial wireless service, he will be prepared to consider applications for such licences within the next few weeks?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

In view of the considerations I have mentioned in answer to previous questions the answer is in the negative.

29. Mr. PIKE PEASE

asked who is to decide whether the grant of a licence in any specified territory would or would not involve competition with the Imperial stations?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The final decision would rest with the licensing authority of the territory concerned.

30. Mr. F. HALL

asked the Postmaster-General if he will state by whom he was informed that the Poulsen Syndicate in this country were not in possession of the patents which were used in the American Poulsen service; and if he has any further information upon this point?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

In answer to a supplementary question on 16th July I stated that I understood that the Poulsen Syndicate in this country were not in possession of the patents used in the American Poulsen service, as that was the conclusion which I had drawn from the evidence given on the point before the Select Committee. The president of the American Poulsen Company denied that the British Poulsen Syndicate had any rights over the distinctive patents used by his company, and though in subsequent examination he admitted that the legal position was uncertain, he did not admit the existence of such rights. The solicitor of the British Syndicate, while asserting their existence, agreed that to enforce them might involve litigation in England, Denmark, and the United States. I gather from a statement recently made by the managing director that the British Poulsen Syndicate reasserts its claim, but he has not stated, so far as I am aware, that the view of the American Company expressed to the Select Committee has since been modified.