 Justice Chang Min Tat rejected the arguments of the applicants.In his judgement, Chang stated that clauses (2), (3) and (4) of Article 10 allowed Parliament to restrict the freedoms of Article 10, and thus there was no unconstitutional infringement of the applicants' rights.Chang also cited the judgement in the British case of "R. v. Comptroller of Patents-ex parte Bayer Products Ltd." (1941), stating