Salt Lake City Patent Attorney Brian Kunzler: "He did not establish her existence, nor did I see a license agreement" Feb. 10, 2010

Feb. 10, 2010
From SLC Patent Attorney Brian Kunzler

Ron,

I just found out that your emails were being sent to my junk folder. I get them on my phone, but not my computer. That is why my responses to have been sporadic. I have fixed that.

In my meeting with Mr. Hartvigsen, I explained that the existence of the widow was of no consequence, as they have no proprietary rights absent patents, which they do not hold. Even if they did, they would have to hold them in the all countries they are trying to preclude sales in. He did not establish her existence, nor did I see a license agreement. Again, both are irrelevant. Copyright law does not cover what they are doing. He agreed to let it drop if you would. If he continues to cause you a loss of business by claiming a proprietary right that does not exist, he is committing a business tort and is opening himself up to a law suit.



Best regards,



Brian



Brian C. Kunzler

Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe

8 East Broadway, Suite 600

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

(O): 801-994-4646 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 801-994-4646 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

(F): 801-531-1929



kunzler@kmiplaw.com



The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication, and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message and all copies thereof to us by mail at our expense.



From: davis ron [mailto:watermotor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:43 AM
To: Brian Kunzler
Subject: Meeting With Joseph Hartvigsen



Hello Brian,

I have a Watermotor turbine ready to ship to the U.S.
The day before yesterday I asked Joseph Hartvigsen a straightforward question:

" Are you still claiming my turbines are "illegal" copies and that you could have them banned from the U.S by U.S. Customs?"

You saw his reply, which he sent to you as well. I am sorry to say that it seems that Hartvigsen did not take the meeting with you very seriously.

We are awaiting a report on your meeting with Joseph Hartvigsen which was to allow you to evaluate his IP claims regarding the turgo turbine runner design we use.
Hartvigsen said he would be able show you whatever evidence he would present in court to support his claims regarding turgo design ownership.
And what he would present to the U.S. customs Service as proof that my turgo runners were "illegal" copies, as he has publicly claimed, and which he has threatened to have seized.

He said he would also explain why, as a scientific professional with special training in understanding IP regulations, he has publicly maintained for years that COPYRIGHT protection was applicable to his turgo design ownership claims.
As you see, he is now trying to claim ignorance of basic IP rules as an excuse, making no mention of the damage his false claims have done.
He was to explain why he could publicly demand royalty payments from me when there was no royalty agreement.

Did he explain why neither he nor Peter Ruyter could prove any aspect of the widow Carlson story, upon which their entire turgo design ownership claim is based, to be factual. Could they even provide the NAME of the supposed inventor?

Did you discuss the public retraction of his public statements, made for years, that my turbines are illegal?
Did you inform him that he could expect to be held responsible for the damage he has done with his fraudulent and libelous public statements?

What was his response?

So, very importantly, as an attorney, please tell us how do you think Hartvigsen's story would stand up in court?

He also said he would explain concealing my business corresponance to his company Ceramatec regarding the testing of my invention FiberSil from the company records, and having secretly made himself co-inventor.
This would include his statement, as you saw, made to me and others that the Ceramatec patent attorney supported his claim that copyright protection was applicable to the turgo design and that he had the right to secretly claim to have co-invented my invention FiberSil, which Hartvigsen was in charge of testing.
Did you ask him who else at Ceramatec knew he was doing this?
Ashok Joshi, for an example?
( Hartvigsen said that he handed Joshi the 67 emails from me he had been concealing.)

Brian,
We need to know what Hartvigsen means by these statements regarding his meeting with you a month ago:

" I think Brian can confirm the existence of Bishop Robert Rees, and that I am not making up Mrs. Ingela Carlsson either. I think the only finding in your favor out of our discussions is that I had an incorrect understanding of the strength of protection afforded by copyright."

Did you, as my attorney, actually agree to tell anyone you examined widow Carlson fable and found it to be true?
You certainly didn't tell me any such thing.

Did he prove to you that State Attorney Robert Rees actually was his Mormon bishop as he claimed Rees was when he wrote to me, and why the LDS church refused to confirm this claim? If so why was Rees unable to prove this to the Summit County Sheriff's Dept when he was investigated for impersonating a bishop?

Do you agree with this statement, as he implies, that the false IP claims he has used for years to destroy our Watermotor project, and my reputation was a result of a minor misunderstanding of intellectual property laws, of which he was not informed, and for which he should not expect to be held responsible?

Hartvigsen seems to be speaking on your behalf here. You must realize he has sent this message out to other people.
Please let me know right away what you intend to do about this.

As I have mentioned to you before, for years whenever anyone actually asks Hartvigsen for proof of his IP claims he doesn't provide it, since it does not exist, but rather makes some extremely defamatory statements about me personally to cover for his fraud.
I can show you several public and private examples in which this type of information from Hartvigsen is referred to.
Did you ask him about this? What did he say?
You told me that as my attorney when you learned the nature of these statements you would inform me about them.

Brian,
Next Monday we are meeting with three vice-ministers in the Bolivian Government regarding the Watermotor project.
We will also meet with the new Director of the Patent Office.( I think I mentioned that I hold more patents on machines than anyone else in Bolivia).
If this matter is not resolved we will request that they inquire into Hartvigsen's threats to have my turbines banned from the U.S. as a trade issue.
These is no reason why this matter should not have already been resolved.

If you have any reason whatsoever to question the veracity of ANY of my statements or doubt the falsity of ANY of Hartvigsen's claims, please let me know.

Best, Ron

--- On Sat, 1/30/10, Joseph Hartvigsen wrote:


From: Joseph Hartvigsen
Subject: Re: spoon copying
To: "davis ron"
Cc: "Brian Kunzler"
Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 6:54 PM

Ron,
I met with your Attorney Brian Kunzler just before Christmas. Brian offered a different view of the applicability of copyright protection than I had been advised when I discussed this with an IP attorney several years ago. His view also differed from what I understood having read the circ01.pdf file I'd referred you to on copyrights.gov Further reading suggested by Brian confirmed his assertion that any functional aspects are not protected by copyright. However, the reading did seem to indicate that there is always the potential that some applicability of copyright could be claimed, particularly since you have not reverse engineered something similar, but actually used the spoon as the form to make a mold for your copies.

I told Brian that "I am willing to agree to disagree privately and to drop the matter publicly." which ironically is where we were 6-8 years ago before you kept bringing this up. I also stated that I cannot concede any point on Peter's behalf, and that I believe that Peter has purchased the copyright from Mrs. Ingela Carlsson or at least secured agreement to use it. The protection offered by this copyright may be very weak, but as I understand it its existence is as undeniable as the existence of the spoons.

So where does that leave us regarding the orange spoons? Basically it is where we were before all of the discussion where you were copying and I, having relayed Peter's displeasure in the practice and having been unsuccessful in negotiating any sort of arrangement, had dropped the mater.

In the mean time I have spent a great deal of time designing a range of new spoon sizes with various design improvements. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on molds, some of which have been reworked after testing the parts. Having been down this painful road once, I have no interest in starting over with this issue. I don't think it is reasonable that I should invest so much time, thought and money in new products only to enable you to short circuit the process by buying one part to use as a form for making copies. Therefore, if you wish to use any of these new products, such as the greenspoon (150mm pcd with 240 spoons, elliptical or cyl/hemi contours) I will require a signed agreement that you will not copy or enable others to do so as a precondition of sale. I don't expect that you will be interested in such an arrangement, but those will be the terms going forward.

I think Brian can confirm the existence of Bishop Robert Rees, and that I am not making up Mrs. Ingela Carlsson either. I think the only finding in your favor out of our discussions is that I had an incorrect understanding of the strength of protection afforded by copyright. I had already told you repeatedly of my desire to drop the matter.

So what do you want to do at this point?

Joe



Joseph Hartvigsen
Hartvigsen-Hydro
1529 South 400 East
Kaysville, UT 84037 USA

Micro Hydro components, turgo runners
http://h-hydro.com



From: davis ron
To: jjh@ceramatec.com; h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com
Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 3:56:29 PM
Subject:

Hartvigsen,

Are you still claiming my turbines are "illegal" copies and that you could have them banned from the U.S by U.S. Customs?

Ron Davis,