Yes you are correct that Brian was not interested in 1-4. However it is also correct that items 1-4 are in fact true. I was prepared to discuss the situation and show or obtain whatever degree of documentation might be necessary, though you yourself have 2-3 directly from Peter over the years. Further you have seen a signed handwritten note regarding 1. Did you want it witnessed and notarized in Swedish? For item 4 there is only one way to see that and that is to go to Sweden. It is a private business record. If that is in fact not true it is none of your business, but would be a matter between Ingella and Peter alone. However since 4 is true and easily verified you were invited to Sweden to view private business documents. What more did you want? I think the financial terms that were offered by Peter and me for your visit were highly generous and conciliatory.

What I would dispute below is 5. I did not threaten you for years. As far as I recall there was one email where I mentioned that such a recourse was available if you chose to keep harassing us over this issue. Further, this only came to the attention of the microhydro group because of your bogus alias postings threatening to "expose" our supposed injustice to you. We had no choice but to respond with our side of the story.

We're still awaiting a shred of evidence that Ron Davis, Otto Rike, K. D. Lee, Poco Baya, Abuelo Che, or Austin Baines actually exists and is not the alias of some fugitive from justice. Won't that be rich irony when we uncover the truth that whoever you are is in fact a fugitive from justice, after years of enduring your vile blasts of calumny?

From: davis ron
To: h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com; jjh@ceramatec.com
Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 4:16:15 PM
Subject: And Kunzler refused to accept this proof from you?

So you are telling me that you came to the Dec.23, 09 meeting with Kunzler offering proof that my turbines were "illegal".

This would include

1.proof of the existence of your Swedish widow Ingela Carlson, whom for five years you and Ruyter have told the membrship of the Internet Yahoo microhydro group I am cheating out of "royalty" payments,
2. proof of your "exclusive right to produce" this turgo design, as you told the group you had,
3. authorization by Ruyter to collect royalty payments from me, as you publicly claimed,
4. proof of Peter Ruyter´s legal ownership of the turgo design,
5.and proof to support for your four years of threats to have my turbines banned from the U.S.
All of which you have claimed mant times could be presented in a court of law?

And Kunzler refused to accept thisproof from you?


--- On Mon, 12/13/10, Joseph Hartvigsen wrote:

From: Joseph Hartvigsen
Subject: Re: The Bottom Line for Internet Fraudsters
To: "davis ron"
Date: Monday, December 13, 2010, 5:55 PM

"In my meeting with Mr. Hartvigsen, I explained that the existence of the widow was of no consequence,"
Yes, so he was not interested in any evidence of her existence and as far as I was concerned the only relevance to you is that you use this to justify your position that we had lied about her existence.

"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."
Have I ever said there was a patent? As far as I know the only relevant patent was Gilkes which expired long ago. The issue we had was your direct replication using the orangespoon as a mold form. Did I not post examples of others making similar parts that were not direct copies? It was never discussed a turgo concept invention claim, only a copyright issue by using the part as the form for making other parts.

"He did not establish her existence, nor did I see a license agreement. Again, both are irrelevant."
How plain can he be. He was not interested in this. It was irrelevant to him as far as the law was concerned.

"Copyright law does not cover what they are doing."
This was counter to what I'd referred you to on copyrights.gov You never gave any counter reference. I followed his reference suggestions and found that in the US Brian's assertion is how the courts rule. In other countries using a copyright article (drawing, set of plans, widget) to make a copy IS considered a violation. So this is a gray area outside the US. Still I posted this information as you requested.

"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."
I have been trying to drop this for years and years. When will you drop it? Am I still claiming a "proprietary right that does not exist"? I don't think so. If you think so please explain what I am doing to make you say that.


Joe