Ron,
Your first request got lost. There are a number of factual and contextual errors in your message. I've responded with corrections many times before, but the details don't really matter. However your conclusion that Ingella doesn't exist and that this was a scheme to defraud you is incorrect and does matter. But again, we've gone over this for years and years and you refuse to listen to reason.
Here is my summary of a decade of insanity in trying to reason with you.
The spoons exist and therefore had a creator. Ingella exists, she owned her late husband's designs until she sold it to Peter. You initially agreed to the royalty. Later, I offered to pay the royalty for you. I also offered to buy your copies so you could pay the royalty if you'd rather. I dropped the matter until you brought it out in public so I responded. I gave you my understanding of the law based on reading on copyright.gov and talking to an attorney. Later after talking to Brian and reading some more I learned that copyright, though it exists for the part does not (in the USA) protect against copies of functional devices. I posted that clarification. You've demanded to see private business transaction documents. Peter has agreed to show them to you in person, and pay all your expenses if it is not as he has said.
There is really nothing else to say.
Joe
From: davis ron
To: hq@cargo-kraft.se; tbg@turbogen-engineering.com; turbin@cargo-kraft.se; h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com; jjh@ceramatec.com; henning@minikraft.no
Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:08:36 PM
Subject: Watermotor History--second request. Please comment if you disagree with content.
Your first request got lost. There are a number of factual and contextual errors in your message. I've responded with corrections many times before, but the details don't really matter. However your conclusion that Ingella doesn't exist and that this was a scheme to defraud you is incorrect and does matter. But again, we've gone over this for years and years and you refuse to listen to reason.
Here is my summary of a decade of insanity in trying to reason with you.
The spoons exist and therefore had a creator. Ingella exists, she owned her late husband's designs until she sold it to Peter. You initially agreed to the royalty. Later, I offered to pay the royalty for you. I also offered to buy your copies so you could pay the royalty if you'd rather. I dropped the matter until you brought it out in public so I responded. I gave you my understanding of the law based on reading on copyright.gov and talking to an attorney. Later after talking to Brian and reading some more I learned that copyright, though it exists for the part does not (in the USA) protect against copies of functional devices. I posted that clarification. You've demanded to see private business transaction documents. Peter has agreed to show them to you in person, and pay all your expenses if it is not as he has said.
There is really nothing else to say.
Joe
From: davis ron
To: hq@cargo-kraft.se; tbg@turbogen-engineering.com; turbin@cargo-kraft.se; h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com; jjh@ceramatec.com; henning@minikraft.no
Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:08:36 PM
Subject: Watermotor History--second request. Please comment if you disagree with content.
Hello All,
Please feel free to comment on this message. We believe in free speech.
You may also put comments on our blog.
If you do not do so, then it will be assumed you agree to the truth of the content.
Ron Davis
watermotor.blogspot.com
Please feel free to comment on this message. We believe in free speech.
You may also put comments on our blog.
If you do not do so, then it will be assumed you agree to the truth of the content.
Ron Davis
watermotor.blogspot.com
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: davis ron
To: hq@cargo-kraft.se; tbg@turbogen-engineering.com; turbin@cargo-kraft.se; h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com; jjh@ceramatec.com; henning@minikraft.no
Sent: Thu, February 17, 2011 8:34:21 PM
Subject: Watermotor History
From: davis ron
To: hq@cargo-kraft.se; tbg@turbogen-engineering.com; turbin@cargo-kraft.se; h-n-h7@msn.com; joe@h-hydro.com; jjh@ceramatec.com; henning@minikraft.no
Sent: Thu, February 17, 2011 8:34:21 PM
Subject: Watermotor History
This is the first part of what I intend to present to the worldwide microhydro community, the authorities, and anyone else who you may have reached with your story that my Watermotors are illegal.
You are free to take exception to anything here, but you will be expected to provide proof.
Watermotor History
Our goal for the Watermotor project was to develop a low cost turbine for rural power which could be produced locally. This design would eventually be in public domain.
While I was still working on the Watermotor design I wrote to the Yahoo microhydro group (March 1999) seeking information on locally casting small turbine runners in metal.
An engineer in Salt Lake City replied suggesting I use the Swedish turgo turbine design.
He described this as an "orphan" or unclaimed design, and sent me four plastic turgo blades to make a mold.
I began producing cast aluminum and bronze turgo blades locally and invented a unique power control device for the turgo runner, which made it possible to use a Watermotor to directly drive machines normally powered by electric motors.
We built a rural demonstration site for the Watermotor, made a video of the Watermotor directly driving a variety of machines, (Watermotorturbine on Youtube) and produced the watermotor.net website. We eventually secured a patent (Feb. 2002) on the power control device.
This took about two years and we then announced our Watermotor to the public.
Meanwhile the engineer in Salt Lake City had seen the Watermotor video and in Nov. 2002 informed me that he and his partner in Sweden now owned the "copyright" on the turgo design by "adoption". He wrote "It was an orphan design and we adopted".
He also informed me that I was to pay him $32 for each Watermotor we produced as "royalties" for the use of the design.
On inquiry, the International Director of the Swedish Patent Office informed me that:
1. there were no ownership claims on any turgo design in Sweden
2.anyone claiming ownership of any type of intellectual property was required to provide proof which could be presented in court
2.copyright did not normally apply to machine parts
3. the law did not recognize ownership by "adoption".
This is how the matter remained until late 2005 when I learned that the engineer was telling members of the microhydro group that I owed him royalty payments for the use of the turgo design.
He was now claiming that his partner in Sweden had purchased the design from the impoverished widow of the original designer, to whom the payments would go.
Neither he nor the partner in Sweden were able to provide the name of the turgo designer, say where he had lived or worked, when this transaction with his widow had taken place, or any documentation whatsoever for the claimed purchase.
On inquiry, the Swedish authorities were unable to locate anyone by the name we were given for the widow, nor could five detective agencies. A $1000 reward offered in eleven Swedish newspapers had similar results.
We were then informed by the engineer that they were not required to prove ownership of the design to us in order to demand royalty payments. We simply had to accept their word that we owed them royalty payments without proof.
Since claims of ownership of intellectual property, such as the turgo design, requires public proof, I posted a message on the microhydro group site (Dec.10, 05) (since removed), publicly asking if anyone could provide proof of ownership of the turgo design.
You are free to take exception to anything here, but you will be expected to provide proof.
Watermotor History
Our goal for the Watermotor project was to develop a low cost turbine for rural power which could be produced locally. This design would eventually be in public domain.
While I was still working on the Watermotor design I wrote to the Yahoo microhydro group (March 1999) seeking information on locally casting small turbine runners in metal.
An engineer in Salt Lake City replied suggesting I use the Swedish turgo turbine design.
He described this as an "orphan" or unclaimed design, and sent me four plastic turgo blades to make a mold.
I began producing cast aluminum and bronze turgo blades locally and invented a unique power control device for the turgo runner, which made it possible to use a Watermotor to directly drive machines normally powered by electric motors.
We built a rural demonstration site for the Watermotor, made a video of the Watermotor directly driving a variety of machines, (Watermotorturbine on Youtube) and produced the watermotor.net website. We eventually secured a patent (Feb. 2002) on the power control device.
This took about two years and we then announced our Watermotor to the public.
Meanwhile the engineer in Salt Lake City had seen the Watermotor video and in Nov. 2002 informed me that he and his partner in Sweden now owned the "copyright" on the turgo design by "adoption". He wrote "It was an orphan design and we adopted".
He also informed me that I was to pay him $32 for each Watermotor we produced as "royalties" for the use of the design.
On inquiry, the International Director of the Swedish Patent Office informed me that:
1. there were no ownership claims on any turgo design in Sweden
2.anyone claiming ownership of any type of intellectual property was required to provide proof which could be presented in court
2.copyright did not normally apply to machine parts
3. the law did not recognize ownership by "adoption".
This is how the matter remained until late 2005 when I learned that the engineer was telling members of the microhydro group that I owed him royalty payments for the use of the turgo design.
He was now claiming that his partner in Sweden had purchased the design from the impoverished widow of the original designer, to whom the payments would go.
Neither he nor the partner in Sweden were able to provide the name of the turgo designer, say where he had lived or worked, when this transaction with his widow had taken place, or any documentation whatsoever for the claimed purchase.
On inquiry, the Swedish authorities were unable to locate anyone by the name we were given for the widow, nor could five detective agencies. A $1000 reward offered in eleven Swedish newspapers had similar results.
We were then informed by the engineer that they were not required to prove ownership of the design to us in order to demand royalty payments. We simply had to accept their word that we owed them royalty payments without proof.
Since claims of ownership of intellectual property, such as the turgo design, requires public proof, I posted a message on the microhydro group site (Dec.10, 05) (since removed), publicly asking if anyone could provide proof of ownership of the turgo design.
Hartvigsen:"..your Turbines are sadly NOT ILLEGAL.." Nov. 25,10
ReplyDeleteThu, November 25, 2010 8:12:59 AM
Re: Hartvigsen: Can you provide proof to the Yahoo micrhydro group...?"
...
From:
Joseph Hartvigsen
...
View Contact
To: davis ron
Ron, do you have a reading comprehension problem, or a memory problem? I have already posted to the group the reason, as explained to me by Brian, why your turbines are sadly NOT ILLEGAL and why I don't have an exclusive right to make turgo spoons based on the blue and orange spoon designs from Sweden. Don't tell me that you missed reading the group posts that day!