[Stoves] RE: Central channel combustion stoves. WasRE:HensonCenterFiure Burner System

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear AD

Congratulations on getting someone with money to see the sensibility of 
working on an improved stove and taking cash out of his pocket to do your 
promotion work for you.  That frees you for other equally valuable things. 
I have have at least some success with this approach over the years - 
getting people to manufacture employment-creating machinery.  Usually the 
quality of the copy is poor though.

The purpose of a patent is often in conflict with the purpose of a good 
appropriate technology unit.  I have tried all sorts of methods from 
printing the instructions to patents and deals.  Little of it works well. 
The prospect of making a living doing something good is the best I suppose. 
If there is a living in it, people will do it.  The fact that the person 
copying your stove started out with money before making the stoves should 
not be a bad thing.  If he was poor and then made a good living producing 
good stoves we are hardly in a position to complain.

I feel that in future people will send a little something to 'their teacher' 
whether it is protected or not, and even whether the teacher thinks they 
were doing any teaching or not.  In other words, principled production and 
rewards, not what is 'legal' and what you can get away with.  Some people 
are principled.  Some have no sense of shame.

Regarding the 17 years.  If a patent is in dispute for a long time, usually 
both companies continue production and compensation payments are settled 
after the case is rule upon.  If the 17 years runs out (or 20) the 
protection existed and the money is indeed handed over because it was due, 
in law.

Patents aren't so bad but they are not available to most inventors.  There 
is something called African Model Law which is a strange thing created by 
WIPO for promoting product development.  It is like an uncontested one 
nation (meaning territory) patent with no review or search.  It give 
national protection in the way a design copyright does, sort of.  It is 
being used by small producers.  The strange way in which patents are issued 
for 'traditional medical knowledge' violates several norms for patents (like 
novelty, non-disclosure) but room is being made for paying compensation to 
an academic/researcher when the knowledge is exploited.  That is a pointer 
in the right direction though there is little legal basis for it.

Regards
Crispin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "adkarve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
To: <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Central channel combustion stoves. 
WasRE:HensonCenterFiure Burner System


I agree with Richard that it takes a lot of money to defend one's patent and
that the true winners are lawyers on both the sides. We have for instance
registered the design of our Sarai cooker. But a multimillionnare capitalist
has blatantly copied it and is selling it. We are just too small and too
poor to sue him. All we can do is to congratulate him for having decided to
do what we wanted to do,  namely to disseminate our technology!
I consulted an industrialist friend of mine about this. He told me that the
life of a patent is about 17 years. Any clever lawyer can keep the case
before the court of law undecided and pending for that period, and after the
17 years are over, the case is thrown out, because the cause for litigation
does not exist any longer.
Yours
A.D.Karve