You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News > March 7, 2011
Intellectual Passport Bypasses Convoluted Patent Journey
The Intellectual Passport CB is said to provide stronger security than a patent, while being much easier and cheaper to file for international coverage, with no renewal fees, lasting longer, and dating to when the idea can first be proven to have been
originated. Best of all, it is not contingent upon the political whims of
a patent office, set against exotic modalities.
This page is presently under
NOTE, THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
- Awaiting input from USD
Pure Energy Systems News
Berne Convention signatory countries (in blue).
Products are counterfeited in only weeks or months after they are released. "It's hard to get patents granted everywhere in the world quickly enough because the pace of copying is so fast. We have counterfeit products in weeks or months after some products are released," (Jonathan Paul Meyer, senior vice president for IP law at Motorola quoted by Sue Marek, Healing the Patent Process, Wireless Week, August, 15, 2005)
Recently I was informed about a better method than patents for securing original ideas.
It could do for free energy inventors and the patent conundrum what Alexander
the Great did with the Gordian
It's called an Intellectual Passport
CB (IPCB), and it is said to provide stronger security than a patent, while being much easier and cheaper to file for international coverage, with no renewal fees, lasting longer, and dating to when the idea can first be proven to have been originated.
Best of all, it is not contingent upon the political whims of a patent office
set against exotic modalities.
This approach itself is protected as a proprietary and copyrighted process owned by its creator, Michel
Dubois, and commercialized thru the
Universal Strategy Development System Editions International Consortium (USD), a
brand referring to a consortium of companies, with headquarters in the United
Copyright for a Machine?
Technically, you can't get a copyright on a device or industrial application. Copyrights are
reserved for written and artistic works.
What the Intellectual Passport does to get around this is create a written work
(a book) which qualifies as a literary work, including a description of the device or industrial application idea in detail, with even more detail than a patent if necessary. The
inventor's writing is clarified and guided by a USD consultant who knows copyright
law and knows what stipulations need to be satisfied to be covered under
copyright law and to be defensible against infringement.
The literary part of the book is not the creator's description of his work. This part, described into chapter 3 and annexes of the book, is
usually rather technical. Furthermore, the editor and consultant will not interfere in this part of the
work -- too many chances of interpretation. Instead the consultant will guide the client to realize his own description of his creation into chapter 3 and the annexes. The literary part regarding the author will be in chapter 1, the biography, achieved by a USD ghost
writer. The author doesn't need to do this himself. Except for the chapter 3 (and annexes) which is describing the creation, invention or innovation, all the other parts of the IPCB, which is part of the USD
System's literary collection of books, are composed as literary writing.
You would think, reading article 102b of
U.S. Copyright law, that this approach is disallowed:
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which
it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
They do everything they can to push creators, inventors and innovators away from Copyrights.
Dubois gets around this by pointing out that "they cannot say: 'Copyright does not extend to literary and artistic
works'." The IPCB is presented legally as literary and artistic work.
Hence, therein is the crux of the cut through the Gordian Knot. Since
1996, there have been around a thousand IPCBs completed, several dozen of which have
been energy related.
Infringement doesn't come in the form of a device but in the descriptions, drawings, and marketing materials for the infringing device. These
are in written, image, or photographic form, and therefore can constitute a
violation of copyright.
This is the genius of this approach. It is what allows the Gordian Knot of
patent difficulty to be whacked through with a completely new approach that is
much easier, cheaper, faster, stronger, and lasts longer.
According to https://www.mlinnovation.com/
"The principle behind the Intellectual Passport CB is simple: to own a creation using the laws surrounding a copyright, also known as a work of the mind.
"An Inventor can be transformed into a recognized Creator by including the description of his creation in texts and drawings into a literary book. containing his creation.
Part of this document must be written by professionals following the parameters particular to the category of recognized art in which the creation belongs. In this case, literature.
"The Intellectual Passport CB is the result of such a transformation. It affordably embodies the medium par excellence to transform an innovative concept into a literary and artistic
work, perfected following the norms ruling copyrights. Your intellectual property is thus legally established. From that time, no one can produce, reproduce or interpret, in whole or in part, your literary and artistic creation
(included into an Intellectual Passport CB) for commercial purposes without your authorization."
Intellectual Passport Versus
An Intellectual Passport is a form of copyright, and violation carries criminal penalties, not just civil. Someone who violates a patent might be hit with
lawyer's letters, but someone who violates a copyright could serve jail time and receive criminal penalties.
Think of the statement you see before most movies you watch at home nowadays: "Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exhibition of copyrighted materials. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the
Most (9/10) copyright cases will settle out of court because the copiers don't want to risk the criminal history on their record. Not many attorneys are aware of this aspect of copyright law (or copyright law in general), and will need to be informed of the criminal penalty provisions. A person with a criminal record cannot legally travel internationally, for example. It is a very serious offense. The richer they are, the more they have to loose in this regard, so the more likely they are to settle out of court.
The fee for filing an Intellectual Passport is between $11,700 and $14,700, which provides coverage in all 185 nations signed on to the international copyright conventions; compared to the approximate $400,000 dollars it can cost to get patent protection in as many countries. One Intellectual Passport filing is all that is needed to then be covered in all such nations.
is a list of countries signed on to the various international copyright
For example, as of 2008, there are around 164 nations, including China, signed on to the Berne Convention. Even
if China violates and doesn't prosecute copyright within their country, they
cannot export the product into convention-abiding nations without facing
Martin de Passille is a copyright consultant in Montreal, Canada, who helps people set up Intellectual Passports,
assists in defending them, and also specializes in helping the creators with commercialization
through licensing. He is one of many such consultants, and he has done many industrial and commercial related
IPCBs. He told me this basic principle to bear in
"Within a Nation, the only valid reference concerning copyright is its Copyright Law. Once such a Nation becomes a member of the International Conventions (World Trade Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Universal Copyright Convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc) its Copyright law -- in compliance with the international conventions -- has precedence over the jurisprudence of its courts, with regard to other Nations. Why is it so? Because the international agreements between such a Nation and other signatories have legal authority over the principle of national sovereignty, hence over said Nation's internal jurisprudence."
Also, there are no renewal fees with the Intellectual Passport, compared to patents, which have regular renewal fees for each country where patents are filed. With a patent, if you forget one payment, you're out of luck.
The duration of coverage for copyrights is also much longer. For example, the Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for
50 to 70 years after the author's death.
Another huge advantage of the Intellectual Passport is that regardless of when the Passport is
completed, it dates back to the earliest date when the idea can be proven to have been claimed.
Let's say you complete the Intellectual Passport in May 2011. In the Passport
document (actually a complete book), you point out that on July of 1997 you had presented your idea to a Notary Public. The date of your idea is therefore
secured as of July of 1997. (Note. Having an official dated document will help proving anteriority for sure, but in the
Copyright law, the copyright appears right at the moment of creation.)
For this reason, a saying in the USD trade is: "The IPCB does not replace the patent, it precedes it!"
In order to file for a patent, one must have his creation already made prior to that filing. Since
copyright's birth is at the moment of the creation, the copyright precedes it. As long as the creation is put into an
Another advantage of the Passport is that you do not have to disclose the idea publicly. The only people who have access to the idea are yourself, your attorney, and the
Editor who keeps a copy into a vault. (Note: The copyright office USD System
doesn't require a copy of the book. It will only be produced in court if needed, and you can still choose to show only the necessary parts). Compare that to the patent process,
which takes from 18 to 30 months to issue a patent, during which time your idea
can be kept concealed, after which it is published for anyone to see.
Also, the application becomes publicly published once patent is declined. With
the Passport, the idea can be held confidential for as long as the inventor sees fit. That option is not available with the patent process.
An Intellectual Passport only takes 6-8 weeks to complete. This is good news for those situations where prior art has not yet been proven, using the Intellectual Passport as the first prior art documentation.
(Note: While an invention is usually not considered as an art, it becomes part of a literary work when its description is included within the IPCB. The
IPCB constitutes a real property to the creator, enabling him to quickly start making contracts with licensees based on a provable ownership.)
A copyrighted work will be compared by its resemblances. Whereas a patented object is compared with its differences with another.
Industrials work around a patent by making a few changes. So when the copied object becomes
different enough, the copied patent will not apply. They do it all the time.
You can't take a patent over two things that are already patented, that you discovered would make a third function if assembled or joined
together. But you can take a Passport on this as an "innovation". This will not prevent the former inventors
from commercializing their individual things, because they where there before
you; but they will not be able to commercialize your innovation without your consent.
The Intellectual Passport is great news for inventors willing to open source their technology, but who want recourse for entities that do not comply with the request that all commercial applications enter into a reasonable license agreement. With the Intellectual Passport, they can launch much more quickly, because they don't have to wait for the lengthy and expensive patent filing process.
(Footnote: Another point is that the copyright constitutes an Exclusive Ownership, as opposed to a patent which is a Monopolistic Exploitation Title given by a state or a country.
Having an exclusivity allows its owner to keep it for himself and/or his heirs as long as it fits his needs, as opposed to a patent holder, who could be forced to license a competitor by a court of law if the later files a complaint or if the court decides he
doesn't commercialize the title enough within 4 to 5 years.)
Once you have taken all the necessary steps to preserve your idea, you can then share it with the world while requesting that any commercial applications first secure a license through you or your authorized representatives.
A huge disadvantage of the patent system is the strong bias they have against
unorthodox technologies. According to Thomas Valone, and expert on Zero
Point Energy, who also works at the US Patent Office, there are actual
prohibitions against certain ideas even being considered for a patent, such as
any mentions of "cold fusion". Not so with the Intellectual Passport,
which doesn't involved any review process that chooses to award or decline. That decision is left to the parties, or to the courts to enforce.
With patents, you are subjected to the strengths or weaknesses, the whims or prejudices of the examiners. There are many deserving ideas that are not awarded a patent. No such restrictions exist with the Intellectual Passport. A truly unique idea, which can be shown to be so in court, can
win against infringement.
This can be a great boon for all you inventors of technologies that are forbidden by the patent offices because they appear to "defy" known laws of physics, being rejected out of hand, regardless of what evidence you might have to their
efficacy. You now have an avenue for claiming and achieving protection for your hard-earned ideas.
Rossi's cold fusion can now get
access to international protection. He doesn't have to wait for the patent
office to get a clue before he can move forward with his commercial 10 kW cold
fusion heater. Ismael
Aviso now has the protection his investors will want, yet still open source
his self-charging electric vehicle and motionless electric generator (MEG) and
other technologies. Magnet motors that have been stymied can move ahead. Gravity motors. Zero Point Energy. Electromagnetic Overunity. Nothing is "taboo".
In addition to free energy technologies, there are other classes of ideas that presently
are difficult to patented but which can be included into an IPCB, such as business concepts, recipes, and software.
Software will get modified, upgraded, having its programming changed a lot, even after the commercialization has started.
With a patent, you will have to file a complete new patent each time you make those
changes. But with the IPCB, you can make several upgrades by having USD add CD's or DVDs to
your IPCB. And when there is sufficient improvement, or the latest version is considered pretty much at the final stage, you can make a "Volume 2" of the IPCB, for about half the price of the original.
The same holds true for free energy inventions.
Do It Yourself?
Most international copyright agreements prohibit the requirement for formal registration of copyright. The copyright automatically applies from the date a work is first created (as documented by credible dated materials associated with its creation).
However, the Intellectual Passport is not a simple copyright. It is a
package, complete with this Gordian Knot know-how.
Perhaps you might think that if you have sufficient writing and legal skills you
the Intellectual Passport yourself, without the use of professional IPCB editor
services, as long as you take the necessary steps to definitively prove prior art dates, designs, and
claims; define yourself as the originator; and establish your intent to
commercialize the idea; and word the document to conform to the stipulations of
"literature"; and complete it in the proper manner.
However, the IPCB is a copyrighted proprietary process. Even if you had
the ability, you wouldn't be able to copy this procedure without permission.
Furthermore, and important distinction to make is that you are not just
"filing" a Passport. You are purchasing a Passport; and you
become the owner of your creation (IPCB package) through this
The Intellectual Passport CB can only be purchased thru an official USD System consultant, who will professionally formalize the package. The only way for a person to become the author of his creation thru an IPCB, is using such a
service that provides professional advice about what materials should be present in the package to complete the idea coverage.
Many have tried to get a copyright on their invention, not knowing how it works. The result can be
disastrous. The Copyright registration does not constitute a property by itself. Like a large French Company called LOreal, who got a copyright on a fragrance recipe.
(Ref.) They lost their case in appeal, because a recipe
(as it was presented) does not constitute a literary work.
Preparing the Intellectual Passport CB
A true creation of the mind, and invention and an innovation can be submitted
into an Intellectual Passport as an
If something is an "innovation" of a copyrighted or patented thing, it can be submitted
into an Intellectual Passport, specifying what portion is unique and new, and what is not.
Unlike with a patent, one cannot make an "innovation" on someone else's Passport idea without permission of the Passport holder, because the innovation depends on the core concept, which is
copyrighted. This won't be an issue in the vast majority of cases now, but
in the future, as the IPCB approach becomes used more extensively, it will be
According to the Editor of the IPCB, your Intellectual Passport will be prepared as a three-part book.
- The author's biography
- A description of the invention or concept
- A treatise on Intellectual Property
- Alternative strategies against infringement
- The market potential of the invention or concept
- A unique business strategy
- A comprehensive set of international contracts to be used to implement the business strategy (from Part 2) and negotiate business alliances
These components establish three basic proofs:
- The identity of the author of an original concept (invention or other...)
- The ownership of a creative work (without property there can be no theft)
- The author's intent to commercially exploit his concept (for damage claim justification)
Without these proofs, the originator of an innovative concept has almost no chance of reclaiming all of his rights in a court of law.
The client doesn't need to become a professional writer. Those services are provided with the Passport. The Editor will make a biography of the author in chapter 1 of the IPCB using one of its professional ghost
writers, making sure it will be written in a literary fashion. Furthermore, the whole concept is sold by a chartered consultant who will assist the client to supply all the necessary items, answering a set of questionnaires and complete the instruction of the constituted file and forward it to the Editor.
After an Intellectual Passport has been completed, if there are changes to be made, they have to be approved by the author, to upgrade the Passport, with additional fees involved.
As far as I understand (and what seems to me to make common sense), in order to litigate or make a copyright infringement claim against a party, the following criteria need to be met:
- The copyright material must have definite proof of being prior art, with solid evidence of the prior date and the design.
- The copyright material must be adequately described within a "literary" or "artistic"
work, such as the IPCB, within the parameters of those definitions.
- There needs to be evidence of the author's intent to commercially exploit the idea.
- There must be key overlap between the infringing design and the unique aspects
of the texts and/or drawings of the copyright creation.
- There needs to be evidence that the infringing party was exposed to the copyrighted material, by which they could have learned of the design, to then copy it.
[This one is on my wish list. This is not presently a stipulation,
causing a minefield effect.]
- The infringing party needs to have been put on notice that they are infringing.
- The infringing party's use of the material is financially benefitting the infringing
party, directly or indirectly.
- The infringing party needs to have been given an opportunity to come to an out-of-court settlement.
(Standard court processes will normally give this.)
- The terms of the proposed settlement need to be reasonable.
[This is also on my wish list.]
When it comes to "protection", one needs to realize that this is a function largely of the party wishing to protect their idea. Neither a patent nor a copyright will do any good if the party doesn't take steps. This applies both to putting infringing parties on notice as well as taking steps to properly define the ideas in the first place.
First, you try to get together (whether electronically or in person) amicably
with the alleged infringing party and come to a realization of who had what
ideas first, and if they are indeed infringing, and what reasonable terms might
be negotiated for a settlement or possibly even a joint venture moving forward.
If you have a case of copyright infringement, if the infringing party ignores
your notifications to them of the infringement, the suggested route will be to start by notifying your IPCB consultant, who after assessment of the situation, will propose the proper steps, which could include the use of the
Editor's "Strategic Passport".
Martin said: "In the copyright world, the burden of proof (and fees) is to the copier..."
Professor Paul Klint of the University of Amsterdam
wrote: "Since legal procedures involving patents imply significant legal
risks and associated costs, it will be preferable to use - in case of a
perceived violation - the first line of defense (copyright) whenever
Boost an Existing Patent Portfolio
Some of you already have secured a fairly good patent position. But now
you have a way to cheaply secure the remaining key nations where you don't
already have patents filed; and to strengthen your IP position in the nations
where you presently have patents. Remember, the Intellectual Passport has
longer coverage, no renewal fees, and post-dates to the earliest date that you
can prove origination of your creation and intent to commercially exploit it.
Foreign Language Limitation
Presently, the USD, which has world exclusive rights to this IPCB approach, is making them in French and
English. They're looking forward to making IPCBs in Spanish later.
Other languages will follow, eventually.
Examples of Copyright
Security for Devices
Historically, people have associated copyrights as pertaining primarily to music, art, and literary works; but it has wider application than
that when worded properly.
A recent case in the U.S. that illustrates this is Lucky Break Wishbone, a small company with an imitation wishbone. In April of last year, they won an appealed copyright case against mammoth retailer Sears, Roebuck and Co. and advertising giant Young & Rubicam, Inc., winning $1.7 million.
"The decision was seen as a victory for U.S.-based intellectual property rights and small business competing in a global environment."
(Note: In this case, the creation [the wishbone], was filed as a sculpture [a recognized
There was one case where the Intellectual Passport has even won in Supreme Court against the patent (Tribunal de Cassation de Lyon, France) on a commercial product, therefore making a jurisprudence.
Martin says he is not aware of any instances where an IPCB lost in court. "But if there would be any in the future, it would likely only be due to bad invention description, or lack of
anteriory proofs. The Copyright will secure what is described and will not secure what is not described!"
Most Attorneys Won't Like This -- at First
There are several reasons that most attorneys are going to balk at this.
First, they become largely unnecessary because the legal load is profoundly
diminished using the Intellectual Passport method. The vast up-front work
of proving uniqueness is unnecessary. That isn't needed until there is an
apparent infringement, at which time the two parties can have a little sit-down
chat, presenting their two sets of evidence of date of origin. And because
the possibility of criminal penalties, an out of court settlement is very
likely, thus reducing court preparation and litigation fees. The
Intellectual Passport document is more a work of creative composition from the
mind of the inventor than of legalese from the mind of an attorney. Why would patent attorneys leave a patent business that pays
$3,000 to $500,000 a crack, for a book business that talks about
$15,000? The Patent business is a $100 billion/year industry.
Compare that to the collective experience on the patent. Generally
speaking, you need to be rich and young in order to expect "protecting" your patent. Some cases have taken up to 30 years.
For example, Pavel (inventor of the Walkman) v. Sony won about $7M, but paid the same amount in
By the time the Sony family agreed to let go, they made all their money (a lot more than the
settlement) and the patent was over, after 20 years. It seems that much of the time,
one only gets out what they paid in fees.
Second, the Intellectual Passport approach is relatively new and doesn't have a
lot of case precedent. Generally speaking, attorneys tend to
be conformist to the status quo, and are not likely to want to try something new
that isn't as well-tried. The inventor and his legal team will need to be
willing to think and act "outside the box" on this one.
Third, generally speaking, attorneys are not so strong in copyright law
knowledge; primarily because this subject is not a mandatory course in their
It is not usually their strength; and some attorneys, being known for ego, will not
want to appear weak. Consequently, the advice they might give in this area is
likely to be erroneous. Don't take it as their strong suit.
Just as the status quo paints exotic free energy technology as "fringe
science, bogus, and impossible," so also will the status quo tend to
describe the Intellectual Passport as follows:
As far as I can tell, an 'Intellectual Passport' is a scam designed to make people think that paying more for a copyright than they should, somehow translates into patent rights. It does not. Copyright protects "aesthetics." Patents protect "functionality." You can get around a copyright by merely eliminating the non-functional aspects of the device.
I cannot find a single reputable source defending the use of an
"Intellectual Passport." I would prefer not to have my name associated with anyone related to the enterprise.
Think of how many times free energy inventions are described as a
"scam." Just because the "professionals" in the field
of energy label it as such, does that mean it is so? And there is also the
ridicule element: "I wouldn't want to be associated with that if I were
you; it will ruin your reputation." And so they steer clear.
But the momentum is toward superior alternatives. Recently a former WIPO (World Intellectual Property)
director in Geneva joined the IPCB offices.
Alternatives are the wave of the future, including this alternative
to the Gordian Knot patent process which shuts out free energy technologies and
stifles progress of creative technologies. If your attorney continues to
urge you against the Intellectual Passport approach after familiarizing himself
with it, you might want to consider changing attorneys, or going without an
attorney, as he will likely not even be needed in the Intellectual Passport
Copyright Landmine: Diffused
While most things about this Intellectual Passport are positive, there is an
aspect that, though unlikely, is disconcerting.
Because someone with a copyright doesn't have to publish their idea, there is no
way of knowing, through a search, if your idea is truly unique. (The
unpublished period for patents only lasts 18 to 30 months.) So you
could spend a lot of time and money developing an idea to bring it to market,
only to find out at that point that someone else has copyrighted prior art that
pre-dates your intellectual property. They could then surface and demand a
piece of the action, or even demand a cease and desist.
Neither is there anything that requires that their offer for a settlement be
reasonable. They could be completely unreasonable and cause the entire
project to be derailed. This holds true of the patent route as well,
meaning that someone with a patented idea could encounter a sleeper copyright.
Fortunately, there are several reasons why this is unlikely to happen.
First, the Intellectual Passport is just over a dozen years old; and unless a
copyright package is prepared with that level of skill and knowledge of the law,
it is highly unlikely that a copyright regarding a device could carry any weight
in court against a device. So it would be a pretty safe bet that any
copyright infringement claims from a non-IPCB package would be an invalid
threat. (Like lOreal with its recipe...)
Also, the USD System International Editions Consortium that administers IPCB
filings keeps track of ideas; so like a patent, a prior art search would be
involved as part of filing an Intellectual Passport. If there was a
potentially impinging idea, you would be informed of that. So it is safe
to presume that there would not arise a sleeper infringement case from a
competing Intellectual Passport.
The potential for problems, here, is likely to increase as more people use the
IPCB method. How can the USD System both maintain confidentiality and
enable adequate searches to be run for new filings? How do they account
for adequate searches given the many languages in which filings might be made?
In my humble opinion, there are two copyright infringement conditions that
should become part of the international conventions on copyrights, which would
prevent the above problem.
- There needs to be evidence that the infringing party was exposed to the copyrighted material, by which they could have learned of the design, to then copy it.
(Note: This may excuse them from criminal intention, but once this is done, it would still keep them from copying texts and drawings without the consent of the author, and could even invalidate the
copier's patent, if they had any).
- The terms of the proposed settlement need to be reasonable.
It is important to remember that there is such as thing as separate
people coming up with the same basic concept independently. My opinion is
that the "angels" or forces of inspiration from the universe will
reveal key ideas in at least duplicate to make sure that at least one of the
recipients will go the distance to bring it to humanity. Look at the human
body and all the redundancy built in there: two eyes, eyes and ears, two lungs,
etc. If one system goes down, another can take over. Don't
automatically assume that a duplicate is an intentional copy of your work.
The duplicate could be "plan B" or even "plan A" or
"plan C"... from a loving God (or overseeing quorum of enlightened
beings), who has the best interest of humanity
In the case that the alleged infringing party indeed has an overlapping
embodiment, but adamantly claims to have come up with it independently, unless
you have evidence to the contrary, you would probably have to write that one off as a
loss. Certainly you wouldn't be better off with a patent in that
situation. While you might not be able to "prove" that they got
their idea from you in a court of law, if there are enough evidences are
available you could make a case in the court of public opinion so that they
would at least have that hit to their reputation. (Note: Speaking about ideas; one cannot claim having his idea stolen. At this stage, an idea is public domain.
It is "volatile". One cannot own an idea -- unless proper measures are
taken, such as describing the idea within a literary work like an IPCB.
How to come up with an objective benchmark for what is "reasonable" in
a proposed settlement might be challenging, but there needs to be a way to
prevent an unreasonable entity from derailing an excellent company and product.
Recommended by Free Energy Researcher
I found out about this approach last week from Karl Palsness a gifted researcher I've known for
nearly half a year, who has been doing overunity R&D full-time, funded by investments, since
2002. That puts him in a very rare class, far beyond just a garage or
hobby tinkerer. He has completed some Intellectual Passports, he believes in
it that strongly; and he put me in touch with Martin, who I was able to
interview for this story.
In response to the above attorney statement, Karl told me that most
attorney's balk at the IPCB concept at first, but after having the process explained to them, they
almost always agree that it is a superior approach to patents.
He told me a story about an associate of his who traveled with Martin to a
patent attorney's office in downtown Montreal. Their offices took up five
floors of the building. And as expected, at first they balked. But
then, by the end of the meeting, every one of them (in the meeting) agreed that the Intellectual
Passport was a better approach.
Walt Disney used copyright to protect the Mickey Mouse idea, ears and all, and
that has stuck very well through all these years.
Regarding the "copyright is specific whereas the patent can be more
general" sentiment expressed by the above attorney, Karl responded that
there are ways to compose the copyright so that it has wide applicability.
"You're basically composing a story, into which you write a business plan
and all the things you can think about related to the concept."
He also clarified why it is important to have a professional in the copyright
industry help compose the Intellectual Passport, to make sure it is written
properly to protect the idea, dotting the i's and crossing the t's, in keeping
with international copyright law.
It is true that the basic copyright is free. As soon as you compose
something original, international copyright law declares it copyrighted.
But to then compile the set of material into a package that can be defended in
court takes some doing. It's not free, but it is around 25 times cheaper and
a whole lot easier, both to complete and especially to maintain.
# # #
Intellectual Passport CB
"Intellectual Passport CB" is the name given to the medium (a collection of books produced by the USD System International Editions Consortium) allowing the creator to have his creation
edited and printed. The "Intellectual Passport C.B." is therefore the name given to a legally valid book collection.
USD Systems International Editions Consortium
Universal Strategy Development System Editions International Consortium is responsible for instigating and propagating the Intellectual Passport C.B. concept since at least 1996. They hold the exclusive worldwide rights to the IPCB concept.
Their website is
CB stands for "Copyright Business". It is a business name and
part of the IPCB designation (Intellectual Passport Copyright Business). The IPCB is the name of the product that is commercialized and that each Editor in each country has the obligation to promote by contract.
An IPCB editor (called a USD.3) is a person or organization that is licensed by the USD
Consortium to create and maintain a network of consultants (like distributors)
who will provide composing assistance to inventors writing Intellectual
Passports, to help them conform to international copyright conventions.
Martin de Passille has been working with customers to establish and enforce Intellectual Passports since 2005.
The company's website is
Counterfeit and Plagiarism
The word "counterfeit" is to the patent, as "plagiarism" is to the copyright.
International Copyright Conventions
According to wikipedia:List
of parties to international copyright agreements
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, was established in Berne, Switzerland on September 9, 1886, and came into force December 5, 1887. The first nations to sign onto the convention were primarily European. A large portion of nations around the world signed on in the 1990's.
The Universal Copyright Convention, Geneva Act, was established on September 6, 1952, and came into force on September 16, 1955. Most nations that signed on did so in the 1950s and 60s.
Convention, Paris Act, was established on July 24, 1971, and came into force on July 10, 1974. This convention was signed onto by the least number of nations, which trickled in over the years gradually.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
was established in Marrakech on April 15, 1994, and came into force January, 1 1995. Membership in TRIPS coincides with membership in the World Trade Organization, and represents nearly as many nations as Berne, which was established nearly a century prior.
WIPO Copyright Treaty
was established in Geneva on December 20, 1996, and came into force March 6, 2002.
- https://www.mlinnovation.com -
Consultant office offering services to secure International Passport CB. Contact Martin de Passille.
- Parent organization that licenses the editor business, etc. They are
the final "Editor".
- https://www.wipo.int World Intellectual Property Organization official website.
better than Patent - Recommends the use of Prior-Art as a tool for we
open source folks who don't trust the PTB. I also recommend the "dead
man" technique of sending your idea to many people with instructions to
keep hope alive after you are gone. Send it by snail mail or the recipients
may be in danger, too. (ByronWine.com; September 19, 2005)
- Bookmark this page for future reference.
- If you are an inventor, go the Intellectual Passport route. Let them
know you heard about them from Sterling / PESN.
- Let your favorite free energy technology inventors and friends know about
this alternative to patents.
- Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
- We at PES Network are in a pinch right now. Donations
would be greatly appreciated.
- Subscribe to our newsletter
to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy