Request you denounce and prevent the American DuPont impudently forcibly occupy intellectual property of Mr.Huang!

longminghui sunwenhai999 at
Wed Aug 31 08:56:03 PDT 2005

Request you denounce and prevent the American DuPont impudently forcibly occupy intellectual property of Mr.Huang!
impudent DuPont CO.! impudent Holliday! impudent! impudent!! exceeding impudence!!!
DuPont and CEO Holliday are transnational scoundre!
Seek response from E-mail: 
info.china at 
president at
Postmaster at
Does DuPont dare to deny openly? It does not dare, absolutely does not dare. With ironclad evidence before it, what qualification does it has to deny? There is a proverb saying “Qui non improbat, approvat”. Without open objection, DuPont is openly admitting itself to be a transnational scoundrel, trampling on the human and national dignity of creditors.
 repudiate a debt + vilify = scoundrel          
 repudiate a debt + vilify + threaten = impudently forcibly occupy
Your Excellency:
 My friend, Mr. Huang, is patent holder of a highly efficient and nontoxic farm pesticide production technology of People’s Republic of China. However, in 1995, without negotiating with Mr. Huang, DuPont Chemical Company of the United States has unilaterally worked out a “1995 Agreement” and took the patent technology solely as its own, and has been refusing to pay Mr. Huang any technology transfer fee or “full compensation”. More despicable is that DuPont Board Director and CEO Holliday has for three times vilified Mr. Huang as a scoundrel and the People’s Republic of China as a country of scoundrels on the obverse side of Mr. Huang’s “refused” envelope, and said Mr. Huang, as a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, is not entitled, as citizens of other countries do, to claim his right with DuPont according to laws of civilized countries and practice of civilized people. Since the summer of 2000, Mr. Huang has time and again produced sufficient factual evidences and irrefutable legal basis for DuPont to perform the agreement or conduct full compensation by way of writing letters, sending facsimiles, making telephone calls and face-to-face negotiation. And contrary to this, DuPont is unable to produce any factual evidences and legal basis neither for not performing the agreement nor for not conducting full compensation, but takes the attitude of “”absolutely” not performing the agreement nor conducting full compensation, and “you may do as you like”. Here I want to ask who is the scoundrel (a transnational scoundrel)? What kind of qualification has Holliday obtained to do so? In summing up, Holliday and DuPont are undoubtedly scoundrels. Or more correctly, Holliday is a transnational scoundrel, while DuPont is a multinational scoundrel. In order to safeguard the basic economic order as well as the basic ethics in the world, Mr. Huang here sincerely request all ladies, gentlemen, CEOs, experts and men of noble characters to let it know to Holliday and DuPont that laws of civilized countries cannot be trampled on, the basic ethics of the society cannot be ruined, respect and equal treatment to China and the Chinese people are necessary, and to repudiate debts cannot fatten itself. DuPont must observe the obligations it has promised in the agreement, let alone the commitment it made initiatively. It must pay patent fee and license fee to Mr. Huang and may by no means go back on its words. If it dares to take goods and does not pay, it certainly dares to take the money and does not deliver the goods, or deliver fake products, or deliver products of inferior quality. Who will be the next victim? At what time? And what’s the amount? Who can guarantee? Therefore, Mr. Huang request all of you, CEOs, technical experts, men of noble characters, and Chinese compatriots: guard your property and wealth against Holliday and DuPont. Though you are fully capable of smashing the scheme of Holliday and DuPont, it is a waste of time, energy and money to do so; keep away from them and avoid various exchanges with them. Mr. Huang sincerely suggests you check whether you have fallen into the trap of Holliday, or the trap of DuPont? If you have, go straightly to them and get even with them. Otherwise you will be taken as automatic disclaimers of power once the “validity of legal prescription” passes.
With best regards
Empowered person: SXF
 Heartfelt thanks for your reading my E-mail and your mail of attention to this matter. I would like to make some replenishment concerning the matter, for you to judge and decide. 
I Abstract
1. At the request of Du Pont, Mr. Huang has for 10 times submitted written technical materials to Du Pont from April 1993 to 1994, for expert group of Du Pont to conduct feasibility analysis. 
2. On February 22, 1995, Dr Robert F Sklar, Technology Transfer Licensing Manager of DuPont arrived in Shanghai in China, to “sign many agreements” with Mr. Huang. Mr. Huang insisted DuPont examines samples first before signs any agreement. However, as samples were still in the process of purification at the time, no agreements were signed then. 
3. On March 28, 1995, Mr. Huang sent the first batch of samples to Du Pont by post. 
4. On September 7, 1995, Mr. Huang received “Biological Evaluation Agreement” (1995 Agreement) sent by Du Pont, requiring Mr. Huang to sign this agreement and again provide samples. Mr. Huang signed the agreement and sent second batch of samples as requested by DuPont. 
 DuPont admit in Article 5 of the “1995 Agreement” that Mr. Huang will be entitled to claim patent and licensing fees. DuPont states in Article 8 of the “1995 Agreement” that Mr. Huang may not cooperate with any universities or enterprises in any form before and after signing of this agreement (for this reason, Mr. Huang has refused cooperation request of several companies).
5. On September 10, 1998, DuPont sent a letter to Mr. Huang, asking for third batch of samples. 
6. In 1999, DuPont carried out a month-long insecticide screening on the third batch of samples (in fact, it has carried out weeds killing test and mould killing test in the meantime), and required to keep all these tests a secret. 
7. On June 8, 2000, DuPont sent a letter saying it was not interested in samples provided by Mr. Huang, and refused to pay Mr. Huang patent and licensing fees.
8.The mail signed by DuPont on June 2th, 2005, threaten  Mr.Huang ,and prevent Mr.Huang send the 

求证E-mail:杜邦中国 info.china at ,
   杜邦总部Contact Us: 
  president at
  Postmaster at
西方谚语:“不反对就是赞成! ”
 无理顽固赖帐 + 无耻污蔑  = 强横无耻型的无赖
无理顽固赖帐 + 无耻污蔑 + 威胁-恫吓 =  强横无耻型的强占                                                                    

为了维护世界的最起码的经济秩序,为了维护世界最起码的道德,黄先生敬请各位尊敬的女士、先生、总裁、专家、君子,教育Holliday和美国杜邦公司,学会不要践踏文明国家的法律,不要败坏社会最基本的道德,学会尊重、平等对待其他国家和其他国家的人民;教训Holliday和美国杜邦,顽固 赖 帐是不可能养肥自己的。在协议中承诺的义务必须履行,主动承诺的义务就更必须履行,必须向黄先生支付专利费、许可证费,绝对不许赖帐!  
家们,一切道德高尚的君子们,一 切有民族自尊心的人士:千万警惕和严防Holliday和美国杜邦侵夺您的
  1. 从1993年4月起到1994年,黄先生应杜邦要求,向杜邦提供了近10次文字技术资料,供杜邦专家组进行
  2. 1995年2月22日杜邦技术转让与许可证经理Sklar博士 (E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY Robert  
F. Sklar Ph. D. Manager,Technology Transfer Licensing)来中国上海,要与黄先生“签订许多协议”。黄先生坚持要在让杜邦看了样品后再签协议,而当时样品尚在提纯过程中,故未签协议。  
  3 1995年3月28日黄先生向杜邦寄出了第壹批样品。  
  4. 1995年9月7日黄先生收到杜邦寄来的《BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AGREEMENT(1995年协议)》,要求黄先生签署此协议并再提供样品。黄先生按杜邦要求署了此协议并向杜邦寄出了第贰批样品。杜邦在《1995年协议》第5条中向黄先生主动承诺,黄先生将有提取专利费、许可证费的权利。杜邦在《1995年协议》第8条中规定,黄先生不得与任何大学或企业作任何合作(黄先生为此而谢绝了几家公司要求合作的 请求)。 
  5. 1998年9月10日杜邦发信向黄先生要到了第叁批样品。
  6 1999年杜邦对第叁批样品进行一个多月的Insecticide Screening(际实上,同时进行了杂草杀灭试验和霉菌杀灭试验。杜邦要求对这些试验全部保密)。
  7. 2000年6月8日杜邦发信称对黄先生的样品不感兴趣,拒绝向黄先生支付专利费和特许证费。  8.2005.06.02. 杜邦签署信件,对黄先生进行威胁-恫吓,阻止黄先生发此E-mail。
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the diffusion mailing list