eheownrx at ssumbheq.com
Sun Dec 24 09:50:47 PST 2006
Happy Christmas To You!祝您圣诞节快乐!
Who has humiliated he、she and it?IMPUDENT DuPont of USA and Holliday!
1. Dare Du Pont and its CEO Holliday deny this publicly? They absolutely dared not, as what I said is all truth.
2. If everyone can tramp down on law and publicly provoke the civilization of the world, like Du Pon and its CEO Holliday have done, what the world will be? Logic here is simple, As Du Pont and its CEO Holliday can tramp down on the “Contract Law” and seize the patent of the others as its own before the eyes of the public of the world, why other people cannot kill and loot in defiance of the Criminal Law and be encouraged?
3. Due to the stipulations concerning secrecy in the “Biological Evaluation Agreement”, please forgive us that I and Mr. Huang cannot make public our true names. But Du Pont and its CEO Holliday absolutely know our true names.
SXF 01. July 2006
Du Pont Chemical Company of the United State has for several times required to submit the dispute between it and our side to an arbitration organization. Respecting the requirement of Du Pont, we sent a version of “Arbitration Agreement” in a registered letter to Du Pont on January 16, 2006, with an enclosure saying if Du Pont raises no objections, we will appreciate it if Du Pont sign and affix its seal to the agreement and mail the rest two copies back to us in 30 days. If Du Pont has objections, it may produce a version of its own. Meanwhile, we have sent the “Arbitration Agreement” and an enclosure letter by e-mail to info.china at chn.dupont.com and info at dupont.com 24 times on January 26, February 6, February 10 and February 15, 2006 respectively. Now more than 30 days have passed, far exceeding the time that needs for finding proof and making a decision, and we have received no reply. This is most likely another trick played by Du Pont for the purpose of repudiating its debt. We therefore send this e-mail and ask for your pardon if it does any convenience to you. If possible, we request you tell Du Pont not to play this kind of trick any more. (As many people with the public relations department of the Du Pont Chemical Company excel at Chinese, the registered letter and e-mail we have sent are not translated into English.)
IMPUDENT, SCOUNDREL, DuPont of the United States!无耻，无赖，美国杜邦和贺利得!
IMPUDENT, SCOUNDREL, CEO of DuPont Holliday !
DuPont Co. and its CEO Holliday are transnational scoundrel!
Without open objection, DuPont is openly admitting itself to be a transnational scoundrel!
We firmly believe that the United State is not a country that shields and connives at rascals and the American government is not a government that shields and connives at rascals!
We request the American government actions to intensify the law enforcement strength to protect
intellectual property rights,force transnational scoundrel DuPont to carry out it’s voluntarily
promised obligations in the agreement.
Hello, my respectable President Mr. Bush:
The fact that DuPont declined to fulfill the agreement has been presented to you for several times via president at whitehouse.gov; As a result, president at whitehouse.gov sent back three letters containing the following same contents on the behalf of Mr. President in Sep 2004:”Thank you for e-mailing President Bush. Your ideas and comments are very important to him.” My ”ideas and comments” are as follows: it is verified by Mr. Huang with adequate facts and irrefutable legal evidences that DuPont must disburse Mr. Huang patent fee, license fee or equivalent “Utter Compensation” fee and DuPont’s persistent refusal to disburse these fees infringes upon the intellectual property rights of Mr. Huang. president at whitehouse.gov mentioned ”are very important to him.” I don’t dare to unduly surmise the meaning of “very important” to Mr. President; However, according to my humble opinions, there exits the following “important”: on the one hand, respectable Mr. President, the American Government led by Mr. President as well as the great American people bitterly hate the predation of the intellectual property rights of
others through brazen means such as stealing, shameless acts; in contrast, DuPont is committing such brazen and shameless deals; on the other hand, the number of your country’s intellectual property rights in a variety of fields is far in excess of that of any nations in the world and suffers greatly from rights infringement. Therefore, your government always reserves no efforts in urging other nations to intensify the law enforcement strength to protect your country’s intellectual property rights. However, while your government reserves no efforts in urging the Chinese government to intensify the law enforcement strength to protect your country’s intellectual property rights and receives your “more encouraged” praise, DuPont is infringing the intellectual property rights of Mr. Huang through various extremely brazen and shameless means, which constitutes an extremely bad signal to the governments and public of other nations in the world, a extremely “good” model for current and potential thieves of intellectual property rights, an enormous damage to your government protection of your country’s intellectual property rights, and a tremendous humiliation to your country’s lofty status in the world. For the sake of the glory of the great American people and the reputation of a legion of American corporations, in order to safeguard your country’s lofty status in the world and protect the intellectual property rights of your country and other nations in the world, we humbly request you and your government to prevent DuPont’s such extremely brazen infringement and even seizure behaviors, and force DuPont to carry out it’s voluntarily promised obligations in the agreement. We firmly believe that the United State is not a country that shields and connives at rascals and the American government is not a government that shields and connives at rascals; Under the instruction of our respectable Mr. President and the Americangovernment, the rascal of DuPont shall be aware of shame and be able to turn into a normal corporation by giving up shameless behaviors. Due to the adequate evidences, the clear-cut rights and obligations of both parties of DuPont and Mr. Huang, and simple legal relations, the infringement of the intellectual property rights of Mr. Huang by DuPont can be absolutely prevented and DuPont will surely disburse Mr. Huang patent fee, license fee or equivalent “Utter Compensation” fee as long as your government intensifies the law enforcement strength to protect intellectual property rights as well.
With best regards!
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.
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
Seek response from E-mail: info at dupont.com
info.china at chn.dupont.com
2 如果大家都像美国杜邦及其总裁Holliday这样极其无耻地公开践踏法律和公开挑衅全世界文明法制国家的话，世界将是一个怎样的世界 ？逻辑很简单，既然美国杜邦及其总裁Holliday以这些极其无耻、无赖的行为在全世界公众面前公开践踏《合同法》强占别人的专利而受到支持，为甚么其他人在全世界公众面前公开践踏《刑法》而杀人、抢劫不可能受到鼓励？
美国杜邦化学公司近一年来，多次要求将杜邦和我方的争议提请仲裁机关裁决。我方尊重杜邦这一要求，在2006.01.16.给杜邦公司用挂号信寄去了《仲裁协议》版本。并附信说，杜邦如无异议，请杜邦在30天内签字、盖章后，保留一份，将其余二份寄回。杜邦如有异议，请提出杜邦的版本。并在2006.01.26.,2006.02.06.，2006.02.10.，2006.02.15.，将此《仲裁协议》和信件24次发送给了info.china at chn.dupont.com和info at dupont.com。但是现在已经超过了30天，即已经远远超过了作出论证和决定的必要时间，仍无任何答复。这很可能是杜邦企图继续赖帐的又一恶作剧表演，故发此e-mail麻烦各位，敬请谅解。如有可能，敬请您教育和强制杜邦不要继续玩这种赖帐的恶作剧表演了。
杜邦公司不履行协议的事实已多次通过president at whitehouse.gov向您呈述；president at whitehouse.gov也在 2004年9月代替总统先生发来下述三封内容相同的回信：“Thank you for e-mailing President Bush. Your ideas and comments are very important to him.”我的“ideas and comments”是黄先生有充足的事实证据与无可辩驳的法律依据证明，杜邦必须向黄先生支付专利费、许可证费或等额的“完全赔偿”金，杜邦一直拒绝支付这些费用是侵犯黄先生的知识产权。president at whitehouse.gov说“are very important to him.”
“very important”对总统先生是何含意，我不敢妄自猜测；但就愚见而言，有下列“important” 。
全责代理人： SXF 2005.09.17.23：59
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。
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）。
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。
(求证E-mail：杜邦中国 info.china at chn.dupont.com ,
杜邦总部Contact Us:info at dupont.com
More information about the diffusion