A divine smile dr alain methot digital smile design creator

usd system editions
Alain Méthot
A Divine Smile
Intellectual Passport
Copyright Business 4001

Alain Méthot
A DIVINE SMILE
COLLECTION ʺ INTELLECTUAL PASSPORT CB ʺ
Copyright-Business N° 4001

A Divine Smile of Alain Méthot – 4th
quarter 2015
A Divine Smile of Alain Méthot IPCB Nº 4001_Part 1_4th
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 7
Intellectual Property’s 7 key solutions given in this book
1. Thecreators’story and theirownership - 2. Sale &Transfer of rights to an enterprise
3. Preservation of secrets - 4. Innovative strategies
5. Secure negotiations - 6. Innovative products/services - 7. Simplified Justice
The original 1992 collection of books entitled “Library of Inventions”, renamed
“Intellectual Passport CB” at the end of 1997, is designed to meet the legitimate
needs of potential inventors, whether they are independent or in a SME…
In brief, the reason of being of this collection of books is to provide the inventor (hav-
ing legally reestablished his truthful rights as the creator of a literary and/or artistic
work) with:
- an unassignable, inalienable (even indivisible) and universal property * on the
description of the initial creation of his concept (texts and drawings), as well as
with the historical evidence of his ownership. The resulting international
copyright is in effect for the life of the author and fifty to seventy years after his
passing (for his descendants);
- an international business forecast that is essential to negotiate the rights to
reproduce © all or part of his work to third parties for the purposes of
developing the invention, commercially and/or industrially, and/or any resulting
potential innovation derived from the initial description of his concept;
- furthermore, a portfolio of international contracts (license, transfer, protocol,
etc.), specifically adapted to the business forecast strategy included in the book.
Such contracts are indispensible to negotiate the transfer of commercialization
rights to third parties (future partners or not);
- for as long as necessary, his technical, technological, conceptual and commer-
cial secrets contained in the author’s unpublished book, as well as the eventual
patentability of his potential invention. This remarkable set-up allows him to
fully or partly disclose his project to third parties interested by the innovation
who sign with him a legally very effective confidentiality and non-disclosure
protocol (included in the portfolio of contracts).
Important: The copyright related to the property of the author’s work, included in
one book of the “ Intellectual Passport CB ” collection, is guaranteed by the
USD Editor. The use of this innovative collection avails to the inventor new of-
fense (including penal law) and defense strategies against infringers that are
proven to be swifter and far less expensive than standard legal recourses. Re-
sult: Assurance of a more equitable justice!
* Comment: Even if the proof of anteriority is granted to an applicant of a sealed and date-stamped envelope (or
equivalent, including copyright registration without a truly literary and/or artistic work), it cannot provide
the combined property and products/services integrated within the “Intellectual Passport CB” collection.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 8
Property on Works of the Mind
Intellectual Creations and Concepts of all Kinds
which can be developed as a result of this work
A – According to the Berne Convention (September 9th
, 1886), the Universal Copyright Convention
(September 6th
, 1952) and the internal laws of countries that comply with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, a literary and/or artistic work, namely a Work of the Mind, is the property of its au-
thor, by the mere fact that it was created. Such intellectual property is non-transferable; from which it
derives its perpetual character and consequently, renders it universal. Patrimonial, moral and derived
rights result from this property: author’s rights or © copyright. These rights can be either assigned or
contractually transmitted, depending on the author’s choice or that of his heirs, legatees or beneficiar-
ies. Legally, copyright is the exclusive rights to produce, reproduce, translate, adapt, quote, interpret
and implement all or part of the author's work in any shape or form, for commercial purposes.
This means that:
- first: the (individual*) person(s) who unquestionably created a true literary and/or artistic work,
also known as a Work of the Mind, holds (hold) copyright (and the resulting royalties). The word
author (from Latin auctor) means: a person who is the prime cause, at the origin of something.
Consequently, a third party cannot legally claim authorship of a subsequently made work that is
either identical or similar to all or part of an author's original work. The latter is creative while the
former is not. This principle applies whether the third party is aware or unaware that the author's
work already exists. Moreover, the words ″invent (find)″ and ″innovate (introduce the invention
into the market)″ do not have the same meaning (see the Glossary hereunder). Likewise, the laws
governing these words are different from copyright law.
- second: any reproduction, whether intentional or unintentional, for whatever reason and by
whatever means and/or method, of any excerpt ~ known or unknown ~ of the present work for
commercial purposes, is strictly forbidden without the prior written and signed authorisation of the
authors of the chapters included hereunder in B and C. Each person mentioned on the present page
holds individual and exclusive copyright on the chapter of which he is the author (see the respec-
tive list of authors below).
B - The creation included in Chapter 2 of this work entitled, “A Divine Smile”, for which the author,
Alain Méthot, is the sole title holder of the rights that it provides, is fully described herein , and/or
on a CD or DVD. In the latter case, the CD or DVD is included in the book to further substantiate
his ownership, as well as supplement the description of the creation. It has been expressly and mutu-
ally agreed by the author of Chapter 2 and his editor that the present work shall remain unpublished.
Consequently, the decision to transmit, privately or publicly, to any third party, all or part of the
aforementioned Chapter 2 and/or the CD or DVD, falls under the sole discretion of its author.
C - © Intellectual, literary and artistic property ~ “Copyright " - Prologue and Prolegomena: Michel
Dubois. Preface: Dominique Daguet. Chapters 1: History of Alain Méthot. Chapter 2: Creation of
Alain Méthot. Chapter 3: Michel Dubois, Dominique Daguet and Ghislaine Alajouanine. Chapters 4,
5 and Quotations: Michel Dubois and Dominique Daguet. The contents of the chapter of annex, which
is connected with chapters 1 and 2, belong exclusively to Alain Méthot. Chapter Organizational and
graphic presentation: Michel Dubois. Original method of introducing USD-System's original concept
to the client (Customer Authorship Commercial strategy File) ©23.02.1996. ISBN 2.86352-07766 ~
Michel Dubois and Jannick Villepoux.)
D – Legal registration: Dcember 3rd
, 2015
* Legally, there are two kinds of persons or entities, namely: individual and legal (i.e. enterprises).

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 9
Notice
A volume of the " Intellectual Passport (CB or IND)" Omnibus is not
prepared in the same fashion as a Patent or an industrial design. Why? It
is because the literary and artistic nature renders this one, first and fore-
most, an identification instrument linking the work to its author (or co-
authors).
In "Part one", prior to the technical and functional description of the
potential invention, a literary and artistic work relates the reader to the
particular historical, social, geographical, context which inspired the au-
thor(s) and thus led him to imagine and conceive the virtual form of his
creative idea.
This historical account, true autobiography of the author (or the co-
authors), must accurately reflect the chronological sequence of events,
including the roles played by those who witnessed the creator’s experi-
ences, whether or not they contributed to the innovative concept. Impera-
tively, it must be of unquestionable literary quality. True certificate of
universal anteriority for the author(s), the first part of this work concrete-
ly documents his prior possession, which can then be used to challenge
claims by third parties1.
Comment: Only an original (creative), literary and/or artistic work
can be classified as a Work of the Mind… A book whose content merely
describes the innovation in technical and functional terms does not meet
the requirements for copyright, which are defined in both international
conventions on copyright. (The Berne Convention and the Universal
Convention).
Furthermore, the second part a volume of the "Intellectual Passport
CB or IND " Omnibus, the triennial business forecast, as well as the third
part, sample contracts that reflect a recommended business strategy, are
presented to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of the invention…
Needless to say, an author(s) who has literary, artistic, business and jurid-
ical competences does not need the "Intellectual Passport CB or IND.
1 Reminder: A literary text by Pliny the Elder (50 A.D.) was produced in court to support a Motion to
annul a 20th
Century patent.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 10
ADHESION TO USD-SYSTEM’S SYMBOLTYPE CODE OF ETHICS
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to
enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has
the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."
The Intellectual Passport (CB or IND) is the name of an unpublished
Omnibus volume that encompasses a collection of literary and artistic
books resulting from implementing an original codified system, and serve
commercial and social purposes. Its preparation process therefore employs
an original operating code called “Conventional Identification and Valuation
Dossier” (C.I.V.D) which identifies the work with its author, and with the
valuation of the commercial project(s) relating thereto. Furthermore, this
original operating code is ethical (respectful of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights), and its application obligates practitioners to adhere to the
chronological order of the natural law: " CREATION èINVENTION è IN-
NOVATION”. Just as the author of an original idea first conceives it in its
virtual form to its implementation on a material medium or: 1st
, is the
Creation (producing the description of the original concept that establishes its
anteriority internationally); 2nd
, the invention (technical applications of the
original concept); 3rd
, the innovation (technical production and commerciali-
zation of the original concept). This procedure restores to moral prejudice its
rightful legal primacy over material prejudice, based on the mere fact that
work of the mind (unpublished) is original in nature, its ownership is char-
acteristically inalienable (non-transferable), and enforceable against the
subsequent filing of monopolistic industrial or commercial exploitation
titles (patent or other State issued title, as shown in ruling of July 4th, 2006 is-
sued by the Supreme court of the Republic of France– Ref number: 05/4797 DCI).
The aforementioned chronological principal is legitimate in all Nations /
States having adhered to either one of the two international conventions on
copyright (Berne and Universal) and/or having adhered to WIPO (the World
Intellectual Property Organization), and /or the U.N.'s (United Nations).

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 11
Charter of human rights. Produced using the C.I.V.D. code, each book
of the Intellectual Passport (CB or IND) Omnibus collection provides to
the author of the original concept (described in the book) the proof of his/
her literary property (texts) and/ or artistic property (drawings) that no one
has the right to reproduce for commercial purposes without their express
authorization. It is as much for the security of the author as for that of his/
her licensees or assignees that the C.I.V.D. code is formulated, by de-
sign, to obligatorily attribute exploitation rights to each of them individu-
ally, based on their highest performing specialization. Completing a book
in the Intellectual Passport (CB or IND) omnibus collection therefore
aims to open to the author of an original concept (patentable or not) the
possibility to negotiate equitably with third parties, of international stat-
ure, the transmission of exploitation rights of his creation, by being freed
of the financial burdens related thereto (administrative, industrial, commer-
cial) which, with some exceptions, are incompatible with his socio-
economic conditions and professional competence. The contractual soli-
darity which unites the author to his assignees and/or its licensees (embed-
ded in the aforementioned process of individualized attribution of exploitation
rights) produce the alliance that is necessary for economic and social de-
velopment of the project, and provide the author with the essential means
of legal defense internationally. Utilizing the Intellectual Passport (CB or
IND) omnibus volume liberates international access to intellectual proper-
ty rights, such that it should strengthen the economic growth of all nations
without discriminatory consequence for the poorest. If the invention or the
methodology resulting from the application of the author’s original con-
cept is commercialized (by him or by a third party) prior to producing the
book, it is possible to establish his authorship rights (copyright). Further-
more, the non-publication of a book in this original omnibus collection
opens to the assignee the option, through contractual authorization from
the author, to file a patent for the invention (or other monopolistic title); the
charges and responsibility for which are exclusively assumed by the as-
signee. The Intellectual Passport (CB or IND) omnibus volume, expressly
dedicated to the creators of original marketable concepts, is therefore
called to play a stimulating role in the continuous emergence of innova-
tions that are necessary for scientific, technical and technological progress,
whether it relates to industry, the services or the arts.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 12
Declaration of the author of Chapter 1, 2, Annexes (first part of the
book), and International Consortium Business Forecast “ICBF” (second
part of the book):
I the undersigned, Dr. Alain Méthot, solemnly declare (personally and
on behalf of the co-authors of this book) that I have adhered to the aforemen-
tioned concept presentation by personal conviction and in full agreement
with the ethical principles on which it is based.
Dr. Alain Méthot,
* * *

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 13
Notice to the reader
″Invention, according to Henri Bergson, is a primary initiative of the
human mind, that which distinguishes man from beast and allowed him
little by little to attain dominion over the material world" (translation of
the author)… Quintessential ~ and therefore vital ~ to humankind is its
creative and inventive power which, through alternate periods of glory
and decadence, attests its unquestionable purpose, i.e. progress. Intellec-
tual property therefore is at the core of civilisation… During the past four
decades, the Western World has witnessed the downfall of great industri-
al powers which, thinking themselves untouchable, and therefore through
their conceit, led those who followed them into despair.
Presently, we are faced with this world-wide predicament; more than
ever, creation, invention and innovation are vital to economic recovery to
set forth the needed reform that allows humankind to evolve according to
new and more humane rules. Imagination is crucial for such a reform.
One must therefore encourage and foster creativity. However, without the
prospect of a material reward, there is little chance that such a change can
ever occur.
In order to stimulate creativity, a system was created in which intel-
lectual property could function. Such a system is the official purpose of
the W.I.P.O. (World Intellectual Property Organization). This institute is
a member of the United Nations (UN).
Notice regarding Context: In order to "reassure" humankind, many
experts and information media often remind us that the number of mo-
nopolistic title registrations increases and that the market for patent
agents has reached saturation point. This is true. However, such "experts
in intellectual property" and representatives of the media forget to say that
such a market represents an ever smaller percentage of the actual (and
growing) number of inventions. Why is it so? Because, first, this market
only serves the interests of the industry, and second, it is affordable only
to major corporations. Namely, to industrial giants who represent only
10% of originators of all kinds (inventors and authors).

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 14
This being said, who make up the remaining 90%?
1) Two thirds are inventors of original service-oriented concepts,
which cannot be industrialized.
2) The remaining one third includes more specifically the follow-
ing sets of groups:
- In developed countries: those who cannot afford to extend their
patent internationally and/or protect it in courts of law; those who
prefer secrecy; those whose patented inventions were stolen and
cannot afford to internationally defend their rights in courts of
law and, inevitably, those who never think of preserving their
rights in such conditions.
- In emerging countries: those who, for the most part, cannot af-
ford the costs of an international utility (or even design) patent.
Consequently, 90% of those with right
to their intellectual property are segregated!
What are the consequences of such segregation?
The term "segregation" may seem an overstatement! However, it
accurately describes the abject conditions in which independent inventors
(or small/medium size enterprises) are forced to exist, since they do not
have the means to obtain and defend in courts of law their international
utility (or design) patents. "Segregation" also describes the discrimina-
tory way in which originators of service-oriented concepts are treated,
since the world of (so-called) intellectual property application in practice
has by default denied such people (or enterprises) any right (monopolistic
or other).
Not only does the present system fail to meet the needs of intellectual
property's market, but it also increases the gulf between rich and poor ...
Two centuries after the initial national laws were created (1790 USA,
1791 France) ~ in turn leading to Paris, international conventions, start-
ing in 1883, March 20 ~ we only begin to comprehend the sheer potential
of the intellectual property market. Such a market far exceeds the number
of patents and other similar titles registered each year.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 15
In order to stimulate human creativity, one must free inventors from
material restraints ~ i.e. the main obstacle to the intellectual property of
their original concepts. This should help liberate creative solutions to
resolve problems related to demography, education, pollution, health and
nutrition, as well as the sharing of new resources in the future. Social
harmony and peace and our future depends on such such a democratic
reform!
The critical Question is: In order to achieve such a reform, must one
revolutionize law and international business conventions? ... Obviously
not... One merely needs to apply and put into practice the texts of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights… First and foremost, this is the
task which law-makers, judges and lawyers must undertake to carry out,
in order to liberalize (i.e. democratize) intellectual property.
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1) Everyone has the right to
own property alone as well as in association with others. 2) No one shall be arbitrari-
ly deprived of his property.
Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1) Everyone has the right
freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to
share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2) Everyone has the right to the
protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary
or artistic production of which he is the author.
Whoever shares the perspectives expressed above regarding the unjust
situation inventors and authors of original ideas face and agrees with our
solution to the inventors' sorry plight is welcome to join us. We receive
you with enthusiasm especially if you are a jurist who proudly fulfills
initial oath and commitment, "to serve Justice". For others who disa-
gree, reading the remainder of this document is of no use. Since the crea-
tion of our consortium of editions, our sole aim has been to liberalize ac-
cess to intellectual property.
Michel Dubois

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 16

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 17
Summary
Notice____________________________________________________________ 5
Foreword________________________________________________________ 23
Introduction _____________________________________________________ 29
Editor’ Note on industrial and commercial Predation___________________ 47
Prologue ________________________________________________________ 53
Prolegomena _____________________________________________________ 59
Preface__________________________________________________________ 65
Chapter 1: The story of a creator ____________________________________ 69
Chapter 2: Description of the Creation _______________________________ 91
Unity of art ____________________________________ 93
Chapter 3: Unity of art, function and utility __________________________ 499
Chapter 4: Design patents, industrial designs: Traps for the inventor _____ 517
The universal rules of graphic art ________________ 522
Chapter 5: The anteriority of creation has legal precedence over invention 535
Using secret___________________________________ 538
The expression of the work ______________________ 540
Conclusions___________________________________ 543
The rules of literary art_________________________ 545
Conclusions_____________________________________________________ 549
Appendices _____________________________________________________ 565
In which cases is copyright’s defense jeopardized? __ 566
Glossary________________________________________________________ 599

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 18

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 19
Part one: Book of the author
Part two: Business case
Part three: Contracts

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 20

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 21
Part one
Book of the author

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 22
Ownership of a personal estate has no boundary.
What is inherent to a work cannot be taken away from without vandalism.
Legally:
- literary or artistic property
is a natural, definite, untransferable and inalienable property;
- patent (design patent, model, trade mark)
is a temporary, territorially delimited and revocable title;
- holding a title, such as a license, is a temporary, revocable and territorially
delimited right to use someone else's property;
- copyright is a long term title resulting from a literary or artistic property
without any territorial restriction. Since it results from a natural property,
copyright is difficult to revoke

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 23
Foreword
Molière and Shakespeare:
Two languages expressing one reality
The present work aims at answering basic questions concerning intel-
lectual property law. Whether one reads the present English version or the
original French text, this introduction provides important information
with regards to the underlying principles contained herein.
Anyone who masters both languages is aware of the difficulties en-
countered by translators who must find the English equivalent of a French
literary text containing abstract notions. Indeed, as a Latin language in-
fluenced by classical Greek, French syntax allows a writer to construct
complex sentences that require considerable structural readjustments in
the English language. Hence the frequent use of metaphors in order to
illustrate logical principles in English. A comparison between the purity
of Molière’s verse and Shakespeare’s incomparable flights of lyricism
can be used to highlight this cultural difference.
French writers who have their works translated into English under-
stand this dilemma better than anyone. This explains why painstaking
care was taken in translating the present work. Readers in either French
or English are encouraged to use a dictionary whenever they wish to clar-
ify a given point.
* * *

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 24
The rise of Intellectual Property late in the eighteenth century result-
ed from a slow social progress. Such progress began when ancient artists
signed their pottery (first form of trademark), and led to the monopoly of
commercial exploitation granted by the King (first form of patent). This
form of privilege evolved until its present state, while other laws, such as
the first law on copyright (written in 1791 by Pierre C. de Beaumar-
chais), established the ownership of literary and artistic Works of the
Mind, thereby recognizing creativity as an essential virtue of mankind.
Such a law recognized the author’s exclusive ownership of his work.
The creation of laws governing Intellectual Property coincided log-
ically with the drafting of the American Constitution; in other words, dur-
ing the French Revolution (i.e Declaration of Human Rights)… This ex-
plains why the first laws related to Intellectual Property, notably the Cop-
yright Act, originally aimed at supporting individual freedom… This
fundamental property (i.e. Intellectual Property, which results from the
author who brings an original work into existence) was therefore estab-
lished by the legislative authorities in order to support the individual right
to freely dispose of one’s private assets.
Recognizing this essential property reflected a new collective aware-
ness inherent in the creation of laws that preserve individual rights… On-
ly once he is recognized for what they are: “authors” can inventors and
other such originators contribute to human welfare without fear of having
their creative concepts copied for commercial purposes.
As an extension of an author’s self, a Work of the Mind is a natural
and unquestionable property (it can therefore not be purchased either
through payment or otherwise). Its ownership must necessarily be inal-
ienable, and consequently: universal and permanent…
Consequently, authors from any era, such as Aeschylus, Shakespeare,
Molière, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Rodin, Mozart, Gershwin,
etc., are the definitive and permanent owners of their works. Anyone else
who claims ownership of such works inevitably commits an act of impos-
ture and theft (i.e. a criminal act). Significantly, this principle should ap-
ply whether one’s creative output concerns industry, services or art.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 25
There should be no disparity between the status of artistic/literary au-
thors and that of inventors and originators of commercial concepts. A
clear understanding of the underlying rules of intellectual property is nec-
essary if one wants to implement this notion.
Much like Newton’s laws of gravity and inertia, the rules of Intellec-
tual Property are based on a universal and basic principle: anteriority;
in other words, on the respect of the sequential order in which things oc-
cur and grow: Creation → Invention → Innovation (see Glossary: anteriority)
It is specifically by respecting this universally recognized order (i.e.
creation → invention → innovation), that the international consortium
USD-System Editions publishes documents that provide answers con-
cerning intellectual property. In addition to such information, USD-
System Editions also created a legal and affordable instrument that liber-
alizes access to intellectual property: the Intellectual Passport (I.P.C.B.).
Thus collective rights and individual freedom ~ two essential principles
upheld by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ~ are hereby offi-
cially acknowledged… This innovative product should soon fulfill its
mission, thereby bringing more justice, therefore greater harmony to the
world. Such an objective echoes philosopher Henri Bergson who praised
“invention” as … the essential initiative of the human mind.
In order to achieve greater justice in the present context of interna-
tional business, national cultures and laws must reflect true values that
allow individuals to become good citizens.
Let us conclude this section on a philosophical and humane note: to
quote French economist Jacques Attali: “During the nineteenth century,
the Western World tried to implement liberty, thereby creating great ine-
quality among individuals and Nations; in the second half of the twentieth
century, equality became the new ideal, thereby causing great injustice; fi-
nally, as we enter the twenty-first century, brotherhood seems to prevail
over other human values; it is in fact the only one that can truly make us free
and equal in law.” Such a comment seems consonant with views ex-
pressed by James Tobin (1918-2002), former economic adviser under
John F. Kennedy, sterling professor at Yales University and Nobel Prize
winner for economics in 1981.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 26
In this new millenium, a reform is more than necessary. In order to
demystify and clarify these arbitrary rules, the authors of the present
presentation worked relentlessly for several years.
Their task was long overdue. Unless one simplifies the legal proce-
dures of Intellectual Property, there is little hope that even experts on the
subject can truly understand the main issues at stake. In the present sys-
tem, judges from all jurisdictions render contradictory rulings, according
to their own appreciation of evidence.
Owing to false advertising and misinterpretation of legal texts, intel-
lectual property applied to inventions and industry has become a tangled
web of contradictions and irreparable conflicts, where only an expert (e.g.
a patent agent) can lead the way, for better or for worse, depending on
his/her competence and/or commitment.
“The twenty-first century could bring a spiritual awakening”… Thus
wrote novelist and statesman André Malraux. As we enter a new era of
space flights, moral and spiritual values more than ever need legal
recognition in order to promote human creativity. Otherwise, civilization
may well return to self-destructive conservatism. One must therefore once
and for all establish human creativity (i.e. bringing something new into
existence) as the only act that generates an unquestionable, inalienable
and permanent “Intellectual Property”. Recognizing such intellectual
property implies a strict and logical application of ethics, according to
the following natural order: anteriority-actuality-posterity. In such a
context, inspiration on the author’s part can henceforth play an impera-
tive role. Such a change in attitude should restore anteriority to its
rightful place, namely, as the basic principle of Intellectual Proper-
ty…
It is not merely for esthetic reasons that the present translation re-
quired a thorough analysis as well as much precision and prudence. Our
primary concern is to disentangle the contradictions inherent in the legal
texts governing Intellectual Property. By eliminating the age-old confu-
sion that still prevails worldwide with regard to intellectual property and
commercial rights, the USD-System Editions hopefully will help intro-
duce a higher sense of ethics and justice in the business world.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 27
Given the foregoing, both French and English-speaking readers will
understand why we strove to make our texts as clear as possible*. Thus,
one can objectively analyze Intellectual Property law and its procedures
of application, whether the basic criteria were originally written by Eng-
lish, American or French lawmakers.
One final word of advice: unless one has familiarized oneself with in-
tellectual property’s legal jargon prior to reading the present work, a good
dictionary is strongly recommended. Fortunately, both Molière and
Shakespeare have caricatured such jargon, thus demonstrating that cir-
cumvoluted speech reflects a peculiar state of mind, not to mention dubi-
ous intentions.
* The French version of the USD System texts can still serve as an ultimate reference,
should the reader encounter difficulties in interpeting the present translation.
* * *

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 28
The non publication of a book – made in the
ʺ Intellectual Passport CB ʺ collection –
grants the author of the literary or artistic creation
included in such a book the right to patent it, if the
original concept resulting thereof can subsequently
lead to a patentable invention

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 29
Introduction
1 - Who owns property? Who holds a title? Who holds a right?
One can only steal what belongs to a third party, namely, a third par-
ty’s property… When a residence is robbed, whether it is a family dwell-
ing or an enterprise, the insurance company requires a written report that
describes the goods stolen in order to reimburse the victim. An object
found without any proof of ownership cannot be included in such a re-
port.
Without property there is no theft…
If one examines the etymological meaning of the word “invention”,
one realizes that it is not a property, but a finding… The verb to “in-
vent”, from the Latin inventio derived from invenire, means to find. It is
therefore the act of finding. The finder of a prehistoric grotto or of a
treasure is actually the inventor of such a treasure or grotto. Literally, a
spy who finds an innovative secret therefore is an inventor.
It is no coincidence if patent concerns inventions rather than crea-
tions… It seems more accurate, given the commercial purpose of patent,
to define such a title as a monopoly of innovation, rather than restrict its
scope to invention. Doubtless, this would eliminate much confusion.
According to dictionaries, “patent is a title whereby the government
grants, for a specific period of time, an exclusive commercial right to any
one who claims to be the author of a discovery or of an industrial inven-
tion, and who duly deposits a claim…

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 30
” This is no printing mistake: “any one who claims to be the au-
thor…” Patent therefore is not a property title, and the claimant may sub-
sequently have to prove his authorship, for instance at a trial. One clearly
understands why a patent holder cannot claim copyright.
Holding a title, such as a patent or a design patent (industrial design
in Canada), does not mean ownership of the creative work, which origi-
nally leds to this title. This explains why one must own the work which
generates the finding, prior to holding the resulting titles of monopolistic
commercialization.
1 - Proprietor: According to international conventions and the inter-
nal laws of most Nations, as soon as he has put it into concrete form, the
author is naturally the worldwide owner of his work by virtue of his cre-
ation. Its resulting right "Copyright" is as natural as parental filiation be-
cause it is equally consubstantial... An author creates a Work of the Mind
just as the sperm inside the ovula conceives a child... It is a natural fact
stated in writing by law which becomes part of the human experience.
Remark: In spite of the natural ties between parents and children, the
former do not own the latter, since they did not create them. By procreat-
ing a being similar to oneself, one reproduces oneself…
A work does not procreate. Resulting from a creative act and not
from a procreative act, it is subservient to the author. Thus the author en-
joys everlasting ownership of his work… All the other kinds of owner-
ship which result from the purchase of material goods are foreign to both
creation and procreation; indeed, in such a case, there is no natural con-
substantial* link between the owner and his property. This is why the
ownership of material goods (i.e. acquired through purchase) ends with
death.
* Consubstantial: From 3rd
century Latin “consubstantialitas”: unity in substance
of each member of the trinity.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 31
2 - Title holder: The owner of a Work fo the Mind automatically
(and internationally) holds a title called copyright. However, the State
having granted the inventor an industrial title for a limited period of time,
much like an exclusive licence, he thus becomes the holder of a national
patent (with the possibility of extending it internationally), of a design
patent (industrial design), or of a trade-mark...
According to the way in which the official application forms for pa-
tent, design patent or industrial design are written, to obtain directly a
monopolistic title has serious repercussions: one must forfeit any access
to the exclusive property of one’s work. Invention having been classified
by law as a finding (from the Latin inventor, inventrix, from invenire "to
find") and therefore as a discovery (one can only find or discover what
already existed but had remained unknown) and thus as something other
than a Work of the Mind, the inventor, unlike the Author who owns his
work, has no property on his invention. Consequently, even though the
inventor claims to temporarily own a title, the latter does not result from a
natural right and has not been definitively delivered, and its specific func-
tion is therefore unrelated to ownership of property.
Invention is considered as “finding”, since it does not result from a
natural right. According to the dictionary: a title holder is a person who
holds a title; one who has a legal Right (e.g. a driver's permit). In the pre-
sent case, the inventor (the title holder) undertakes to use directly or in-
directly such a monopolistic right for a given period of time, failing
which the legal right will cease.
3 - Holder: Except when the developer holds a secret, the licence
holder, the licensee or the franchisee holds a right of commercialization
by virtue of a contract of licence concluded with the title holder. Accord-
ing to the dictionary: in Law, holding means the right to use something
without possessing it.
* * *

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 32
2 – Component elements of the Ownership of a Work that one can
use in court against third parties
In the way the Author's concept has been put into form in chapters 1
and 2 of this work, it constitutes, by virtue of the international conven-
tions and internal laws of most Nations, a Work of the Mind for which
the Author enjoys exclusive and universal copyright for production, re-
production and interpretation.
Until now, inventions have always been excluded from copyright
law. Treatise on the matter state that: “Invention results from a creative
mental process…” (see the Dalloz précis, 3rd
edition, 1990, Page 1).Without thorough-
ly analy-zing such a statement, the authors of such legal treatise failed to
perceive that, logcally, an invention is a Work of the Mind. Nevertheless,
one must intitially create what is specifically recognized as a "work of the
mind", such as a text drafted as the first outline of one's inspiration, a de-
sign depicting the first visual represention of this inspiration, the first
personal expression of one's invention or the virtual image of the object
that one wants to produce. Only then can one create this visual form as
prototype of disclosure, from which one can plan the commercialization
of the work… There are several ways of illegally obtaining a Work of the
Mind: simplest of all ~ used especially in the former U.S.S.R. ~ is to steal
a document and sign it in one's own name, or produce a painting in the
same style as a famous artist, and sign it in the latter's name.
How often have enterprises appropriated machines on display at trade
shows, or patented in their own name an invention that was made by their
own collaborators, suppliers, clients or subcontractors: this falls under the
same principle as copying a painting and signing it in one's own name;
one cannot help but notice how similar such acts are. Another way is to
include in one's own text, without admitting it, entire excerpts from an-
other writer's book... Or one can simply imitate a famous writer's style...
Likewise, using someone else's plans ~ including text and design ~ one
can build a machine.
How can one organize the defense of one’s rights? What strategies
can one use? Is there a difference with the other violations of human
rights?

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 33
Regardless of his situation, the conceptor who has been copied must
imperatively start by identifying the nature of his rights: creative, if they
result from a Work of the Mind (plagiarism, counterfeit or unfair compe-
tition), inventive, if they result from a patent or another title of monopo-
listic commercialization (counterfeit)… Even when acting within one’s
rights, choosing the wrong defense almost inevitably lead to a bad ruling.
In addition to the usual legal procedures, the inventor who owns a lit-
erary and/or artistic work has many other means of settling out of court
his problems of copy. For example, he can warn the copier that he intends
to publish his work in order to reveal publically the wrongdoings that he
has suffered. The results of such a warning can easily be imagined. Many
other strategies, less costly than the traditional court cases, are available
to the inventor, thanks to the extraordinary communication tool used by
the world of edition and publication.
… PLAGIARISM AND COUNTERFEIT...
A broad meaning of counterfeit is a violation of any right granted by
a title of monopolistic commercialization, such as the design patent, the
industrial design or patent. A more narrow meaning is to manufacture or
sell without authorization the product registered under such a title. Pla-
giarism is the act of claiming as one's own what belongs to another per-
son... This includes the notion of interpretation, thus broadening consid-
erably the realm of the author's property which the defrauder can copy.
Since ideas that were not put into concrete form on a material support
do not belong to anyone, plagiarism aims specifically at reproducing the
main features of a work. Thus the artist who forges a painting will in-
clude stylistic elements and colours that bear a striking similarity to those
found in a original painter’s work. If he appends the author’s signature to
the copied work, he counterfeits the painting. If he appends his signa-
ture, he plagiarizes the same painting. In both cases, he is liable to be
sued in court.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 34
One must examine this context explicitly: indeed, if colours belong to
everyone, an artist’s preferences, his choice of colours, his personal refer-
ences to the world of art, all these elements are consubstantial to him and
are his alone.
Prior to and even while creating a work, the painter constantly thinks
of what he is doing; he tries to guide his own tendencies; he blends and
applies styles and colours that result from his personal reflexions. Such
references and preferences, such choices and tendencies, such a way of
blending and applying styles, shapes and colours define his personality.
One can eventually analyze these elements as intrinsic features of his
style, thereby making him recognizable and earning him recognition.
Unlike plagiarism, which results directly from the theft of someone
else’s property, counterfeit results first and foremost from imitation and
falsification?
For example, a successful melody is copied shamelessly by an un-
scrupulous person; one may argue that musical notes belong to everyone.
However, one must perforce admit that the particular way in which these
notes are used belongs to a specific individual.
Oddly enough, a musical score can be composed entirely with words,
without using a single conventional musical sign!
When an author writes a work, he also prefers or shuns specific ideas;
as with colours and musical notes, such ideas belong to everyone. He
chooses and combines specific words as well as ideas; he uses them in a
precise and personal way, much like the mechanical workings of a ma-
chine or of a melody. Such preferences and dislikes, such a way of fitting
and combining words and ideas together, can be recognized as part of the
author’s personal style, and thus allow the plagiarizer to create an atmos-
phere that is favourable for fraud.
Pretending to defend Works of the Mind without taking into account
ideas is therefore totally absurd. Such ideas must still create an atmos-
phere; they must be organized as a form, a synthetic image or a virtual
object that unmistakably reflects the author's personality.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 35
Sometimes, a few similarities scattered here and there cannot suffice
to prove plagiarism, but when there is abundant and systematic evidence,
the accused must prove his innocence or his good faith...
Thus the Intellectual Passport C.B. extends the notion of plagia-
rism beyond its usual notion.
The same process applies logically to an invention (whether or not it
is industrial), provided that it has been explained in a book, thus making
it a Work of the Mind rather than a virtual patent, as a creation rather than
as a finding (i.e an invention). It must therefore be written in a literary
style, using specific words; this is an artistic property, namely the use of
speech to express structures and forms which are put together in a par-
ticular way, thus leading naturally to designs and models. It is also an
intellectual property, namely the title of the work, even though one may
claim other names which are included inside the work.
According to the internal laws of Nations, authors do not own the
creation of a word or the creation of a work (neologisms therefore belong
to everyone). These same Nations have agreed that authors can enjoy
temporary use of words registered as trademark (for example). Titles of
works (movies, plays, novels, etc…) were left unaccounted for.
The only way of owning such creations (neologism or others) is to
use them, for example, as acronyms, logos, etc… (i.e. as artistic works).
In summary: According to international conventions on copyright
and the internal laws of Nations, it is exclusively the specific use of
words (belonging to everyone) in an original story written in an esthetic
style and with good grammar (according to the rules of art), that repre-
sents a literary creation and therefore is the ownership of its author. Ac-
cording to the same laws and conventions, it is exclusively the specific
use of ordinary things (belonging to everyone) included in the graphic
description of an original concept (according to the rules of art), that rep-
resents an artistic creation and therefore is the ownership of it author. In
both cases, the technical aspect of an invention (whether industrial, hand-
made or service-oriented) that is part and parcel of a literary and/or
graphic creation provides its author with the ownership of a Work of the
Mind. Logically, any other criterion is purely arbitrary.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 36
The unity of art is similar to the organic consitution of a body…
Unauthorized copy of all or part of an author’s work for a commer-
cial purpose is therefore illegal; this is why the American notion of ©
copyright is recognized as one of the most effective means of dissuading
and defending oneself against fraudulent copy.
... AND UNFAIR COMPETITION...
A second author might be tempted to attract the first author's custom-
ers: such is human nature, especially if the first author is very successful.
If the second author tries to lure such clients by acts of unfair competi-
tion, the first author may sue him. This particular act can be defined as
sharing the fruit of someone else's labor, or benefiting freely from an edi-
tor's or a producer's investment. A very similar book cover, a poster
which reminds one of another movie, a car that is nearly identical to a
competing brand, music very similar to another one that was successfully
used for advertizing purposes… A new brand that brings to mind a well
established one... a logo that bears the same form and colors as a well-
known trade-mark... etc.
Another form of unfair competition is to fraudulently reproduce and
in violation of the author's copyright such items as a year-book, an agen-
da or a knitted wear, in order to avoid development costs and to sell at a
lower price. One therefore understands how ideas for advertizing, which
clearly are Works of the Mind, can be defended.
One must therefore set down in writing the formulas used to identify
new requirements or individuals needs, in order to incorporate what we
call coherent systems of ideas, images, forms or virtual objects as part of
the work. Otherwise, tribunals will have to more or less blindly evaluate
such systems of ideas or objects according to what they can perceive as
requirements and needs.
There is a great difference between an isolated idea, such as a win-
dow or a hammer, and a system of ideas, of images or forms or of virtual
objects resulting from such systems.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 37
For example, Descartes could have written his works differently
while reaching the same conclusions. The inventor of the calling card can
develop his invention through different texts without changing his mes-
sage. Thus, his product can still be executed in a concrete way and every
one can use it.
The author who would precisely and thoroughly write the complex
idea (namely a system of simple ideas representing a virtual object) of a
consumer service according to the rules of literary art ~ and we expressly
include the word idea in order to show that the legislator used it inaccu-
rately ~ would be the victim of a serious injustice, entirely shocking, if
one presumed that this idea cannot come under copyright because it be-
longs to everybody. The same can be said of an advertizing agency that
puts its ideas for a campaign in writing.
Copyright applies to every writer. But when the latter is also an in-
ventor whose written expression describes his invention in depth, an even
greater range of means of production and commercialization becomes
available. Obviously, this is not a reason to perpetuate one's mistake by
refusing to grant a Work of the Mind to those clearly deserving it.
We may thus conclude the present analysis. Indeed, since every work
reproduced and commercialized results, consciously or unconsciously,
from the formulation rooted in one's writing, through which the mind
reveals itself, one may safely assert that the various means of reproduc-
tion and commercialization are inevitably subordinated to copyright. In
addition, one must include the intrinsic value of designs which become an
integral part of its mental expression (hence belonging to copyright).
In conclusion: From this analysis, one can conclude that, except for in-
voluntary reproduction or the fortuitous coincidence of a posterior and invol-
untary recreation of all or part of a work that already belongs to a third party
as a creation, any act of plagiarism must intrinsically be considered as a
felony of disloyal competition and theft

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 38
3 - Controversy on the Anteriority of an unpublished Work of the Mind
Through the use of the "Intellectual Passport C.B.", the "USD-
SYSTEM" Editions offer the inventor the possibility to own his innovating
concept by putting it in a literary and artistic work. In order to actualize
the literary part of his “Intellectual Passport C.B.”, the "USD-SYSTEM"
editors offer the inventor a “ghost writer”, called “Interlit” by members
of the organization, who writes the inventor’s story according to the rules
of art.
The ghost writer is hired merely to transcribe the mental form of the
author’s work; such is the practice among a fair number of published au-
thors. Thus the inventor becomes universal and permanent owner of his
work and of the way in which its content is expressed.
This property is universal, free and inalienable, even though the rights
resulting therefrom (i.e. the copyright) can be assigned or licenced. It is
recommended that the Author refrain from publishing the book, especially
since he can thus authorize a third party to subsequently register a patent
or another title in his own name…
The systematic publication of every work would gradually lead to
the methodical extermination of the patent and of the design patent (in-
dustrial design), whereas the goal of the "USD-SYSTEM" editors is to
strengthen these titles by encouraging the Author of an invention to leave
its industrialization costs to someone financially capable of assuming
them…
The Work of the Mind does not provide its author with a monopoly on
the manufacturing of the product resulting from his innovating concept
(the innovation). A monopoly which, by principle, he has no use for, since
it forces the inventor who holds a patent to assume directly or indirectly
the tasks that are intrinsic to an entrepreneur and which, except for a few
rare cases, are incompatible with his competences, his means and his crea-
tive natureé

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 39
The specific purpose of the "USD-SYSTEM" consortium of editors is
to allow an ideal partnership (by contract of assignment or licence of the
commercial rights resulting from copyright) between the author of the
work, whose property (literary and/or artistic) is inalienable, and the
holder of a title (patent or design patent/industrial design) who is author-
ized by the author and whose commercial rights result from the latter's
original concept. These contracts in turn also allow the industrialist to be-
come an authorized patent-holder, whose title results from the same con-
cept (now industrial), and who can use his monopoly freely and without
duality, according to his experience, his competence, his means and his
own industrial and commercial criteria.
Even though they remain unpublished, confidentiality covenants must
also include proofs of anteriority which can be used against contracting
third parties. Failing which this traditional method does not allow the so-
called holder to claim rights on an alleged secret (the I.P.C.B. is the seizable
personal property that previously was missing to support secrecy). Likewise,
the articles of the internal laws of most States include, among the anterior-
ities which can be used to annul a patent, the production of a printed mate-
rial, whether published or non-published (e.g. Art. 34.1 of the Canadian
Patent Act, Chapter 18, page 80).
Reminder of two seemingly contradictory principles of law *
First principle: The Work of the Mind does not have to be published
and disclosed in order to become an anteriority that can be used against
third parties, since it is the natural property of its Author (his personal
prior possession). This is why there is no such thing as a patent on a
creation.
Second principle: The invention, once patented, must obligatorily be
published by the institute of registration, and likewise the innovation must
be disclosed by the innovator, before it can become an anteriority that can
be used against third parties. This stems from the fact that neither patent
nor innovation provides an intellectual property. Consequently, there is
naturally no such thing as inventors' copyright.
Anterior to the invention, the Work of the Mind is creative
The application of the resulting process is inventive

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 40
In the present state of law:
1) Only once it is put into concrete form does the Author's Work of
the Mind become a universal and permanent proof of anteriority which
can be used against third parties... More particularly, what can be used
worldwide against third parties is the exclusive right to reproduce all or
part of the expression of the original idea included in the work (e.g. texts,
designs or videos), for whatever commercial purpose, by any means pos-
sible (e.g. computer) and for whatever reason.
2) Only once the monopolistic title (e.g. patent, design pa-
tent/industrial design) is published or the innovation disclosed can the
inventor or the innovator use his respective right as proof of anteriority
against third parties…Within a given country where the invention is reg-
istered, the following can be used legally against third parties a) the
monopoly to produce (industrially) and/or commercialize the original
concept related to the title delivered to the inventor, and, within a given
country where the innovation is commercialized, b) the anteriority of an
innovation which the innovator has already disclosed.
* The contradiction that seems to emanate from these two principles,
originates in fact from the ongoing confusion of trying to compare things
that cannot be compared. Indeed, creation and invention are of a dif-
ferent nature. Likewise, their resulting rights are equally different, since
they do not stem from the same source. Invention (the finding) results
from and therefore follows creation, and creation (Work of the Mind)
results from the Author's inspiration and originality.
As long as the third party registering a title or the third party com-
mercializing it does not reproduce all or part of the designs and/or texts
intrinsic to the work, the owner of a Work of the Mind can neither take
action for counterfeit of the product which results from the universal ap-
plication of his work, nor challenge the delivery of a title (patent or oth-
er) related to it.
Prior to any other consideration, counterfeit is related to illegal
fabrication (or imitation), and thus imitates the original manufactured
product.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 41
However, in other cases, the third party who registers the title or the
third party who commercializes the product will copy the author's texts
and/or designs without his express authorization, either in order to request
delivery of a title or to produce and/or market an innovation. Under these
circumstances, the author must, prior to any other consideration, take
action for plagiarism of the expression of his original idea: namely,
for the illegal copy of all or part of his Work. In such a case, plagiarism
is first related to illegal reproduction of the work (copyright).
Following the principles explained in the present text, with respect
to the creative nature of a given object as opposed to the inventive
nature of another, Walt Disney, Hergé, Warner Bros., Goscinny and
Uderzo (Asterix), etc., have won countless court cases on every conti-
nent… Such victories in court constitute an international jurisprudence
for the "Intellectual Passport C.B.", thus validating universally the rights
of authors of inventions for which it was conceived.
4 - Examples of strategies and court actions against a copier
The craftsman, in order to copy the invention included in the author's
literary and/or artistic work, must illegally reproduce or interpret, without
the author's express authorization, the texts and designs intrinsic to the
composition of such a work (i.e. the expression of an original idea).
Question : How can an author stop a third party from copying
him or obtain payment for the right to commercialize his invention?
Answer: Like Hergé's heirs, he may, for instance, forbid by order of
court the manufacturing of original characters and devices created by the
author, such as the prototype of Professor Tournesol's "shark-like subma-
rine" in the "Treasure of Rackham the Red" (created in1948), without
their express authorization. The latter case was decided in favour of Her-
gé’s heirs in 1997.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 42
As explained in the prologue, had Walt Disney, when he created his
first famous characters, registered a patent, design patent or (in Canada)
industrial design (according to the criteria of such titles) in order to pro-
duce his mouse and objects of all kind; namely, in three dimensions,
whether mobile or immobile, in several million copies, whether utilitari-
an or not, his commercial rights would have expired more than fifty
years ago, and such business achievements as Disneyland and Disney-
world would have never seen the light of day.
Disney Studios have won countless cases which represent an endless
jurisprudence against those who plagiarized the famous artist’s charac-
ters and objects in order to manufacture them.
These original characters or devices having been invented several
decades ago, only the © of copyright can protect their authors. Indeed,
patents are valid for only twenty years and design patents, industrial
models or designs for a period of ten to fifteen years, according to the
internal laws of each Nation.
Even in matters purely industrial, several European tribunals rendered
judgments in favour of Copyright. It may useful to point out that cases
from the Supreme Court of Appeal of Paris, for instance, stipulated that
"artistic protection extends even to industrial designs or models that are
not artistic by nature" (crim. March 30 1938 – judgments of 25/2/57,
1/12/59,16/3/62,21/1/ 76,16/1/87, etc...) In order to benefit from these
dispositions, a work of art must result from a creative act, thus fulfilling
the criteria defining the Work of the Mind. One must not forget that most
legal texts were written in suc a way as to maintain a confusion between a
work of art and a Work of the Mind.
Caution! Please remember that most legal texts are intended to main-
tain a misunderstanding between a work of art (not creative) and a Work
of the Mind (creative by nature).
* * *

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 43
The need to introduce unwarranted profits thorough imposture
For various reasons, the legal profession has arbitrarily excluded the
word plagiarism from the usual list of misdeeds. Ironically, whenever an
author’s creative work is stolen and copied, the victim must prove the pla-
giarist’s evil intent in a court of law prior to any consideration, a judge
must then evaluate the infringement of the author’s property. Indeed, if it
is recognized in law that copyright infringement consists in illegally using
someone else’s copyright, the notion of plagiarism implies the theft of a
private property. Such a theft is condemned by the constitution and laws
of all democratic countries, as well as article 17 of the Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights which states that: “No one shall be aritrarily de-
prived of his property”.
The nuance between plagiarism and the more general notion of copy-
right infringement as well as patent infringement often proves elusive…
Infringement of patent occurs when someone makes, uses or sells an in-
vention described in a patent (or an invention functionally equivalent to the
one described in a patent) without the patent holder’s permission. Copyright
infringement implies the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work other
than fair use. Both imply imitation for fraudulent purposes. As an infrac-
tion, plagiarism is a specific form of copyright infringement. It occurs
when the plagiarist signs the author’s work in his own name. It constitutes
therefore an act of imposture, or impersonation, hence a criminal act.
In all logic, given the foregoing, plagiarism as an act of theft and im-
posture is a more serious offense than mere fraudulent commercial ex-
ploitation. Furthermore, damages awarded to the victim vary between the
two offenses. On the one hand, an author who has been copied must prove
a moral damage in order to gain a modest sum at a high cost (lawyer’s
fees, various costs, etc). Such procedures are clearly not intended to dis-
suade wealthy copiers. On the other hand, the inventor who claims dam-
ages for unwarranted profits through imposture can successfully claim
major damages at an affordable cost (e.g. court costs inherent in criminal
cases). Such an alternative reqires more than mere monopolistic title; the
inventor must prove the ownership of his creation.
Without property, no theft.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 44
If, against common sense, one has had until now to plead counterfeit
on copyright in order to defend the legitimate property of the plagiarized,
from now on, it is imperative to provide the judge with all of the evidence
(according to the Penal Code and the law governing a given country’s
private property) that may lead him to consider plagiarism for what it is,
namely, a felony of theft, including imposture by usurping someone
elese’s identity… Moreover, if the contravening party has changed cer-
tain parts of the work in order to make people believe that it is a different
creation, he can also be guilty of vandalism for distorting the work.
Since theft, usurping an identity and vandalism are criminal acts,
the plagiarized author can directly file a complaint with the police,
against the physical person who heads the corporation commercializing
the plagiarized concept.
With a title of monopolistic commercialization (patent or any other),
it is its title holder who, once counterfeited, must prove in court that he
is, indeed, the author of his concept, and everyone knows how much it
costs in time and money, even results, in order to bear the burden of
proof.
With ownership of a Work, it is the thief (impostor, even vandal)
who must bear the burden of proof. In order to do this, he must
demonstrate in court and at his own expense that he did not plagiarize or
unintentionally reproduce the texts and/or designs making up the author’s
concept included in the Work… the creation of the work providing the
creator (true inventor) with the proof that he is the authentic author.
Advice: prior to bringing an action in a criminal court, the author
may try to reach an out-of-court settlement with the plagiarist. However,
if the latter refuses any amicable arrangement and insists on denying the
concrete evidence, the author can eventually publish his book in order to
publicly expose the thief.
In this case, the authorship supplied in an Intellectual Passport CB
provides him with all of the evidence that he needs, both for preparing his
complaint, and for defending himself if he is sued for defamation by the
plagiarist.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 45
In all cases of unfair competition and industrial or commercial espio-
nage, publishing or announcing one’s intention to publish the Intellec-
tual Passport C.B. is more than necessary.
Indeed, the author's autobiography, which he signs as a writer, con-
tains facts, documents, a precise chronology and various quotations,
along with the names of those who, directly or indirectly, contributed or
not to its elaboration. Such an account provides important evidence, and
even irrefutable proof against the copier. His only defence against the
author would then be defamation, provided the latter had filled his work
with a series of easily-proven lies.
Otherwise, if the copier cannot prove that the author's text is defama-
tory, the judgment rendered in court will confirm the veracity and accura-
cy of said text… The author can thereafter use this judgment in order to
reinstate himself in his rights. Extreme case: Émile Zola's publication of
"J'ACCUSE" in the Dreyfus case.
Ultimately, in this case, the French army, supported by the govern-
ment, lost a court case in defamation against Zola. Consequently, after
granting Alfred Dreyfus a pardon in 1899, the French army rehabilitated
him in 1906 and promoted him to a higher grade than the one he had or-
ginally lost in 1894. In such case, it is the French army, supported by the
State that lost its case.
It only goes to show that no adversary is truly invincible !…
* * *

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 47
Editor’s Note on Industrial and Commercial Predation
Clarification: All of the industrials and large commercial enterprises
are not necessarily predators. Only those befitting any of the cases out-
lined below are targeted by the Editor’s Note.
Reminder: Whenever he presents a recent invention, privately or pub-
licly, particularly via media, the inventor unduly risks being copied, with-
out the means to effectively defend himself against his copiers… Why?
1 - Because frequently, the inventor who seeks funding presents his
invention without any Intellectual Property title, whether it be a patent on
his invention or a copyright (Author’s Rights) on his creation. In other
words, he unintentionally tempts the covetousness of his potential preda-
tors.
2 - Because often, if his invention was patented, limited resources on-
ly sufficed to do so nationally. Yet, passed the twelve months following
the filing date on his national patent application, the filer loses his interna-
tional extension priority. Thus, he cannot prevent someone from copying
his idea with total impunity.
3 - Because if, at the cost of considerable sacrifices, he was able to ex-
tend his patent to neighbouring countries, he still does not have the re-
quired financial recourses to carry his title through international judiciary
proceedings for infringement. Indeed, it is not the patent that protects
since it must be legally protected!
4 - Because he is unaware ~ given the author’s natural property on his
creation ~ that plagiarism on the property of a creative work (literary
and/or artistic description of an invention) relates to a crime, allowing the
despoiled author to initiate a free prosecution under Penal Law for theft;
the only accessible and legal means at his disposal to counter-balance his
odds against potential predators.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 48
Examples of extensively widespread predation
Case #1 - The Opportunist: The predator espies the invention on a
televised program or during a conference, fair, etc., worse, on the market
if the inventor has already begun commercializing through his SME.
Sometime later, he will discover his copier (national or foreign) against
whom he will nearly never have the financial means necessary for his pa-
tent’s defense under Civil Law. Evidently, the premature exposure or
commercialization of his invention will have served at nothing else than
initiate his potential predators to his innovation.
Case #2 - The Attentive: The predator finds the invention through
the patent’s mandatory publication, effected either by the Institute of In-
dustrial Property or Intellectual Property Organization 18 months after the
inventor’s patent application. Even then, it is only later that he will dis-
cover his copier’s existence (national or foreign) against whom he will
nearly never have the necessary resources toward his defense. His pa-
tent’s mandatory publication will, once more, have served at nothing else
than lead his potential predators to his trade secrets.
Case #3 - The Trapper: The predator prepared a trap baited to at-
tract his prey. The bait is the latitude of his available resources, while the
trap is gaining the inventor’s trust so that he divulges his project. Based
on the latter, there are two main types of predators:
1) The deceit-
ful. He carefully preserves his pseudo-honesty by informing the inven-
tor that he does not sign any confidentiality agreement and/or that he is
solely interested in an invention for which a patent application has been
filed. Reassured, the inventor signs the contract enforced by the preda-
tor. This one will unscrupulously wait for the most opportune moment
to commit his wrongdoing, whist perfectly being cognizant of the pre-
carious financial resources of his prey.
2) The op-
pressor. Convinced of his infallible power, he foregoes any convention.
He signs anything to gain access to the information so that he may

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 49
commit his wrongdoing without mercy.
Result: Whether the deceitful or oppressor, once he has successfully
misled the prey to divulge his invention, the predator finds any excuse
later not to pursue the matter. The trap snaps shut on the prey, deprived of
resources. He is now free to do whatever he may so choose with the in-
formation received.
Case #4 - The traitor: The predator tells the inventor finding his in-
vention so ingenious that he will offer him a company. Moreover, he in-
vites other associates to strengthen the enterprise in terms of resources,
competencies, even recognition, etc. He ravishes the inventor with com-
pliments and attentiveness, granting him the capital shares majority, even
the administration, management; in short, all the power. Justifying his
generosity by the inventor’s ingenuity, he acts as a benefactor and publicly
declares supporting his protégé until the capture of the promised market.
In response, the unaware inventor cedes his invention or patent venture.
All is well until financial investments become indispensable, such as
onerous materials acquisitions, hiring senior executives, expanding work-
shops, or extending the patent to the world, etc. At that fatidic phase of
the project’s mandatory development, the predator invests in the capital
sums that the inventor is unable to replicate. The majority switches sides
and the inventor loses the control that he believed possessing… If he re-
fuses the predator’s financing, he will inexorably have to file for insol-
vency, or even bankruptcy. His project will then be recovered by the
predator or an accomplice of his, embedding all of the enterprise’s con-
tent: invention, know-how, patent, etc. There are countless instances to
that effect.
Case #5 - The Conspirator: From his influential power amidst finan-
cial organizations, the predator procures the inventor’s SME with the
loan necessary toward its technical and/or commercial development. Sub-
sequently, he discretely manages to block the innovation’s market via
complicit relationships of his malefic strategy. At the head of his SME,
the impecunious inventor is left alone with the weight of a debt that he is
unable to settle… We can imagine the rest…

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 50
Case #6 - The Scoundrel: Under the pretext of wishing to purchase
the inventor’s enterprise or simply invest in its capital, the predator con-
fidentially learns the technical and commercial trade secrets… Once
more, we imagine the rest.
Case #7 - The Spy: Obviously, there are other more or less subtler
strategies that do not need to be elaborated in this excerpt, such as using
turncoats, espionage, etc. The most experienced predators easily navi-
gate through all of these disloyal tactics. Although glanced by the collec-
tive subconscious, these illegal practices are not sufficient to appear on the
Front Page of media, even if the targeted victims (SME and inventors)
are those contributing to society’s socio-economic growth throughout the
world.
* * *
Comments: Have we ever heard of a predator divulging his cutting-
edge inventions before being launched on the market? Of course not!
Moreover, to mislead the competition, the wealthiest industrials often re-
cur to plethoric strategies, such as circumvent patent (1)
, ambush patent (2)
,
abandoned patent (3
, etc., petty accusation assorted with propagated ru-
mors*, bogus trials**, forfeited trials***, etc. Whilst the patent is meant
to serve the innovation’s democratic development toward economic
growths and that Law is supposed to serve Justice, in what ruthless world
are honest people (in SME) struggling to surmount the voluntary or invol-
untary**** predation of some of the most powerful organizations?
* * *
See on the following page the explanations on the various patents (1) (2) (3)
and on the various trials *, **, ***, ****. è

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 51
(1) Circumvent Patents: are executed by specialists who sufficiently and
cleverly denature the patents of others to develop new patents that do not in-
fringe on the original. They are the direct consequence of the patent’s mandato-
ry publication 18 months after the filing date of its application.
(2) Ambush Patents: relate to inventions composed of several patents
which whole constitutes a one complete invention. In this case, patentable in-
ventions are embedded one into the other. It is a true puzzle that cannot be com-
plete without the merging of all of its parts. These patents can be the work of a
sole or many inventors. Its technical and commercial exploitation can be held
by one or several enterprises associated to the same project.
(3) Abandoned Patents: are baits and enterprises are lures. Companies that
can afford it file patents on false projects to stray the competition on false leads.
It is a strategic use of the patent’s mandatory publication 18 months after the
filing date of the application.
* Use of Rumors: mostly suitable to those who do not wish to initiate pub-
lic trials that could be detrimental to their covert interests. The insidious propa-
ganda of the worst rumors can, alas, affect well-intended people who do not pos-
sess the same disseminating means as those of their antagonists.
** Bogus Civil Trials: occur between two accomplices who feign to battle
against each other over an illusionary dispute. Sometimes and for several rea-
sons, these trials may induce inventors’ involvement who may have to publicly
reveal some of their trade secrets. These trials also serve to mislead competitors
on concealed alliances.
*** Forfeited Trials: are those leading the inventor (or his SME) in endless
legal proceedings that he will be unable to sustain to the end. The inventor may
lose his patrimony, even sometimes his honor, at the cost of ensued serious con-
sequences to his private and public life.
.**** Voluntary or Involuntary Predation: because the juridical-
economic system established (as institutionalized in our largest industrialized
companies) often incite predation variants that are not necessarily desired by the
CEOs of the most powerful enterprises.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 52
In which cases is copyright’s defense jeopardized?
In the following cases, if, for example:
- a legal entity claims authorship of a literary and/or artistic work (work
of the mind) that can legally only belong to a natural person; a legal
entity devoid of any commercializing right, through a license or a
cession (transfer of rights) for a work of the mind created by a natural
person *;
- an author * (natural person) is also his own editor;
- an erroneous defense is used, presenting an author * as an inventor *
instead of presenting him as the creator * of his work, and taking ac-
tion against the copier for counterfeit instead of plagiarism;
- a person * without a copyright (or ISBN) on a creative work that is nei-
ther literary nor artist;
- a person * has registered a copyright (or an ISBN) on a creative work
that is neither literary nor artistic;
- a person * without a copyright (or ISBN) on an authentic literary and/or
artistic work that lacks originality;
- a person * has registered a copyright (or an ISBN) on an authentic liter-
ary and/or artistic work that lacks originality;
- a person * with or without a copyright (or ISBN), claims authorship of a
work that he has not yet created;
- a person * with or without a copyright (or ISBN), claims that his au-
thentic literary and/or artistic creative work grants him the same
rights as patent (or other monopolistic titles).
"In all democratic States respectful of their constitution, their judiciary codes
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it would seem that no opin-
ion can infringe, by judgment, on the consubstantial nature of rights that con-
nects the product resulting from an invention that is derived from concretized
original idea, supported in a literary and/or artistic form, to the original intel-
lectual concept that emanates from the mind of its Author."
* Or several persons, co-authors, co-creators, etc.…

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 53
Prologue
1 - Preliminary observation
The intellectual property on Mickey Mouse is more than eighty years
old and yet its resulting copyright will still be valid for at least another
several years, more specifically, for fifty years after the death of the artist
in America and seventy years elsewhere. Had Walt Disney, when he cre-
ated his famous mouse, deposited a patent or design patent *, in order to
produce it in three dimensions and in quantities greater than fifty, wheth-
er mobile or immobile, utilitarian or not, he would have lost his monopo-
listic rights over fifty years ago, and such succesful enterprises as Disney-
land, Disneyworld and others, would have never seen the light of day.
* Design patent (USA) ; industrial design (Canada) ; designs and models (Latin Europe) ; etc…
Countless court cases have been won by Disney® and organizations
like them. As a result, there exists voluminous jurisprudence condemning
those who tried to plagiarize famous artistic characters, whether they
were applied to utilitarian products or not.
Based on the two international conventions which govern copyrights,
the internal laws of most countries and all related jurisprudence, the in-
ternational consortium of editors "USD-SYSTEM" offers the inventor
from all walks of life the opportunity to use a Work of the Mind2, like
Walt Disney. Using the "USD-SYSTEM" methodology, inventors estab-
lish their intellectual property by way of defining their creation in a liter-
ary and artistic work, prior to engaging in patents, design patents or in-
dustrial designs and prior to presenting their project to third parties.
2 Works of the Mind are classified as works of art that result from creation. An excellent copier
of works of art (an illegal copier, for instance) is an artist who does not create. A work of art
that does not result from creation is not therefore a Work of the Mind since it does not require
creative intuition. Moreover, in order to provide its author with the resulting exclusive rights
(i.e. copyright and royalties), a Work of the Mind must follow the techniques and rules that
govern a recognized art. Writing a mere gibberish or drawing a mere scribble can therefore not
amount to a work of art, let alone a Work of the Mind..

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 54
2 – The two International Conventions concerning copyright
Having created a work, published or unpublished, the author be-
comes the owner of an incorporeal and exclusive property right, which he
can use against third parties, acknowledged and upheld by virtue of inter-
national conventions and by the internal laws of the country where he
resides. Unlike patent, copyright identifies the owner of a Work of the
Mind internationally, upon fulfilling a few formalities.
Copyright therefore provides the creator of any original work (clas-
sified as a Work of the Mind) with an exclusive right to produce, repro-
duce and/or interpret it, regardless of the medium used, since the author's
private property is natural and cannot be denied.
There are two international conventions governing Copyright:
a) The Berne Convention, created September 9,1886
b) The Universal Convention on Copyright, created September 6,
1952
Japan, it may be useful to recall, joined the Universal Convention on
Copyright in 1952, as did China in 1992.
No formality is required to a become member state of The Berne
Convention (Berne Convention for the protection 3 of literary and artistic
works, signed September 9, 1886, last revised in Paris, July 24, 1971
hereinafter Berne Convention). However, the Universal Convention re-
quires that the author affix the sign ©, followed by his name and the date
of first publication (Universal Convention on Copyright, signed at Gene-
va September 6, 1952 and revised in Paris July 24, 1971, Art. III herein-
after the Universal Convention).
3 Comment: Protection applies to Works and not to Copyright. One must protect one’s property and not its
resulting right…

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 55
Berne Convention, First Art.; Universal Convention, First Art.; Act
no 92-597 of July 1st, 1992 concerning the Code of Intellectual Property,
last modification as per Act no 94-361 of May 19, 1994, Art. L. 112-2
(hereinafter French Code of Intellectual Property); Canadian Copyright
Act, Art. 3; U.S. Copyright Act, 106; Japanese Copyright Act, no 48 of
1970, Art. 10.
See: Berne Convention, Art. 2: "It shall, however, be a matter for leg-
islation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general
or any specified categories of works shall not be protected 4 unless they
have been fixed in some material form."
U.S. Copyright Act 102: "In no case does copyright protection5 ex-
tend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, con-
cept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is de-
scribed, explained, illustrated or embodied in such work". Instead
4 In the literal sense, the verb "protect" has no juridical meaning… It will be more appropriate to use the
terminology “validate” instead “protect”
5 Author's note: In this case, copyright is not diminished since it cannot be, and for the sole reason that it
results naturally from an unalienable property which can always be used to challenge third parties… What
is specifically mentioned is the "protection" of the right and not the right itself. Like the verb "protect" in
the previous note, "protection" has no specific juridical meaning. Under the given circumstances, it would
seem that the legislator uses this terminology for other reasons; specifically, it seems that the legislator
wanted to highlight the limits of copyright to the expression of literary and artistic works. What one must
further understand by the use of the word "protection", is that copyright does not grant any rights of mo-
nopolistic commercialization (neither industrial nor commercial) for the object of the invention described
in a Work of the Mind. Which is not to say that a third party is free to produce or reproduce part or all of
the work for commercial purposes? This also explains why a Work of the Mind, sole property of the
Author, published or non-published, is a "movable property" which can be used to invalidate any title of
monopolistic commercialization (patent, design patent or industrial design) deposited at a later date by a
third party.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 56
3 – “Intellectual Passport C. B.” is the name of a collection of books
that the USD System Editions have dedicated to authors of inventions
and original service-oriented concepts
Each "Intellectual Passport C.B." is a literary and artistic work, un-
published as a rule, which promotes worldwide economic growth and
justice. In order to create such a work, the client must fill two original
questionnaires, referred to as the "Author’s Personal File” or A.P.F.:
a) It provides the USD-System Consultant and the Interlitt (i.e. the ghost
writer) with the client’s personal profile as the author of an original
design;
b) It defines the invention and provides an evaluation of its market potential.
The use of this code leads its practitioners to follow the natural and
axiomatic order in which the three dynamic virtues that have always driv-
en mankind's evolution as a civilized species occur in chronological suc-
cession: Creation ► Invention ► Innovation.... following this natural
sequence of events, the author of a new idea first conceives it in its virtual
form. He then puts this initial inspiration into concrete form (i.e on a
physical medium): creation (Work of the Mind, an inalienable property
which is definitely attributed to the Author) giving birth to invention (the
discovery process ~ research – analysis – development ~ leading to the
invention {i.e. the product}) which, as a result, leads ultimately to inno-
vation (commercializing the new product {i.e. the invention}. This truism
has been put aside and ignored for the past two hundred years…
By virtue of its fundamental nature, as well as the inalienable essence
of property (i.e. Work of the Mind), this edifying code restores, by its
very use, the primacy which moral right enjoys intrinsically over material
right. Universal certificate of anteriority that truly is the fingerprint of the
inventor, the "Intellectual Passport C.B." is his "personal property".
It promotes secrecy and can be used to invalidate "temporary monop-
olistic rights" of production (patent or other), in any Nation that signed
one of the two international conventions on copyright and in any Nation
that adheres to the U.N.'s Charter.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 57
Combining "a set of intellectual property and associated rights"
which belong to its author, as well as "a triennial business forecast
suitable for various disciplines" and "a new business contracting sys-
tem used to extend an array of commercial rights" (this new contract-
ing system is referred to as the Distribution of Rights {resulting in a
network of interdependent and complementary competences}), this work
also serves as a research and negotiation tool for the said author. These
three components are both progressive and versatile and can be applied
individually, simultaneously, or sequentially.
The "Intellectual Passport C.B." stimulates economic growth world-
wide. An original methodology which facilitates access to intellectual
property serves both private and public interests and facilitates market
penetration at a global level. By offering the industrialist the additional
option of exclusive patent rights, this new product foster mutual trust be-
tween the creator (armed with this work) and the industrialist/investors.
Furthermore, this didactic instrument is destined to act as a stimulus to
constantly emerging innovations which ensure scientific, technical and
technological progress, whether in the field of Industry, Services or Arts.
* * *

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 58
Popular statements are often misleading to the general
public; as propaganda, they are used by those who wish
to impose an idea. Easily assimilated, such statements
become unquestionable facts for the credulous mass,
for which any demonstration is naturally useless.

quarter 2015
quarter 2015 © 1054202 CIPO 03-12-2007
page 59
Prolegomena
Contrarily to popular belief, systems of patent and design patents (in-
dustrial designs) were originally intended to disclose and divulge tech-
nology; this is why such titles provide specialists of the technological
vigil (commercial intelligence) with an ever-emptying and replenishing
data bank that is difficult to handle and therefore requires a specialist (a
patent agent).
The mandatory disclosure of utilty patents and design patents con-
stantly provides the international catalogue of technologies with new
supplies of data, thereby serving the interests of the technological vigil.
Most inventors are totally unaware of such a vigil.
Prior to getting to the heart of the matter, one must understand how
the public has been conditioned to believe blindly in the notion of "pro-
tection”. Even the most lucid-minded people were subject ~ albeit un-
knowingly ~ to this form of brainwash.
It is interesting to notice how people were gradually led to Sforget
“the ethical and logical principles on which law is based, notably intel-
lectual property law, and not the rights resulting from intellectual prop-
erty”. This is why the USD-System editors felt it necessary to explain to
their readers how, since 1791, the primacy of moral rights has been arbi-
trarily and artificially subjugated by material interest.
One may say for their defence, that, during the industrial era, legisla-
tors had no choice but to serve the interests of a system, which promoted
economic and social progress.

A divine smile dr alain methot digital smile design creator

A divine smile dr alain methot digital smile design creator

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to A divine smile dr alain methot digital smile design creator

Similar to A divine smile dr alain methot digital smile design creator (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A divine smile dr alain methot digital smile design creator