Jonathan (jonathan@altfeld.com) wrote (italics added by PM):
< If you’re talking about something having to do with our "common backgrounds" i.e. Expert Systems, or Knowledge Engineering/Knowledge Acquisition... in my interpretation its not at all forbidden for me to do this as long as we didn’t reference NLP™. I can do this if I want; the fact that our names would be connected with it is implication enough of it being NLP™-based.>
I think we agree that much depends on the interpretation …
Suppose we would make a course for project managers, teaching them some concepts related to NLP (e.g. TOTE, rapport skills, matching-mismatching, perceptual positions, …), and call it "EQ for Project Managers" (I have actually such a product in development). Given the license agreement I saw this could be interpreted as containing a substantial part of NLP content. (almost anyone in the NLP community seeing such a content would label it as "NLP"). In that case (if you signed the license agreement), you would have to require that the students sign the license too and pay Bandler 200 USD / person in the process (given there is a clause in the licese you have to do so for al courses including a "substantional part of NLP").
But then,
My point is that the sentence "The Licensor owns all right, title and interest in the copyrighted and trademarked material known as NLP" can easily been INTERPRETED as including the TOTE model, perceptual positions, models about non-verbal communication, even if such models existed before NLP or were developed without Bandler being present.
And then there are the <border cases>: Robert Dilts did a lot of the work for the representational systems (it was his dissertation), Leslie Cameron brought us the meta-programs, Todd Epstein worked out what is now called "submodalities". As far as I know, none of these persons ever signed a contract giving Bandler the rights to their developments.
So, given the US juridical system, Bandler could go to court (and take a lawyer paid on a "no cure - no pay base") and I would have to defend myself, e.g. having to prove the Border cases - this could cost me a fortune! This is a great trick to stop your competitors (doesn't work that easily in continental Europe): just sue them and hope they don't have the money to pay for their defense! Given that I already have been treathened on 2 occasions by people identifying themselves as representatives of Bandler, you can be sure I won't take this risk.
To be a more balanced license agreement, at least it would have to be more precise, specifying what Bandler considers as part of NLP and what he doesn't and specifying how much NLP something may contain before fazlling under the license agreement. Especially giving US legislation (the European continent - excluding the UK is much safer in that area). Most Europeans (outside the UK) seem to think that the contract is void anyway.
Do you think Bandler won't sue? Read his words on this. I have a statement that was sent to the NLP Newsgroup and said to be written by Richard Bandler. A section of it (about a US lawsuit) states (italics & bold added by PM):
The purpose of this litigation is to stop those who are currently exploiting my work-product, name and reputation without my consent, and to hold accountable those persons and entities who have entered into written contracts with me for the use of my work-product and name, and who have failed to live up to such contracts.
(read the full statement on my "CopyRight page")
Page originally written on 19 August 1998 by Patrick E.Merlevede, M.Sc. - page last edited on 22 mrt 2001