From: Horkheimer (hork_at_execpc.com)
Date: 03/05/98
Message-ID: <34FF7549.C3D1B275@execpc.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 22:02:17 -0600 From: Horkheimer <hork_at_execpc.com> Subject: Re: Helios: response
Hello,
> If you feel this is a bash, please move down to the last paragraph.
> This will be the last time I bring this up on the list.
> I want you to know what has gone on between Mike and I.
> Everything I write here is true.
> I have come to bury Mike, not to bash him.
I understand.
> 1. There is no patent on Mike's DCB unit. Seperate
> searches on this were done through the patent office and found nothing.
> When confronted with this, Mike said that it was still pending. That would
> be a 7 year pend.
> If a patent pending is over 1yr old, it is no longer valid.When confronted
> with this, Mike
> said that it was "classified". I asked a patent specialist, and he said
> that classified patents are
> owned by the government. The inventor could not speak of it, let alone sell
> it.
That is my question, how can the government take a citizens private invention
and then classify it, so they can't even benefit from it. I could see this
happening during a war or something, but this I guess was invented during
peace-time and airship patents are unfortunately not that important to national
security. Heck, does this classification of patents, actually happen.
>
>
> 2. If you go to Mike's page, you will find a new product called a CAMBOT.
> This product appeared on his page just after his trip to Burbank a few
> months ago.
> This occured almost 2 years after I first told him about the STRATACAM.
> Mike insists that this is his idea, and that I stole it from him BEFORE I
> met him.
> I know it is irrational, but that's what he thinks.
You thought up the STRATACAM, Chris?
> 3. Mike insisted that Helios never make an airship. He wanted us to raise
> money
> so he could build an airship. We explained to him that the co-op would
> build a
> demonstration unit for all of us to use. The design Mike gave us came with
> a $250,000 price tag.
> When we discussed a realistic design at the board meeting and a realistic
> timetable
> he said "Well, maybey Bob and I will persue building our own ship instead"
>
> 4. The "lenticular" shape has had great discussion. Mike claims that his
> particular shape is
> so laminar that the leading edge is 3-4 feet in front of the actual
> surface. I asked him to
> give me more details, as I thought this was a great discovery. He said "
> I'll send you my specs". I never
> recieved them. I don't think they exist, and I doubt they are patentable.
>
> 5. Mike will always claim that LTAS has "20 Years" of airship building
> experience. This
> is not only untrue, but designed to be misleading. LTAS has NEVER built a
> single
> airship. The 2 early models Mike built were funded by the university, and
> built by other
> students. The ship you see photos of on his page was built by another
> company in Mexico.
> The actual geodesic design and construction techniques were created by
> mexican engineers
> and craftsmen. LTAS has never built an airship, and Mike has no more
> real experience building ships than any of you.
>
> The point I am trying to make here is that the real airship builders are
> still on this page.
> No one has done what we are doing in over 50 years. You all have something
> to contribute.
> I will ask all of you to start thinking about what you want to "do" with
> this project. How you can
> contribute to this project. I don't mean just money. Any little thing you
> can do will be apprecciated.
> Please reflect on this. You can act important, or be important. I will
> choose the latter, I ask the same
> of you.
Thanks this is much clearer then the dialogue between you guys, at least I know
the arguments now!
Sincerely,
Donald Horkheimer