I now come to the matter of the protection of the public from this type of thing, particularly people who have money to invest and in particular who think quite earnestly they are doing something for the good of man. I am not, however, that naive to assume that most investors are little angels with no thought of personal gain for themselves. Indeed a great many investors, today, more than ever, can be as big a parasite under the skin of mankind as some of the charlatans who use them. It can work both ways. I am not concerned with these type of investors - these guys always look after themselves. I am concerned only with the genuine and often smalltime contributor who is in awe of something he/she doesn't quite understand but feel good about the idea of helping mankind progress. These are the ones who must be protected and all I can do is warn such people to go into such enterprises with great caution. As I said, it can work both ways. There will always be those who click on to the idea of making money from investors and who put themselves up as true inventors, practise reverse engineering and plagiarise the ideas of others - these are the charlatans who fracture and shatter the whole sacred discipline of innovation and give ignoble insobriety to its name. Well I am here to give my twopeneth worth to this type of bucaneership and hope others will take up the cudgel in my wake.

Here now, I discuss the 'Lutec Business Plan' and 'Patent Licence Agreement' These documents are a package of 40 odd pages of small font type print, setting out the A to Z of their enterprise and Agreement stipulations. With regard to this particular issue I would like to raise some points surrounding Patent Law, a topic I have been conversant with for many years. Throughout this Business Plan of Lutec's I note there are conflicting statements in relation to the state of patentability of this device. (There are no page numbers on this document but the statements therein appear to be set out according to that of a legal document, by which I mean, numerically as in "Clauses". I have therefore only these references to refer to in my summation of that document and so I will do so.)

To ref. 3.3.1 - following page, second paragraph: "He is the inventive genius behind the patented technology that allows the Lutec 1000 to perform as it does." (He being Ludwig (Lou) Brits.) In this paragraph it is clear that a potential investor could easily assume that the technology of the Lutec 1000 is indeed already patented, which it is not, because of the following conflicting statement.

Ref.4.0 "There are international patents pending on the core technology being used by the Lutec 1000."

Ref. 8.2 "The development group consists of Mr. Lou Brits the inventor and co-owner of the patent for the technology,........" The dispute here is not that, in this particular concept, of Mr. Brits being the inventor (a matter I will take up later on) but that it is claimed he is the "owner of the patent for the technology". No person is permitted by Commonwealth Patent Law to claim ownership of a patent that does not exist or has not been granted by a Commonwealth Patent Office. This is illegal.