User talk:Mauretania2

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Coastal management appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. I80and (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment but I was and am a neutral observer. I sat in the back of the auditorium in Sydney in 1976 and thought the speaker must be daft talking about restoring beaches by pumping out the Pacific through the sand. Then I met the Yank who invented a beach drainage system in 1972 in Florida [Dyneqs was his company] and reviewed his work. The Danes 'discovered' the method when they built the water supply for an aquarium in the early 80s at a place where the tide range was only about 8inches [200mm], and found after several months that the water supply rate had diminished, but the beacj beside their aquarium had got a lot wider. They expressed their findings in terms of sea level and swash zone [wave run-up] and not in terms of tide range etc as anyone on a tidal beach would have & he had. The Euro patent was granted against this translation. Subsequently the US agent for the danes lodged an objection against the US patent derived from the Euro-patent in such a way that the objection was rejected, but citing the grounds that anyone else would have used. These grounds for an objection were thus exhausted and could not be used again [ a version of double indemnity]. A vagary of European patent law is that the patent is not revoked by the patent office after granting if prior art is subsequently discovered, but the aggrieved party has to go to court. Which is after all one of the aspects of patent law [I had patents in 20plus countries at one tiem, but luckily was never challenged by breaches [ that I have ever known about]]: it is just an opportunity to spend a lot of money in litigation. If you are an individual inventor, you need a champion to protect you if the big guys want to take over your work. It was a pity as he deserved an even break. He thought he was well protected by putting his wrok in the public domain in the first place. But he didn't keep a look out for patent applications.

If I have the time and can be bothered I'll dig out the papers [we tried to use his system in UK back in 1993], that is if my wife [or I - but that's unlikely] hasn't chucked out the papers and give you the citations to check. regards etc. (User Mauretania2, May 8th at 10:25pm BST/21:25 GMT)

I'm not doubting that what you said was true; it sounds like you know far more about the topic than I (no trick, heh). It would be great if you could give references, but as far as I'm aware it would have to be an existing published analysis of the situation due to the philosophies of "No Original Research" and verifiability that Wikipedia has. It might be OK if you just cite the documents; I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's policies to know for sure. Either way, good luck if you do decide that it's worth the effort, and I hope you like your stay here :) --I80and (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)