07.07.2006, 14:45 Рег-ция: 28.11.2003
Сообщения: 15
Благодарности: 0
Поблагодарили 1 раз в 1 сообщении
Dear Andrej,
I thought that you and I discussed this thoroughly during the past two weeks, and I gave you all my ideas about it.
It does appear to me that this application by Nicholas Roerich to copyright (it is not properly called a patent) the symbol is authentic, even though it has no signature or other stamps. But I do believe that it was not Nicholas Roerich himself who prepared the letter. The language and structure follow standard procedures and make the required statements that the American law requires. Perhaps it was prepared here in New York.
I also believe, as you know, that the applications were prepared for a specific purpose, not for a general copyright that would last for many years. It asks for copyright protection for a short period only. And I am quite sure that the copyright office does not grant short protection like that. The law provides only for standard periods of time.
Maybe the application was submitted in Washington, maybe it wasn't. We have no way of knowing. I spent some time in the archives on line of the copyright and the patent offices, and found nothing there except our copyright registration of forty years ago. (You can verify it yourself -- the search pages are open to the public.)
As to whether it is the Chintamani sign of the Banner, or the Museum sign that was intended (that missing page in the third volume of "Protect the Name and Heritage of Roerich"), we cannot know without someone investigating at the International Centre. Maybe someone who has a friend there (certainly someone must have a friend there) can persuade them to divulge this information.
So I do not know what more we can do to satisfy your interest. If you have any ideas about something more we should do, your suggestions are welcome.
Best wishes,
Daniel Entin
andrej.luft@gmx.de wrote:
> Dear mister director of the New York Roerich Museum!
> The Roerichites from the forum <forum.roerich.com> have found out that
> in the third volumes of the book "Protect the Name and Heritage of
> Roerich" (ICR, 2005, page 178-183) have been affirmed that N.K.Roerich
> 1931 submitted the papers to the patent office USA for the patenting of
> the Banner of Peace as own invention. We add the specified pages 178-183
> to this letter. It is apparently that in these documents there is not an
> American original of page of specification on which must be the
> schematic image of the Flag or Banner declared to this petition. The
> some Roerichites believe that in these papers is spoken about the sign
> of the Museum of Roerich (with letters MR). In this occasion opinions
> were divided. Can you help us to find the original of the page of
> specification in archives of the patent office USA? The international
> collective of our forum <forum.roerich.com> was glad, if you have
> answered on webpages of this forum. The theme has the following address:
>
> http://forum.roerich.com/viewtopic.php?p=99914#99914
>
> Best wishes,
> Roerichites from the forum <forum.roerich.com>
> July, 4 2006
I thought that you and I discussed this thoroughly during the past two weeks, and I gave you all my ideas about it.
It does appear to me that this application by Nicholas Roerich to copyright (it is not properly called a patent) the symbol is authentic, even though it has no signature or other stamps. But I do believe that it was not Nicholas Roerich himself who prepared the letter. The language and structure follow standard procedures and make the required statements that the American law requires. Perhaps it was prepared here in New York.
I also believe, as you know, that the applications were prepared for a specific purpose, not for a general copyright that would last for many years. It asks for copyright protection for a short period only. And I am quite sure that the copyright office does not grant short protection like that. The law provides only for standard periods of time.
Maybe the application was submitted in Washington, maybe it wasn't. We have no way of knowing. I spent some time in the archives on line of the copyright and the patent offices, and found nothing there except our copyright registration of forty years ago. (You can verify it yourself -- the search pages are open to the public.)
As to whether it is the Chintamani sign of the Banner, or the Museum sign that was intended (that missing page in the third volume of "Protect the Name and Heritage of Roerich"), we cannot know without someone investigating at the International Centre. Maybe someone who has a friend there (certainly someone must have a friend there) can persuade them to divulge this information.
So I do not know what more we can do to satisfy your interest. If you have any ideas about something more we should do, your suggestions are welcome.
Best wishes,
Daniel Entin
andrej.luft@gmx.de wrote:
> Dear mister director of the New York Roerich Museum!
> The Roerichites from the forum <forum.roerich.com> have found out that
> in the third volumes of the book "Protect the Name and Heritage of
> Roerich" (ICR, 2005, page 178-183) have been affirmed that N.K.Roerich
> 1931 submitted the papers to the patent office USA for the patenting of
> the Banner of Peace as own invention. We add the specified pages 178-183
> to this letter. It is apparently that in these documents there is not an
> American original of page of specification on which must be the
> schematic image of the Flag or Banner declared to this petition. The
> some Roerichites believe that in these papers is spoken about the sign
> of the Museum of Roerich (with letters MR). In this occasion opinions
> were divided. Can you help us to find the original of the page of
> specification in archives of the patent office USA? The international
> collective of our forum <forum.roerich.com> was glad, if you have
> answered on webpages of this forum. The theme has the following address:
>
> http://forum.roerich.com/viewtopic.php?p=99914#99914
>
> Best wishes,
> Roerichites from the forum <forum.roerich.com>
> July, 4 2006
 |   |
