SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: DOC-M1-5-706.

EDITION ONE.
UNCLASSIFED VOLUME Five.

Document for the introduction

Mathematics used in the S.E.G.

Volume five
Requirements under international Law

Approved by Secretary General.

And published under his authority.

First Edition – 2014

SEARL AEROSPACE INC

Page 506©
SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: WARNING: DOC-M1-5-707.
Searl knowledge: 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

WARNING!
Please note that these books are fully copyright protected.

They are filed at the:

Legal Deposit Office: the British Library: Boston Spa: Wetherby: West Yorkshire LS23 7BY.
Tel: 0937 546268. ENGLAND.

Also at the libraries of the:

Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

The National Library of Scotland.
The Library of Trinity College, Dublin.
And the National Library of Wales.

This also includes the book of John Thomas.

The music written for me: by Barry Stroller is also protected.

This notice is to inform you that no part thereof can be reproduced without authority in
writing from Professor Searl to do so.

Professor John Roy Robert Searl.

Searl agrees that everything conceived by man is impossible until someone
say it is possible, and only then is the impossible made possible. The S.E.G.
Searl agree has taken centuries to reach the possibility to manufacture it,
which is the task of Searl Global Technologies to organize where to mass
produce it and how to mass produce it, there are a number of legal units
being set up for that task, the main part should be done in San Diego,
California, USA. Sorry China that your legal side has failed to be completed
so far to date. Still another legal paper: to get sign. What in Holland again.

2015: If Tony Blair was now Prime Minister of UK; would he now support
full mass production of the SEG?

If we gave an SEG to Tony Blaire he could keep his

promise in cleaning up the air – Searl wonder if he would?
Problem, the SEG does not produce much money in taxes –that is just one
problem, but a large one.

Acting Sectary General: to the above name company.

Page 707©
SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOGIES: AEROSPACE: DO0C-M1-5-708.
Searl knowledge: 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

This certificate is proof that Searl Aerospace is a legal company and is conforming within the legal laws of
the said State. I, Professor John Roy Robert Searl, hereby hold the position of Secretary General, to see that
this company operates within the laws of this State; thereby continue to hold good standing within the said
State. I shall try to get industry back on its feet within the USA in mass production of this power unit.
Page 708©
SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: Authority: DOC-M1-5-709.
Searl knowledge: 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

We are here
to stay.

Professor John Roy Robert Searl: Author Reg: 1 898827: acting as Sectary General for Searl Global
Technologies group of divisions. We are a Legal company operating under legal rules at all times.
Page 709©
SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-710.
Searl knowledge: 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Page 710©
SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-711.
Searl knowledge: 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

I, Professor John Roy Robert Searl hereby state that the following information is based upon how we can
get the idea of the S.E.G. to the market place. Searl: like it to be made clear that should others take the
S.E.G. to the market place; then Searl cannot be held responsible for the outcome.

INTRODUCTION:

Searl accept that every day technology rights are created, traded and litigated. Searl has studied over 500
court cases of inventors who have lost their case in court. Searl say occasionally these activities have
spectacular results, such as Kodak’s withdrawal from the instant film and camera market following
Polaroid’s successful United States infringement lawsuit. My man name John Thomas Jr. worked for Kodak
film section, but took early retirement when Kodak had to reduce its total staff level.

Searl point out that: cases such as this illustrate the value of properly secure technology rights. In the same
way that there are property rights that protect the ownership of assets such as land, buildings and motor
vehicles, so property rights such as patents and copyright can protect the ownership of inventions and
industrial designs. There are occasions where taking a patent out could create nasty problems global wise.
This is why Searl has never taken a patent out on the advice of the patent office staff in 1963 and again in
2000. But Searl does have copyright coverage on his books and newsletters. Searl has also taken out 2
different trade Marks to try to stop some groups from using my name to raise funds.

Searl recognises that in fact the most valuable assets of high technology business may be its inventions –
such as the Searl effect Generator (S.E.G.), and knowhow and designs. Searl states that for such a business
as Searl Aerospace Corporation (SAC), Searl Magnetics Corporation (SMI), Searl Global Technologies (SGT)
it is particularly important to pay proper attention to securing its rights in this “intellectual property”: and
any business, large or small, involved in manufacturing, buying or selling technology is likely to benefit
from its intellectual property is properly protected.

Searl understands that once technology rights have been secured, many further points have to be
considered when financing and commercialising a technology venture and marketing the resulting
products. Therefore Searl has decided a theme for this document, “From Idea or concept to market place”.
Searl coined this phase back in 1947.

Searl admits that at this stage Searl Global Technologies and sectors are not yet fully commercialising and
marketing, the business may be subject to external constraints that limit (or sometimes enlarge) its
freedom of action in exploiting its technology rights. These constraints range from UK and EEC competition
law, through statutory regulation (sometimes directed to specific industries) to technology rights owned by
competitors. Searl will outline the main considerations in these areas, dealing in particular with computers,
telecommunications, and biotechnology and basically anything requiring electric power. Searl states that at
this stage it is pure research and development of an energy unit which can go into mass production on
passing all legal testing. Another issue being: that there are no other firms working upon the Searl Effect
system, because it is outside of their education.

Searl accepts that financing of a technology venture raises yet further consideration, Searl say that this
document will outline possible sources of finance, the conditions that investors are likely to require and
some of the points that a potential investor should consider before investing in a technology based
company. Finally Searl within this document sets out some of the steps that can be taken in the courts to
enforce technology rights. This is most likely to arise once a product or process has become successful in
the market place. Searl have warn some parties to cease claiming they own it; or be taken to court
Page 711©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-712.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

PROTECTING THE IDEA:

1. SECURING TECHNOLOGY RIGHTS:
2. In the UK: ••• • • •/••• – – – • – •/••• • •– • –//

Searl states that intellectual property is the general name given to a number of quite different legal rights
(all with different rules as to their creation and exercise) with which commercial ideas and technology can
be protected. Searl states that under the red heading shows two of my intellectual property rights, which
represent powerful protection for my technology. An urgent step: which Searl had to take as things were
beginning to run wild. Not forgetting my copyrights on my writings in book form. This also includes the
music by Barry Stroller which he undertook to do for me. Searl says that these are primarily, in relation to
technology, patents and copyright. Searl say: that of other rights that of confidential information can be
significant in the context of protecting trade secrets. The other major intellectual right, trademarks, does
not directly protect ideas and technology and is discussed in the section dealing with commercializing
technology.

Searl states that the rights in the various different types of intellectual property vary considerable. Searl
points out that intellectual property generally only provides a right to stop others doing something; it does
not give the owner a positive right to do something that he could not otherwise do. The scope of these
negative rights depends to some extent on whether or not official registration is required. If registration is
necessary, the law tends to confer a limited monopoly on the owner which means that no one is entitled to
exploit the subject matter of the rights of the S.E.G. This is based upon Searl understanding of legal law in
the UK. Searl admits that at this time he has no understanding of USA legal law, which must within reason
be somewhat similar to UK law. Searl also say that not even someone who develops the same invention or
design independently of the registered owner of the rights. If registration is not necessary the only
protection is against copying, when the existence of any link between the third party and the originator of
authorized user of the rights becomes important.

Readers should remember that Searl started his studies upon the Searl Effect Generator (S.E.G) On July 7 th
1946 from his employment with the British Electrical Rewinds in Gray Inn Road, London, and then from the
Midlands Electric Sub Headquarters electric broad, Toll End Road, Tipton. Since 1968 attempts to stop his
progress has continue to this present date in 2015; unfortunate they have been successful in blocking his
success. Can this document unblock this evil; so the S.E.G can get to the market place, where it should had
been in 1968?

Searl understands that the government has recently indicated that it intends to promote certain reforms of
intellectual property law. Searl believe that they came into force probably became law in 1988 and are
likely to include a revision of the entire law of copyright. Searl says that to the extent that such legislation
may affect the position this is stated in the text.

1.1.1 Patents:
1.1.1.1 Patents – Scope:

Searl understands that patents are intended to cover new processes and devices which are of practical
commercial utility. Searl is aware that they are granted for inventions made in most fields, although there
are certain areas where patents cannot be obtained, e.g. for mathematical rules and schemes, and
inventions relating to surgery. Which Searl hope that all intelligent persons understand these conditions.
There are other issues which you may be refused a patent.
Page 712©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-713.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl acknowledge the fact that the basic idea of the patent system is that in exchange for the inventor publishing
details of Searl invention and how it works he obtains from the state a limited monopoly over his invention,
for a period of 20 years. Thereafter the invention is available for the public to use freely.

Searl has to think whether it is wise to patent or not. Searl understand that most of you want Searl to
patent it, so they can see how to make it. But Searl did apply for a patent in 1968 but the patent officer
instructed him never patent a knowhow, thus Searl dropped that idea to please Ford motor company who
wanted a patent first before giving support to the technology. Again with the British investor and his
solicitor Searl travel with them to the city to meet patent officials as my investor wanted me to get a
patent. Upon demonstrating the technology the patent officials stated that I could fill in the application
papers right then for a patent but must include all secrets. They added bear in mind you might become rich
but others may manufacture it which if they could bring them to court does not mean I would get a large
compensation to cover my cost. But if Searl was concerned about the planet and the environment then do
not patent it, then you are in control. Upon that statement the backer and his solicitor agree that I was
right not to patent.

Searl accepts that a patent can be used to prevent third parties from making patented articles or using a
patented process, irrespective of whether the third party has deliberated copied from the patentee or has
done his own design or research work in total ignorance of the patent. Searl accepts that a granted patent
has a number of statements at the end called the claims, which define the area of the monopoly. Searl says
that if a competitor’s product falls within the scope of any of these claims then, on the fact of it, this is an
infringement of the patent.

Searl acknowledge that the possession of a granted patent duly examined and issued by the Patent Office
does not guarantee that it is a valid patent as it is open to third parties to say that the patent is invalid, for
example because the “invention” is not new. This is another issue Searl was concern with about getting a
patent. Those evil minds may state that Tesla had done it and got a patent on it. This would kill my patent.
Therefore Searl has good reasons for not to patent.

1.1.1.2 Patents – Ownership:

Searl being the inventor makes an invention then Searl it is Searl who is primarily entitled to apply for a
patent. However if Searl was employed and the invention was part of his job then his employers are
automatically entitled to the invention and to make the application. Searl say take NOTE if the invention
was not part of his job as that applied to Searl at the Midlands Sub area headquarters later determined to
be of outstanding benefit Searl may claim compensation. Searl point out that he was not employed to
invent, as Searl was working well outside their normal remit may well own the inventions themselves,
irrespective of any provision in their contracts of employment to the contrary. But Searl was lucky that the
Midlands electric board was highly tied up preparing for nuclear power to have been interested in the
S.E.G. Searl also remind you that it should also be recognized that a director is not necessarily an employee
of his company although he may hold any patent that ensues on trust for the company.

Searl understand that if you find it hard to understand all these statements, it may be Searl English is not
very good, bear in mind that he is clinical deaf, and sight is poor at this time after having eye surgery on
both eyes. At an age today of 83y, 4m + 2d, but still kicking and shortly will have to return to the UK to
activate his visa, but may stay on business in the UK for 12 months, which to Searl means one year. This
will stop this document from being completed until Searl returns to the USA. That is if USA let Searl in for
giving away all this information to the world. But Searl guess that you will by the time he returns have a
new president.
Page 713©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-714.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl is concern about the number of different takeover efforts which has taken place since 1968 to this
present day, which he has been able to block at a very high cost. 3 solicitors in UK, 2 solicitors in Holland,
one solicitor in San Diego, one in China and 2 in Florida. That represents a determination to block stupid
actions by those whom you trusted.

1.1.1.3 Patents – Procedures:

Searl states that an application for a patent must include a detailed “Specification” describing the invention
and explaining in sufficient detail how it can be carried out and also containing the claims. Searl accept that
the drafting of such a specification and claims is a specialized task undertaken by registered patent agents,
most of whom are members of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. Searl say that they will also attend
to the subsequent prosecution of the patent.

Searl reminds you that the filing of an application does not give the applicant any protection as such, until
the application has to be formally examined by the Patent Office (to see that it appears to be novel and
involves some inventive step) and it is only after meeting any objections raised by the Examiner and after
the grant of the patent that any monopoly is required. Searl states that the initial application (and any
corresponding foreign application, which have to be filed within 12 months) remains secret until
published by the Patent Office, normally 18 months from the filing date.

Searl reminds you that a patent, if it is to be valid, must cover that which is new. Searl say: that re-
invention of the wheel does not lead to a valid patent; indeed in theory it should lead to no patent at all.
Searl say however the wiles of inventors are such that they may convince the Examiner to the contrary!
Searl day when a patent application has been filed the Patent Office Examiner will usually carry out a
search through the literature to find out whether the invention claimed really is novel and inventive or not.
Searl understand that in order to do this search the Examiner looks only at the material (often called the
“prior art”) published up to the date of filing of the patent application which he is examining. Searl say that
the applicant can therefore sell samples of his invention the day after filing his/her application without any
risk of jeopardizing the application, as that which he/she does after the filing date does not count. Searl
says that it is worth mentioning that it is not just publication in writing which can destroy novelty in an
invention but also oral communication (for example in a lecture) and prior use of the invention. That is
why Searl undertook 2 years monthly TV news broadcast and world publicity and many lectures around the
world to block anyone of getting a patent on the S.E.G. On the web you see so much information which
blocks any patent applied for.

Searl understand that those unfamiliar with the patent system often feel instinctively that publications
made by the inventor himself/herself should not count and should not destroy the novelty in his/her
invention. But Searl states that this is not usually the case and it is important that the first application is
filed before any “publication” of the invention is made. But Searl had done both radio and TV interviews
but bear in mind that he was not giving vital information away to those interviews, or as a matter of fact
neither to the media or at lectures, which still applies today that some information vital to the invention is
confidential material. Searl states that is why the Patent officials say that Searl could patent the S.E.G. IF
Searl wanted to. But you know his interest is in the planet, therefore not interested in patenting it. Searl
say that in protecting the planet he must protect his technology from getting into wrong hands which he
has been so far able to do. Searl cannot have a million people all making an S.E.G. in their bedrooms, when
they do not process the tools to make one of. Where do they buy a magnetizer that can create this river
affects as there are none on the market. Searl has to construct them for his research Development work.
Page 714©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-715.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl say that the over-astute inventor might therefore decide that it was best to file a patent application
as soon as the idea has come to him/her. However, Searl say that is not likely to work. This was not the
case with Searl, as it took him around 24 years before he made that application for a patent as show on
page 714. And then: only because his team was pressing him to do so. Searl understands that patents are
not intended to protect ideas as such, only those ideas which are practically useful. Therefore Searl states
that before the basic application is made it is necessary to have done something more than just have a
basic idea; some tokens of putting the idea into practice must also have been obtained. As many thousands
of you knew that was Searl was doing with his lectures and demonstrations. Searl understood that this is to
prevent applicants from trying to obtain a monopoly on mere pipe dreams. Searl knows that the only
(limited) protection which mere ideas can acquire is under the law of confidential information.

1.1.2 Registered Designs:

Searl is making it clear the problems he had to think upon before applying for a patent. In the UK, what are
the rules, and here Searl is presenting them and how he fitted in or not into the system. Searl states that
Registered Designs are used to protect the eye appeal of goods and include, for example, designs and
patterns applied to textiles and ornaments applied to goods; for example the shape of the Dimple Haig
whisky bottle; or any other whisky bottle design. As Searl understands it Registered Designs are similar to
patents In that the designer permits his/her design to be published in return for securing limited monopoly
rights. Searl furthermore remind you that the registration can be invalidated. Searl also warns you that the
protection lasts for 15 years although it has been proposed to Searl understanding that it be extended to
25 years.

1.1.3 Copyright:
1.1.3.1. Copyright – Scope:

Searl inform you that many of you are aware that Searl has copyright all his books, including Barry Stroller
music which he prepared for me. To Searl understanding that copyright was originally intended to offer
protection from plagiarism of the fine arts; for example music, drama, sculpture, paintings and literature.
Searl states that this covers Barry Strollers music, and Searl books and newsletter, including information
stated my Morris in print on the web network. Searl is aware that the sound of music has change from our
time to your time, but Searl feels that Barry music is ripe to return again to the young ones. However, Searl
say to his understanding that in the UK artistic copyright has also come to provide a means of preventing
the reproduction of functional articles and has accordingly come to be a valuable means of protecting
technology. Searl is aware that literary copyright has also come to be of particular significance as a means
of protecting software. Searl as an author of over 100 books and 200 newsletters know that you never stop
others from copying your information because it’s so exciting in context, most of whom do not have the
means to pay me for the rights to write about this technology as such. Many people have written about my
technology, a few of which did send me a copy of the book, to whom I am grateful to.

Searl say that copyright, as the name implies, protects only against copying, not against independent
design of something which looks or sounds objectively similar. HOWEVER, Searl says copyright does not
simply cover slavish copying; it can prevent the production of copies in which a substantial part of the
copyright work has been taken, even although there may also be substantial differences. Thus Searl say to
escape infringement it is not enough to identify a number of differences; what is significant is whether the
most striking, or most original, features of the copyright work have been taken or not. The problem is what
Searl writes is education to help others to understand what he actually understands.
Page 715©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-716.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl feels that it is sometimes that copyright does not protect ideas, but only their expression, or their
concrete embodiment. Searl often wonders how many people over the years have had the same feelings.
Searl agrees that this in general terms is true but in very strikingly original works the protection afforded
can come close to protecting the underlying idea. Searl accept that copyright has come to assume
particular importance in the UK not only because it can be used to protect functional designs but also
because, by a quirk of history, of the punitive level of damages. Searl also accepts that there is possible no
word you can use that has not been copyrighted. However, Searl says that it is likely that in the
forthcoming legislation such damages will be abolished.

Searl at 82y 4m and 3d can only wonder at the insanity of the world if anything would be safe under these
protections. Searl see the public attitude going downhill while technology is going uphill. If we protect
every single thing the world will just collapse as nothing would get done for fear of prosecution for some
word he/she said; which it has already arrived here in the states. Searl is aware that there are some men
who try to brainwash others to kill English and Americans those should be locked up. But someone who
quote some statement at random to express what he/she need to say should not be considered as stealing
someone else copyright. People can say what they like about me, I do not care a damn, and Searl just carry
on as nothing has happen. Even if Searl trips up on the pavement due to some slab sticking up he do not
sue the council for that issue as he should had been looking where his feet were being placed, was safe to
do so. Yet Searl agrees there are occasions where the person falls due to uneven pavement such as old and
handicap persons. Sorry I have wondered off copyright discussion.

Searl understand that copyright protection subsists for a considerable time: up to 50 years after the death
of the author. Searl reminds you if an article could have been protected as a registered design however, as
Searl understand it the protection last only for the period of registered design protection, currently 15
years after first sale. Searl know there are those who think that protection afforded functional designs
under copyright law has generally been felt to be too extensive, unfortunate Searl cannot comment on
that issue, but he is aware that it has been proposed that in the forthcoming legislation copyright
protection for functional designs be replaced by a unregistered design right of 10 years duration, for the
last 5 years of which compulsory licences could be obtained. Unfortunate Searl has been lecturing around
the world and therefore is out of date as to any changes in the law which has taken place or not. Searl
guess he will get notification of changes in the UK law, relating to copyright in due time.

1.1.3.2 Copyright – Ownership:

Searl say that to his understanding: that unlike a patent arises as soon as the author Professor Searl, artist,
sculptor, composer Barry Stroller or draughtsman has created the copyright work. Searl understands that
he has no need to register this; and any arrangements for deposit serve only to allow an author such as
Searl to establish that Searl had created a particular copyright work at a given date. Subject to agreement
otherwise copyright is generally held by the individual who created the copyright work, unless such
creation is part of his job when it will be held by his employer.

Searl is well aware that copyright is one of the areas where ownership can be most problematic. Searl does
understand that an employed draughtsman who prepares plans or drawings will not own the copyright,
however if the same drawings are produced by an outsider consultant that consultant is the legal owner of
the copyright. Searl knows that similar principles will apply to a computer programmer employed by a
company, as against an outside software house retained by them. To Searl knowledge: in either case, if the
work has been paid for then the company may be beneficially entitled to the copyright.
Page 716©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-717.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl points out that in this case the company has no right to take proceedings (other than interlocutory
proceedings) on the copyright. Searl is aware that outside contractors can be slow, and in many cases
reluctant to assign such copyright to the company. Searl warns all that it is therefore advisable to make
suitable to make suitable provision for assignment of copyright at the outset wherever outside consultants are
involved. Searl agrees that such pre-planning is typically dealt with in a commissioning letter or in a more formal
consultancy agreement. Searl states that in such case as this he feels all legal bodies would advise you in this case
with a similar suggestion.

1.1.4 Know-How and other Confidential Information:

Searl accepts that only certain types of information can benefit from the protection afforded confidential
information, for example trade secrets which, as their name implies, will tend to be secret formulations or
processes. Searl also accept that additionally the law of confidential information can protect matters such
as know-how as to the detailed operation of processes (where the general nature of the process may not
in itself be a trade secret as such because it may for example be patented) and customer lists.

Searl is aware that to be capable of protection in this way the information must not only be confidential in
nature (not generally available) but also initially disclosed in circumstances importing an obligation of
confidence (i.e. imparted to someone who had an obligation to respect the confidence and not to
disclose the confidential information).

Searl understands this protection is only against a person who has received the confidential information
and proposes to make use of it. Searl has been informed that the protection is not restricted to the original
recipient of the information but can stop subsequent, innocent, recipients of that information (if it was
originally impressed with the obligation of confidence) from using it or from disclosing it to others. Searl
understands that although information can in theory be kept confidential indefinitely, in practice it is rare
for confidential information to have value for more than 10 years or so. Throughout Searl working life
everyone wants Searl to keep things secret so others have no idea where Searl is or what he is doing.
Problem here: which Searl see; is how do you get funding? If people are not aware of what your aims are
and the expected cost to produce such goods; how can they help?

Over the years Queen councilors; Judges, solicitors, monks, engineers, have all given me help one way or
another to them I owe a debt of respect and appreciation, for without their help it would had been
impossible to reach this stage of success and knowledge. To them; I must thank those of many centuries
ago who added information by which it is now possible and feasible for the S.E.G. Searl guess that
Television, Radio and magazines and newspapers all added help for me. To go: on mass production. But
when; that is up to you. Searl has done his part.

Searl hopes that you understand that as confidential information is not, under English law, a recognized
species of property it cannot be said to be owned in quite the same way as other intellectual property.
However, Searl states that an employer will generally be able to assert rights in respect of trade secrets
generated by its employees.

From advice Searl received was that in order to protect such information, it is advisable before its release
to a third party, whether for the purpose of product evaluation or otherwise, for the third party to be
required to enter into a confidentiality undertaking. Searl say that this should avoid any doubt that the
information is disclosed in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. Sadly Searl states he has
yet to meet someone who is 100% honest that can keep a secret, without telling anyone what it is.
Page 717©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-718.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

1.1.5 Plant Breeders Rights: ••• • • •/ ••• – – – •– • / ••• – – • / ••• – – ••/ • • •//

Searl understand that these are proprietary rights that SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES will have to
undertake heavy research work on producing new food and plants for deep space exploration
requirements, which can be obtained by people who breed or discover a new plant variety. Searl is aware
that these rights are a little like patents in that they can be used to prevent third parties from commercially
offering propagating material without a license. However Searl knows that the rights cover only the
particular variety which has been registered and do not cover any derived variety. What Searl has been
informed by the legal branch that anyone may freely use the variety to try to create new derived varieties?
Searl understands that the creator need not (unlike a patent) describe how the new variety was obtained,
and although a deposit of a sample of the propagating material is necessary, this is not made publicly
available.

1.1.6 Semiconductor Product Topographies:

Searl been inform by legal boys that this is a new form of intellectual property protection being introduced
in the UK under an EEC directive intended to establish a system equivalent to that already existing in the
USA and Japan (sorry to say that Searl was not aware that both Japan and the USA had this protection of
integrated circuit layout designs (sometimes Searl understands is referred to as mask works). Searl
understand that this protection is similar to but in certain respects less extensive than that already
afforded such works by the law of copyright in the UK.

1.2 Securing the Position Abroad:

Searl inform you upon the rights discussed above are essentially those which subsist in the UK and by and
large they only cover activities in the UK. Searl say nevertheless if one wishes to obtain protection in
foreign countries one has to examine the various different types of rights involved in each country in
question. Searl has been lead to believe whilst most countries tend to have some type of patent system
the detailed rules vary quite considerably from country to country (except in a few UK link territories, like
Hong Kong) it is necessary Searl understands to file a number of separate applications to obtain patents in
all countries desired although there are to Searl understanding now certain provisions for making a single
application to cover more than one country (see Section 1.2.2.2).

1.2.1 Copyright:

Searl say that the position as to copyright is somewhat special. Searl should know as he has copyright all
his books and newsletters since 1968 and today he adds even more legal reference numbers at top of each
page. Searl points out thus fine art copyright (as opposed to copyright in functional articles: which as a
principle is generally limited to countries which either apply, or have based their legislation on, UK
copyright legislation) will be enjoyed in many countries without further formality. Why is the case? To
Searl understanding that this normally arises because the UK adheres to the Berne copyright convention.
To Searl understanding that the only major country which does not adhere to the Berne Convention is the
USA which adheres only to the Universal Copyright Convention to which the UK and most other countries
also adhere. As Searl understand it, that nowadays the protection afforded to authors in the UK in relation
to exploitation in the USA is broadly similar to that provided under the Berne Convention although there
are advantages from the point of view of protection in the USA in ensuring that any copyright works
incorporate a copyright notice and in registering copyright in the USA.
Page 718©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-719.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

However, Searl say there is now strong support in the USA for adhering to the Berne Convention and Searl
been informed by legal boys that these differences may not last for long.

1.2.2 Patents:

As by now you should know that Searl rejects patents on his technology on the advice of the Patent Office.
Nevertheless, many of you think that Searl should had patent his S.E.G. Searl which to explain his
knowledge relating to patents. Searl understand that generally speaking a patent is only effective in the
country in which it has been obtained. Hence, if Searl was granted UK patent is effective to prevent
unlicensed third parties from making or selling the patent products in the UK. However Searl states that it
is completely ineffective against such product such as the S.E.G. as an example made in Taiwan and sold in
France. Searl understand that to be able to stop that one needs a patent, either in Taiwan or in France
(Searl feels a patent would be needed in both countries) Searl remind you there are many countries who
would manufacture the S.E.G. and sell them in countries in which you have not taken out a patent for
protection. Searl is blessing not to have this problem as the S.E.G. is know-how. Searl is well informed that
there have been a number of moves to simplify and standardize the procedure for obtaining patents
abroad; but this Searl say is still an area where it is necessary to examine each case individually.

1.2.2.1 Filing and the Paris Convention:

First: Searl wish to say that in the past he attended every possible convention that he could fit in. Today
due to age and state of health he cannot now attend conventions like he use to; but he will try whenever
he can. Searl would like to say that one of the most important aspects of obtaining patent protection
abroad is an international convention called the Paris Convention, to which most countries adhere.

Searl say as we have already seen, after a patent application has been filed, the Examiner searches the
prior art up to the filing date. In most countries publications world-wide are considered as prior art.
Without some special provision the applicant would have to file applications for patents in all the countries
where he/she would like protection before making a single sale or disclosure to the general public.

Searl remind you that to avoid the Paris Convention permits the applicant to make a single first filing for
the S.E.G. (which often must be in his/her home country) and then to file all the corresponding foreign
applications within one year of the first filing. Provided this is done the applicant can claim the priority of
the date of first application (which is known as the priority date) so that this becomes the cut-off date in
each of the foreign countries for assessing which prior art publications could affect the novelty of the
invention.

Searl say that it is vitally important to be able to claim the priority of the basic application for the following
reason. Assume that one has filed a patent application in the UK for the S.E.G. and a few weeks later
exhibited the patented product at an exhibition abroad and started selling samples. Within one year of the
UK filing one can claim the priority and thereby protect oneself from the effect of this exhibition of the
S.E.G. and of the sales. Thus the general rule as Searl understands it is that if one is thinking of filing a
patent then the initial application must be on file first before there is any sales of S.E.Gs or distribution of
samples or other public use of the invention anywhere in the world.

What Searl is trying to do here is supply information upon how the patent system works in the UK. As
patent officials: have instructed him on the subject.
Page 719©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-720.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl agrees that although it is important to get the first patent application on file as soon as possible it is
not expected that the applicant will have fully worked up his/her invention by the time of the first filing.
Accordingly to Searl understanding, when the corresponding foreign applications are filed, within the year
period, it is normal to put additional material into the patent specification, perhaps giving more and more
detailed, practical examples and possible new application. To that extent Searl say that the present patent
system retains a benefit of the earlier patent legislation whereby an initial application, termed the S.E.G.,
which was termed a provisional specification, could be filed which was often fairly sketchy in its coverage
of the S.E.G. invention. This would then be followed up by the more fully explained and exemplified
specification within a year in the UK (the complete specification). Except when filing such new
specification (within the year) As Searl understands it that no new matter can be added to a patent
application after filing. To Searl understanding; however if the S.E.G. claimed invention is substantially
widened which might happen in the case of the S.E.G. Searl is aware that not all the claims may be entitled
to the earlier priority date.

Searl accept that when judging the novelty of an invention made independently by more than one person
at about the same time it is effectively (except in the USA) the person who is first in time anywhere in the
world to file a patent application who obtains the patent. If one delays making a first filing of a proposed
patent application whilst trying to assess the likelihood of a valid patent being obtainable it is quite
possible that a publication of some or the entire discovery has been made elsewhere, or some third party
has filed a patent application for the protection of the same S.E.G. structure; or an overlapping invention.
Hence Searl states in applying for a patent the sooner an application is made after the idea has been
proved the better. Thereafter, Searl say, you have a period of one year within to evaluate the invention, do
more work on it and to decide in what foreign countries to seek protection.

1.2.2.2 Patent Cooperation Treaty and European Patent Convention:

Searl acknowledge that if an applicant files his/her invention in, say 18 different countries, then in principle
18 different examiners in different Patent Offices will make 18 different searches upon the S.E.G concept
(which ought in theory to yield the same results, which often do not) and will then engage in 18
arguments with the applicant before deciding whether to grant a patent or not, on the S.E.G.. Searl
understands that this obviously involves a great deal of duplication of effect. Searl points out that in order
to try to avoid some of this, two quite separate systems have arisen, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
and the European Patent Convention (EPC).

Searl states that under the PCT the applicant files one application with his/her home Patent Office
designating the 18 countries in which he/her are interested. Searl say that the Patent Office then examines
the case for formal defects and arrange to have a single search carried out by an internationally recognized
searching body. When the search results is available the basic application papers, together with the search
report are then forwarded to the 18 different Patent Offices who each carry out their own examination,
based on the single international search. Searl agrees that this is quite a step forward, although Searl say
not all the nations in which one might be interested have joined the PCT system.

Searl acknowledge that a much more ambitious scheme is that of the EPC which I am informed by solicitors
has set up the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich. Yes indeed Searl has completed many lecture
sessions in Munich that is correct Harry? Searl say as with the PCT a single application is filed, designating
the countries in which protection is wanted, and a single search is then carried out.

Searl will continue on the next page this complicated subject.

Page 720©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-721.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

However Searl say thereafter a single EPO examiner examines the case and, if ultimately satisfied, by
allowing the application, in effect grants a whole set of national patents in the designated countries. Searl
says that this has the drawback that an adverse decision by the EPO examiner can result in patent
protection in all the designated countries being lost. However Searl say that generally the system seems to
work well, and if one wants protection in about 4 or more countries which adhere to the EPC then there
are clear cost advantages in filing via the EPC.
••• • • •/ ••• – – –•–•/ ••• • / ••• •• //
Searl points out that the legal boys have instructed him that there is also mooted a still more streamlined
system which has not yet been put into effect, under which a single Community Patent would be granted
which could then be litigated in one member country but with effect also in all other countries of the EEC.

1.3 Specific Topics:

1.3.1 Commissioned Work:

Searl quotes what he has been informed by legal boys that in theory ownership is not a difficult problem; it
is usually employees who make the inventions, draw the copyright works or write the computer software,
in which case the rights are held by the employer. However Searl state that when one involves outside
consultants the position is very much less clear unless the legal relationship between the company and the
consultants has been set up from the outset in such a way that the company is likely to have the rights to
the intellectual property produced. Searl is concern if there are specific rules which exist as to the types of
contracts which have to be concluded with third party helpers, whether they are co-inventors, consultants
or merely sub-contract draughtsman, this will help to avoid problems arising at a later stage. However
Searl say that usually when an important situation develops over the S.E.G. it is necessary to look at this on
a case-by-case basis to ensure that the company has a defensible position.

Searl acknowledge that the topic of commissioning in the context of development contracts is discussed in
more detail later, but it should also be mentioned here that such contracts should not only prevent
disclosure of the companies confidential information by the consultant or contractor but also its use other
than for the purpose of the particular commissioned work.

1.3.2 University Research Work:

Searl is absolutely clear upon one area where there can be complications is in relation to research work
which has been carried out by academics working in universities; which Searl got experience via Dr.
Edwards and Gunnar Sandberg at Sussex University trying to Steal the S.E.G. for Brain Collins of Australia.
Lucky for Searl he had meet Brain Collins twice and knew him as a conman. Therefore Searl would not sign
any contract with Sussex University while they had a contract with Brain Collins. Searl is not stupid as some
clearly think he is. Searl states that it is necessary to look rather carefully at who employs the academic,
like Professor Steven Donnelly a dean of two universities and the scope of his employment to discover
whether the intuition where he works that relates to Gunnar Sandberg and Dr. Edwards has any interest in
the work, which was made clear to Searl, they certainly had interest but in the wrong domain. Searl points
out that additionally work which has been wholly or partly funded by Research Councils or by Charitable
Trusts requires special consideration as the terms of the funding may be such that certain rights accrue to
these funding bodies and not to the employer, or the researchers themselves. Searl has good reasons to
say that in each case it is much better to examine these matters before the work is commenced so that the
question of rights has been decided and dealt with before they arise. Searl understand how simple it is for
an ex-worker like Robert Gray to file a patent as his/her invention.
Page 721©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-722.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl say otherwise if it is left until an apparently useful discovery has been made it can be more difficult,
particularly as the various contenders by that stage have had their appetites whetted for some, if not all, of
the rights.

1.3.3 Biotechnology:

Searl say that this field has a high legal profile, partly because of the glamour of innovations in genetic
engineering and also because of the ethical questions which are tied up in its pursuit. However Searl says
that biotechnology is not a recent manifestation: thus for example, brewing technology and the science of
yeasts and ferments have been well established for a long time.

1.3.3.1 Protection Available:

Searl say that the protection available in biotechnology is in some ways typical of other areas but is, if
anything, even more fragmented. Apart from the limited protection afforded by plant breeder’s rights,
most protection is available under patent law.

Searl explains in the case of biotechnology the types of processes or entities which an inventor might like
to patent come into conflict with certain basic rules as to what and what may not be patented. Searl points
out that although the precise rules vary from country to country the UK (as with most patent systems in
Europe which adhere to the EPC) does not permit the patenting of varieties of animals or plants or of any
essentially biological processes for the production of animals or plants, although slightly illogically it then
excepts microbiological processes and their products. Part of the reason for this exception was to avoid
overlap with plant breeders rights, although this exception goes much wider and would exclude, for
example, methods of animal husbandry. However Searl say that quite irrationally, plants or animals which
have been produced by more sophistic microbiological techniques are patentable.

Searl understanding that up until about 1970 or so there used to be a belief that it would be immoral to
permit living things to be patented. As: Searl stated: that this was not a wholly rational position, as yeasts
which are living organisms had been recognized as being patentable for years. Thus it was held in the now
famous Chakrabarty case in the U.S Supreme Court that the question of whether the matter which was
being patented was living or not was not relevant. The position is likely to be the same in the UK. However
Searl states that such arguments are not totally dead; and while patents may well be granted for oysters
and methods of their culture (as in the US) it is possible that claims for higher animals or humans
generated or cultured in some specified way would be refused. Searl say that in Europe this could be done
under provisions barring patents for public policy considerations.

Searl states that there is another matter which needs to be considered in relation to genetically engineered
material is the scope of the protection available. To Searl understanding that traditional patent law, as
developed by application to chemistry, the first person to make a new compound could obtain a claim to
the compound itself irrespective of how it was made. Searl points out that meant that although the
inventor had perhaps only described one way of making the new compound he/she could, in effect,
monopolies all methods of making the compound. To Searl understanding that in biotechnology there are
two problem areas. This is what solicitors have taught Searl that firstly there is a tendency not to assume
that any new material is necessarily patentable just because it is new, which means that protection may be
limited to the process actually used for its production. Searl has been informed that such protection is
much less extensive than that accorded to novel chemical entities.
Page 722©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-723.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl say that the other problem area is where the material produced is not novel, but is itself naturally
occurring but difficult to make or to isolate. Searl is aware that claims to such materials at large are
necessary invalid. Searl remind you that the recent English decision in the Genentech t- PA case has taken a
restrictive view at first instance and the patentees are only likely (at best) to obtain claims to their process
for making t-PA.

1.3.3.2 The problems of description, deposit and self-replication:

Searl accepts another complication in the protection of microbiological inventions is that in more
traditional sciences a description of the invention would normally be sufficient to allow anyone who
wanted to experiment to make use of the invention after the patent has expired. However Searl say that it
can be very difficult adequately to describe microorganisms; but even if that can be done, mere description
will not thereby permit the reader to obtain any of the microorganisms. Searl say that it is not uncommon
for useful novel microorganisms to be found by laborious selection from thousands of microorganisms
present in some particular soil sample from say South America. Searl understand that even If the general
public can be assured of supply of the relevant soil sample the isolation of the desired microorganism
would be a huge task.

Searl is aware that as this ran so counter to the principles of the patent system of the Budapest Convention
now exist which requires the deposit of samples of new or inaccessible microorganism in recognized
culture collections. Searl realize that it is very helpful for the inventor to be able to supplement the
description of his/her microorganism by referring to a deposited sample. However Searl say that most
inventors are profoundly unhappy as Searl has been informed, about having to make available samples of
their cultures, which they often regard as being their invention. Searl can appreciate this feeling that they
see this as being undesirable even if the culture collection agrees not to supply third parties with samples
of their culture; however Searl say that the rules relating to obtaining patents go much wider and requires
public access to the culture from the culture collection.

Searl say if one visits a museum, which Searl use to love doing; and see sample of, for example, certain
chemical compounds, Searl accepts these samples are useful in teaching, for example, what copper
sulphate crystals looks like. Searl agrees that even if you were given a few crystals their usefulness would
be limited to using them as a reference or touchstone with which to compare other samples. Searl accepts
that they do not provide you with a source of the material itself. Searl understands that with samples of
microorganisms this is not the case, my thanks to solicitors who informed me. Searl states that provided
the samples is viable (which in theory it should be) then to Searl mind, than the tiniest sample can be used
to grow enormous quantities of the same microorganism. Searl acknowledge that this is why access is such
an emotive matter.

Searl understand that this access requirements has discourage some from patenting and this is reinforced
by the fact that certain areas of biotechnology have tended to rely traditionally on the maintenance of
technology as trade secrets. Searl can understand that this applied particularly to the large companies who
produced synthetic penicillin’s by fermentation technology. The cultures as Searl understands which they
used and the methods for their employment were very closely guarded secrets. Searl like to point out here
that he is aware that some chemical patents have been made void in recent time. Searl admit that he
never followed up as to why they were removed from patent list; clearly they had to be a reason for it.
Searl is a person who seek the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In the meantime Searl say
carry on inventing, there is no end to inventing, even if you cannot get a patent why worry?
Page 723©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-724.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

1.3.4 Computer Software:

Searl understand that protection of intellectual property rights in software is primarily affected under
copyright law, although Searl states that the law of contract (in license agreements) is effective in
controlling licensees. Confidential information protection, whilst available, is in practice little used in
relation to software but attempts to Searl understanding to patent novel software concepts by presenting
them as part of a computer system are now starting to meet with some success, particularly at the EPO.

Searl say that the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985 established beyond any doubt
that literary copyright subsists in computer software. All this makes Searl sick as we are killing this planet at
a linear rate at this time and instead of working out how can we slow this process down, before its rate of
dying increases instead of decreasing. However Searl accepts that the computer program itself is not the
only copyright work which may be use in protecting software; any specifications or screen layouts are
works in which literary and artistic copyright respectively subsist. Searl understand that it can be argued
that such works may still be copied (in the copyright sense of substantially reproduced) where a program
is totally rewritten but appears to the outside world to behave in much the same way as the original and
where what has come to be called the look and feel of the original has been taken. Searl see a problem
that attention has now to some extent turned from piracy which is where the code of a program is itself
copied (and as to which the legal position is clear) to these look and feel issues, which are less clear cut
not only from the legal point of view, but also from the point of view of public policy as there is a little of
the old in everything that is new. Thank you: as that is what Searl has been saying since 1963 and therefore
Searl see that if we continue along this line we shall reach a stage where we cannot talk or write due to
infringement of some ones copyright or patent right. Let look at Searl copyright which means about every
based word is copyright material; agree there are millions of words Searl has so far not employed in his
writings or on the air, or at his lectures. This does not mean that in the future Searl will need to use more
words than he has used so far to date.

Searl know from experience that the reliance on copyright protection (which does not in the UK involve
registration) which to Searl seem untrue as he had to send 6 copies of each book to the name places in this
document, that is a hell of a cost out of my small pension. To this Searl understand coupled with the
tradition in the computer software industry of poorly documenting its products, particularly in the early
stages, means that establishing one’s title, or even identifying and dating the most appropriate copyright
works, can be one of the major problems when asserting copyright in this field. Searl has stated so often
that he believes much can be done when a program is being written to assist any subsequent litigation of
that program by properly documenting the process.

1.4 The Generation and Protection of Technology – a case study:

Searl needs to explain how he understands legal law. Some of the practicalities of this topic can perhaps
most easily be explained by discussion of an example; in this particular case my thanks go to solicitors who
informed me of this situation. ••• • • • / ••• • • / ••• • / ••• •• / • • • //

Searl states that a company which specializes in making alloys has discovered that they can make an alloy
like Barium oxalate, Puratronic which we know is a crystalline powder as Searl recalls is termed Ba(NO 3)2
which has the unusual property of being very hard, harder than a diamond. To Searl understanding, this alloy
uses a number of different metals such as aluminum boride AlB12 + Silver tetraborate B4Ag2O7. Searl remind you that
this is just an illustration for this case example, and to Searl knowledge it has not been yet been made into any
metal. Searl say let’s get back to our case.
Page 724©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-725.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

We represent the future of cleaner air,

water and food for and behalf of the
world. The world at this time can
barely cope with the demand of the
Homo sapiens. Solution: reduce the
populations for a period of 10 years
minimum just to help the Earth to
catch up on demand. Work hard to
stop the desert from growing larger,
attempt to reduce its size as soon as
possible. The S.E.G. could be a front
runner in this requirement. We must
act now or we shall be far too late.
Professor Searl and Fernando Morris, leading the world to a paradise state, a future which is meant to be.

These extra metals which are used which depends critically on a heat treatment which is used to anneal
the alloy. Searl should know he was employed for years on nights doing the heat treatment of metals. The
discovery was made by a research group under the company who collaborated with an outside consultant.

Searl is aware that the question then arises as to how best to protect this discovery. Searl accepts that the
most obvious possibility is to apply for a patent, but solicitors in this case might advise the company to
consider keeping the discovery as a trade secret. Searl agree that that it is an important consideration is
that the company does not need a patent in order to be able to make or sell the alloy. Searl remind you
that a patent is not a positive right which enables the patentee to do something which he/she otherwise
would not be able to do. Searl inform you, that it is, on the contrary, a negative right which enables the
patentee to prevent unauthorized third parties from making and selling the invention in the UK.

Searl agrees that the idea of keeping the discovery as a trade secret is quite attractive; after all that is what
Searl is doing with both the S.E.G. and the I.G.V. This is what Searl has to advise you that any purchaser of
the allow would, with sufficiently sophisticated analytical techniques, as Searl has done, be able to discover
the precise composition of the alloy. However Searl say that the nicest examination would not reveal the
precise nature of the annealing process. Searl points out that following the trade secret path has the
advantage that costs involved in applying for patents are avoided.

Searl request that you do not attempt to anneal those materials quoted on page 724, they are only quoted
as a sample of what he means in reference to added materials to create that alloy, which Searl doubt were
the ones which they used. Searl understand that additionally, unlike patents, trade secrets can survive in
theory for an unlimited period. Searl agree that period can be long also, his trade secrets have lasted since
1946, and still lasting. Searl accepts that trade secrets have a habit of becoming public over a period of
time, additionally if a third party quite independently discovered this alloy nothing could be done to stop it
from making and selling the alloy, and even worse from publishing the details of its manufacture.

Searl is aware from his medical training on how people’s minds work once greed steps in to the arena; they
cannot help themselves; their mind say grab it you will make millions quick. Unfortunate they got a
massive problem they do not know how to make it. That is the great news for today. Searl say: being the
rightful inventor of the technology, telling people that they know how to make the S.E.G. is fraud,
deception to raise funds for products other than the S.E.G. Which investors thought they had invested in?
Page 725©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-726.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl say that if the company is thinking seriously of keeping the discovery as a trade secret it is then
necessary to look at the general legal arrangements of the company: in effect to see whether this option
has already been foreclosed. Therefore Searl say one needs to look at the contracts of employment of the
inventors and of all the other employees who have knowledge of the development. Additionally Searl state
that as it has the used an outside consultant one has to look at the arrangements which have been made
with him/her. Searl say that if his/her knowledge of the project is not held in confidence then it may be
impossible to keep this as a trade secret; indeed it may also have obviated the possibility of obtaining a
patent. Searl accept that this is a good illustration of how general law considerations must be taken into
account when deciding how best to protect an idea. Indeed they ought to have considered even before the
research project was set up and any discovery made.

Searl remind you that if the company obtains a patent then it obtains a monopoly right in the sense that it
can stop any third party making the alloy. However Searl say by applying for a patent (unless the
application is withdrawn at an early stage) the discovery is published 18 months after the first patent
application is made. Hence Searl say thereafter other research groups would have this information
available to them, and the research lead which the company had enjoyed could be substantial reduced.
Searl warn you that furthermore there is no guarantee that a patent will be obtained.

Searl feels if there is a prospect of obtaining patent protection then the best way to proceed is to file a
patent application as soon as that can be done. Then, Searl state: that within one year period, the company
should do further work in trying to establish whether a valid patent can be obtained. If so then it can
continue with the application and file within that year such applications abroad as seem appropriate
claiming the priority of the UK application. Searl understand that if not the company can still withdraw the
application in time to prevent publication and then try to keep the discovery as a trade secret.

That is what Searl has been doing keeping all his research work and thinking as trade secret, and that is the
way Searl intends to go; until death does he pass, which is the results for all things regardless. Like planet
Earth it is on its way out; which means that we are all on the way out regardless. Searl may be poor and in
ill health but he appreciates all the help which over time the legal boys have supplied him. Searl agree that
it is too early to say if we shall meet on camera to shake hands for their devoted help given in the past.
Searl will now look at the critical part of the inventor’s life.

BRINGING THE S.E.G. TO THE MARKET-PLACE:

2. CONSTRAINTS:
2.1 Competition Law:

Searl say when one comes to look at the commercialization of technology, particularity of the S.E.G. if
licensing will be involved, and competition law imposes constraints on the freedom with which one can
operate. Searl states in the UK one must consider both domestic competition law and EEC competition law.

You can see what problems we have to set up a company which main objective is research new clean
products for the UK market place. That is the problem created by joining Europe union, it sometimes
hinder your progress instead of helping your progress. Searl has well experience of setting up a company in
the UK, the overall cost in legal fees yearly and license fees to be allow to do this and that which was
critical for the undertaking Searl was handling. The S.E.G. was not alone project, there was also the I.G.V
project and all the various parts that needed to be research and tested. Cost increased yearly some which
was related to government and others by local authority, and materials.
Page 726©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-727.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

2.1.1 Domestic Competition Law:

Searl understand that certain common law doctrines (such as restraint of trade) still form part of domestic
competition law, this law is now essentially embodied in statute; namely Fair Trading Act 1973, the
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and the Competition Act 1980 (together with, though not strictly
relevant for these purposes, the Resale Prices Act 1976) The Patents Act 1977 also contains certain
competition law provisions specific to patent licensing which are discussed in the context of that topic
later. Searl say in the case of certain individual industries, such as British Telecommunications and British
Gas, their privatizations brought with them additional sets of competition rules governing their operation.

Searl states that in contrast with other systems of competition law, particularly the EEC, one of the
peculiarities of UK law is it concern with the form and content of restrictive agreements, rather than their
effects, which is important to Searl. This is also somewhat out of step with other countries national laws,
which recognize that competition law and policy can in general be more effective if based on the effect of
any particular practice or agreement on the market; a system based on what agreements say rather than
what they do does not have this flexibility.

2.1.1.1 The Fair Trading Act 1973:

Searl has to think hard whether or not this Act enables the Secretary of State and, in most cases, the
Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT), to refer monopoly situations and their effects to the Monopolies
and Mergers Commission (MMC) for it to carry out an investigation as to the desirability of the monopoly
from the point of view of the public interest. A monopoly situation is for the purposes taken to exist where
at least one quarter of the goods of any description supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by or to
one and the same person.

Searl accepts that in a typical reference the MMC may only investigate and report with a view to determine
whether or not a monopoly situation exists and whether any act or omission complained of in the
reference operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest. This also means that when
patent officials tell Searl does not patent this know-how, because they is danger for those who try to copy
it, which could incur problems to those nearby. Searl continues; such matters must relate to prices or
recommendations or suggestions as to price, refusal to supply and preference whether by way of
discrimination in respect of prices or in respect of priority of supplier or otherwise.

Searl understand that the MMC must normally report on a monopoly reference within six months of the
date of the reference. Searl points out that if the report concludes that any matters do operate against the
public interest the Secretary of State may by order exercise certain powers; this is why Searl require to
communicate with the Secretary of State of the danger that would happen if this technology got into
unbalance minds who think that killing people was a great game. Searl agrees that nearly every day some
idiot goes and kill someone. Searl say such a public danger that exists, he has to take maximum care to
prevent such happenings occurring in his business. The safety of the planet is number for Searl, it has
always have been and will continue to be so regardless. Searl is aware that the Secretary of State has
these powers are wide ranging but essentially enable him to proscribe the offending activities in relation to
prices, refusals to supply, preference and discrimination. Certain powers are exercisable only with the
approval of Parliament.

Searl ask you to read this slowly to be able to understand the problems which Searl has to cope with.
Page 727©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-728.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl understand that the Secretary of State may also at any time require the MMC to report on the
general effect on the public interest of practices which are commonly adopted in order to preserve
monopoly situations or on practices which appear to be uncompetitive practices. Searl knows that he may
also require the MMC to report on appropriate remedial action required.

Searl also understand that the 1973 Act also controls mergers. Searl quote that this can extend to joint
ventures (which Searl is seeking, but get rejected upon such an idea by the team) Or someone in the
team forcefully take over as the owner of the technology, which always cost us that backer. Bear in mind
that a merger situation qualifying for investigation is one where two or more enterprises, one of which is
carried on in the UK, cease to be distinct and as a result, at least a quarter of the relevant goods or services
are supplied by or to one and the same person (or such a previously existing market share has been
increased) or the value of assets taken over exceeds (currently) £30 million.

2.1.1.2 The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976:

Searl wish to make clear that this act (and its precursors) has mainly been used to prevent price fixing
cartels, but from Searl observations this has failed as it is clear that large food units fix prices often to
match one another. Remember Searl is talking about his time and not your time which may be different
now in structure; unfortunate Searl needs is to be convinced upon that issue. It controls to Searl
understanding what are termed registrable agreements as to goods or as to services which SEARL GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGIES attend to offer the market place. Such an agreement is one between two or more persons
carrying on business within the UK under which two or more parties to it accept restrictions of certain
specified matters such as prices to be charged or the process of manufacture to be applied to goods. Searl
acknowledge that an agreement does not have to be in writing and includes any agreement or
arrangement, whether or not it is intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings. Searl make it clear that
all agreements must be enforceable by legal proceedings. Every year some member tries to take over
ownership and the contracts fails due to that action.

Searl acknowledge that the fact that the 1976 Act is the UK domestic competition statute most likely to
affect agreements for exploiting technology although there are some significant exemptions, such as
certain types of patent license, as will be discussed later. Searl understands that joint ventures (as to which
the application of the Act is discussed in more detail later) and other collaborative agreements are
particularly liable to be caught if they contain restrictions as to goods or services.

Searl informs you that if SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES make an agreement which is an agreement which
is registrable it must be registered within 30 days of the restrictions taking effect; otherwise the agreement
is void in respect of all restrictions contained within it. Once registered, the DGFT is under an obligation to
take proceedings in respect of the agreement before the Restrictive Practices Court. Searl explains that it
will then be for the parties seeking to uphold the agreement to prove that it is not against the public
interest and for this purpose to identify, within the provisions of the legislation, certain specific benefits,
known as gateways.

Searl accepts that the Act empowers the Secretary of State to discharge the DGFT from his/her duty to
take proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the
restrictions contained in an agreement are not of such significance as to call for investigation. Searl points
out that this procedure can only apply where the agreement has been duly registered under the Act.
Otherwise, it is left to the Secretary General of the company to void the contract as failing to be registrar.
Page 728©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-729.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

2.1.1.3 The Competition Act 1980:

Searl inform you that this empowers the DGFT to investigate anti-competitive practices, to report on the
results of such investigation, to accept undertakings in relation to any anti-competitive practice, such as
Professor Steven Donnelly presents slander on YouTube for a number of years under the title of
Flowerbower, which many lives could had been save if this technology had been on the market Searl
expects millions more people will have to die before this technology reaches the market place where it
should had been in 1968. Searl admits that the above statement relates of practice the subject of such
report, and to refer any such practice to the MMC. Following an MMC report, on the request of the
Secretary of State, the DGFT may seek undertakings from the person concerned to take or refrain from
taking action with a view to remedying any effects of such practice found by the MMC to operate against
the public interest.
••• • • • / ••• – – – • – • / ••• • •• / ••• •• / • • • //

Searl remind you that for these purposes an anti-competitive practice is defined in similar terms to those
used in the Treaty of Rome and discussed later, although Searl accepts that the ambit appears to be
narrower in that the practice must amount to a course of conduct. Searl say that this similarity is not
carried through to the procedure adopted by the 1980 Act to deal with such practices. Searl say whereas,
for example, under the Treaty of Rome the European Commission can investigate and issue legally binding
pronouncements as to the validity under EEC law of agreements and practices in some cases giving rise
directly enforceable claims by person affected, under this Act the DGFT can undertake an investigation but
cannot take any executive action himself/herself. Searl say that once the matter has been referred by
him/her to the MMC it is out of his/her hands unless and until he/she is to seek undertakings (if any)
arising out of the MMC report.

Searl remind you that the MMC’s terms of reference and its ability to make suitable recommendations to
bring an end to an anti-competitive practice are heavily circumscribed. To Searl knowledge, that in
particular as in the case of a monopoly reference under the 1972 Act, the MMC’s objective is to discover
whether or not there are effects adverse to the public interest. Searl state surely that Flowerbower effects
on YouTube are adverse to the public interest. Unfortunate Searl say that if the public interest is not
adversely affected, the MMC has no locus to make any other determination on the matter.

Searl points out that it may come as a surprise, at least to foreign lawyers, that under the Competition Act
an anti-competitive practice is not of itself illegal and does not invite legal sanction until the whole
procedure of DGFT investigation, MMC report and Secretary of State Order has been completed.

2.1.2 EEC Competition Law:

To Searl understanding that the source of this law is to be found in the Treaty of Rome and can be divided
as follows: Restrictive agreements (Article 85), abuse of a dominant position (Article 86) and free
movement of goods (Articles 30-36). According to Searl understanding that this would refer to component
manufacture by SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES and or any divisions of its operational units worldwide;
such as the S.E.G. or any product which employs the S.E.G. as its power train; from the point of view of
technology generation and exploitation, it is to Articles 85 and 86 and the various (European) Commission
decisions and European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgements, as well as exempting regulations issued by the
Commission, that one should look.

Searl again make it clear he works inside the law at all times, and it is hard work to do just that.
Page 729©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-730.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

2.1.2.1 Article 85:

Searl states that a principle of particular importance such as the S.E.G in relation to this aspect of
European Law is determination of the effects of an agreement on competition within the Common
Market. Article 85 prohibits agreements, decisions or concerted practices which may affect trade between
the Member States of the Common Market; which Russell Anderson, John Thomas, Bradley K.
Lockerman, Phil, Kirk and Fowerblower have done, and Flowerbower is still doing, and which have as their
object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Common Market.

Searl does know that the inter-Member State element has been interpreted quite widely and the
Commission appears to need little convincing of such effects once restrictions affecting trade within a
substantial part of the Common Market, including one Member State, are discovered. Searl agree that
indeed, the fact that the parties to an agreement are all from the same Member State does not mean that
there can be no effect on inter-state trade; over the last 20 years which has been at a standstill. Such effect
must be appreciable, although no one criterion has been laid down as the test for such appreciability,
which depends upon the commercial context and the economic circumstances.

Searl understand that the Commission’s Notice on Agreements of Minor Importance is an indication of
the Commission’s thinking in this respect. Searl say that this NOTICE states that agreements which do not
relate to more than 5% of the goods in the relevant product market in a substantial part of the EEC and
where the aggregate turnover of the participants is less than 50 million units of account (the unit of
account is broadly equivalent to the US Dollar), do not normally infringe Article 85. Searl understands that
the Commission is, however, at pains to point out that this definition of appreciability is no absolute
yardstick and agreements between undertakings exceeding these limits may well have a negligible effect
on trade between Member States and therefore not be caught by Article 85.

Searl wish to explain: that the Commission is empowered to grant both individual and block (i.e. class)
exemptions under Article 85 for agreements which help to improve the production or distribution of goods
or to promote technical or economic progress. Where an agreement does not fall within a block exemption
and is subject to prohibition under Article 85 it must be notified to the Commission for individual
exemption if the sanction of fines is to be avoided and the agreement is to be enforceable. Searl knows
that the Commission has already issued block exemptions in relation to Article 85 for exclusive distribution
and purchasing agreements, specialization agreements (where the parties rationalize their activities and
accept reciprocal obligations under which they each concentrate on a separate field), Patent licenses, and
research and development agreements with SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES or any of its sub-units. The
last two exemptions are further discussed later in this document. Searl states that the Commission is also
proposing to issue a block exemption in relation to know-how agreements, a draft of which was published
in 1987.

Searl claims that great opportunities come to all, but many do not know they have met them. Searl say
that the only preparation to take advantage of them is simple fidelity to watch what each day brings.

Searl say; that opportunities do not come with their values stamped upon them. Searl say that to face
every opportunity of life thoughtfully, and ask its meaning bravely and earnestly, Searl says is the only
way to meet supreme opportunities when they come, whether open-faced or disguised.

Searl accepts that he missed out on a number of opportunities through his young life-mainly not his fault.
Page 730©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-731.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

2.1.2.2 Article 86:

Searl say that there is no such power to grant exemption under the provisions of Article 86, which applies
to the abuse of a dominant position within the Common Market or a substantial part of it. Specific non-
exhaustive examples of such abuse are given in the Article itself. Searl state that should a dominant
position has been defined by the ECJ as one where the enterprise in question is able to prevent effective
competition being maintained on the relevant market and to behave independently of its competitors and
customers (the United Brands case).
••• • – – •– • / ••• – – – • – • / ••• – – • –•• / • • • //
Searl say in the case with the Fair Trading Act and the Competition Act under UK domestic Law, against
Martin Colborne, Ken Gibbs, Luis Jarrio, and Peter King who master minded the robbery of £380,000.00
plus my pension money was never brought to court because it was claim to be civil and not criminal. Searl
states that under these laws there must be some law by which these evil minds and be put away for a few
years on hard labor. But then I did not have the cost of £5,000.00 to put down to take them to court, but
that now is possible to do and while I return to the UK, I shall check out what is the best method to use, to
obtain justice in this case. Searl understand that the key issue in relation to Article 86 in determining the
presence of monopoly situations, as those named above and others which I have named attempted to do;
and anti-competitive practice, such as slander, fraud, deception of the public to solicit funding for their
product as being the S.E.G which it is not, as it is a Paul Brown concept. Please NOTE that Paul Brown did
all his communication with Gunnar Sandberg at the Sussex University and there appear to have an
agreement with Brain Collins of Australia who is a real conman if ever there was one, he is it! Searl states
as legal people and TV programs dealing with crime agree that this action was criminal not civil as the
police claim. Searl knows that this anti-competitive practice is the effect on the market and this requires a
determination of both the product and geographical markets involved for the S.E.Gs.

Searl is quite aware that in order for a company to have a dominant position it is not necessary of course
that it should hold any particular intellectual property rights. Searl do understand that many of the leading
cases relate purely to market power unassisted by such rights. Searl say that on the other hand, in certain
limited circumstances the abusive exercise of such rights could result infringement of Article 86, for
example, the refusal by a patentee to grant a non-exclusive license to a particular company either at all or
on reasonable terms, when that patentee has granted similar licenses to other parties.

2.1.2.3 Articles 30 to 36:

Searl draw your attention to the provisions in these Articles dealing with the free movement of goods
within the Common Market have had considerable effect on marketing policies in relation to patented and
trademarked goods within the Common Market Searl states that because he has not patented his
inventions he do not fit in to a unit which can block these criminals who have so far been named in this
documents others will follow who burnt thousands of pounds worth of data and photographs etc.

Searl says that the greatest discovery of any generation is that a human being can alter his/her life by
altering his/her altitude – really? So far to date Searl has not seen any of these criminals named who
have change their ways. Searl say that it is easy to say love the moment. Searl say that may be flowers
do grow out of dark moments.

Searl say therefore, each moment is vital for the S.E.G. to reach the marketplace. Searl say that it affects
the whole. Searl accepts that life is a succession of such movement and to live each, is to succeed.
Page 731©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-732.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl is aware that the EEC authorities have developed their own doctrine of what is known as exhaustion
of rights, similar to that applied under US antitrust law, based upon Articles 30 – 36 of the Treaty of Rome
which deal with the free movement of goods within the Common Market. Article 30 prohibits quantitative
restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect between Member States. Searl saw from
this application of this Article of the S.E.G. in the field of intellectual property rights was bound to arise
given that the principle of free movement of goods has an inherent conflict with personal monopoly rights.
Searl had understood that this conflict was intended to be dealt with by Article 36 which provides that the
provisions of Article 30 should not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports if the prohibitions or
restrictions are justified for the protection of industrial and commercial property.

Searl understands this exception to the general prohibition on restrictions affecting the free movement of
goods, which Searl has not been able to do as a number of imbeciles have blocked funding to do so. This
action has cost millions of lives, who otherwise could have been alive today; many more millions must die
before the world will wake up to the reality around them. Yet Searl is shocked that the law of free moment
of goods has, surprisingly been construed narrowly. Searl essentially, see the relevant case law has
interpreted it to mean that an inventor’s monopoly is confined to SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES or any of
its subsidiary’s the right to be first to manufacture the S.E.G. and place the product on the market. Searl
say once he/she or his/her licensee has done so he/she has exhausted all further rights over the product
under his/her patent and cannot later seek to block the export of the product to other parts of the
Common Market.

Searl however, understand that the exhaustion doctrine will not operate to prohibit a patentee from
relying on his/her patent to prevent imports where, because of the lack of patent protection in the country
in which the goods were first marked, that marketing took place by someone other than the patentee and
without its consent. Searl is aware that there are those patentee voluntarily chooses himself/herself to
market the product in a Member State where no patent protection is available, Searl say that he/she
cannot thereafter block its imports of the S.E.Gs to a Member State where he/she holds such protection.

2.2 Regulatory Controls:

Searl say that in addition to the Competition Law constraints there are numerous regulatory constraints
which affect any person involved in the technology in the UK. Searl state that these are established by Acts
which tend to impose broadly expressed obligations and to authorize detailed regulations to be made
which will themselves impose obligations.

Searl informs you that such Acts can be general in their application, but for example the planning
legislation, the health and safety legislation, and that concerned with consumer safety is top priory in
SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES and its subsidiary’s. Searl state that alternatively, they may apply to
specific areas such as controls on users of computers, controls on the nuclear industry, rules for the
approval and packaging of pharmaceuticals or agrochemicals and conditions on the running of
telecommunication systems. Searl is aware of these regulatory constraints tend to vary widely from
country to country and so experience in other countries may be of little assistance in understanding the
UK position except where regulations have been imposed in response to EEC directives, the most recent
example being to Searl knowledge the Consumer Protection Act. The legislation under which some of the
more important regulatory controls that particularly affect technology arise is outlined on the next page.

Searl say that the man with insight enough to admit his limitations comes nearest to perfection.
Page 732©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: S.E.G. CONCEPT: DOC-M1-5-733.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

2.2.1 General Controls:

2.2.1.1 Export of Technology:

Searl is aware that there are various restrictions on the export of technology. To Searl knowledge the
major one is under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. That makes Searl 7 years
old. Searl understand that this wartime Act is still in force and is the authority under which the Export of
Goods (control) Orders has been promulgated. Searl explain that these restrict the export to a number of,
mainly Eastern Block, countries, of high technology and strategic goods (now including computer
software) without an export license given by the Government.

Searl points out that under the Patents Act 1977 an inventor working in the UK must first file his/her
patent application in the UK Patent Office or obtain an export license. Searl understand that the Industry
Act 1975 confers on the Secretary of State the power to prohibit the passing to persons not resident in the
UK of control of important manufacturing undertakings, where this would be contrary to the interest of
the UK. Searl say finally, Section 482 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 requires the consent
of the Treasury for the transfer of the trade and business of a UK company to a non-resident.

2.2.1.2 Trades Descriptions:

Searl state that these are governed by the 1968 Act of that name. Searl states that although a regulatory
enactment, which makes it an offence for a business to apply a false trade description to goods, Searl state
that is strange because that is what Russell Anderson, Bradley K. Lockerman, Phil, Kirk, John Thomas,
Peter King, Martin Colborne, Ken Gibbs and Luis Jarallo, they were not the only ones over the years who
did the same. The only reason why the UK law failed to act was based upon a fact that none of them are
actually selling S.E.Gs. Even if they supply goods, this has come to be a valuable adjunct to intellectual
property rights in combatting counterfeiting, for example of packaged computer software.

2.2.1.3 Health and Safety at Work:

Searl Has already stated that SEARL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES and any or all of its subsidiaries will place
Health and Safety in the workplace as top priority. Searl say that this basic Act regulating this field is the
Health and Safety at work etc. Act 1974, one of the most pervasive pieces of regulation, being for example
that under which most of the controls on the biotechnology industry (discussed further later in this
document) Note in the engineering company whom Searl was employed setters had a habit of chopping
off a finger, strange Searl never ever chop off a finger, yet Searl has two problems (1) imbalance: (2)
Meniere’s disease which could had created a loss of a hand by falling onto the cutter Which has made
Searl more careful as to what he does. As Searl was saying in reference to biotechnology arise.

Searl knows that this Act imposes a general duty on an employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably
practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his/her employees and to conduct his/her
undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his/her
employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health and safety.

Searl say, we shall never have more time. We have, and have always had, all the time there is. No S.E.Gs
is served in waiting until next week or even until tomorrow. Searl say keep going: concentrate on making
the S.E.G. instead of chopping fingers off. Searl say choose always the way that seems the best, however
rough it may be; custom the S.E.G. will soon render it easy and agreeable.
Page 733©
SEARLTMGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: CLOSING VOLUME FIVE: DOC-M1-5-734.
Searl Knowledge 1946-1968: Legal: SEARL NO: 013787346: Legal: SEARLE NO: 013787451.

Searl say that further general duties are imposed in relation to the safety of premises, limiting
atmospheric pollution and as to the manufacture and supply of articles for use at work. Searl say that
failure to discharge any of these duties is a criminal offence, now you may be able to understand why Searl
recommends an automatic Robotic manufacturing system.

In closing volume FIVE, we like to wish all readers a long and happy life, from the men of the future
producing clean technology here in the U.S.A. which is meant to be.

Watch out for tomorrow’s energy and transportation systems.

America deserves clean water, clean air and good food.

We are determined to deliver the goods.

Your help would speed up our efforts.

God bless America.

Page 734©