________________________________________________________________________________
Coal Industry: Face Emplaced Services Support Device
(Question No. 1206)

  Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and
Resources, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:
  (1) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an invention called a Face Emplaced Services Support
device, designed for use in the underground coal mining industry (Patent Application Number
PCT/AU92/00555 and PCT/AU95/00038).
  (2) If so, who (a) has owned the intellectual property and (b) is the current owner.
  (3) Are any Australian and international companies involved in underground mining using the Face
Emplaced Services Support device; if so, which companies.
  (4) What is the estimated value of the intellectual property to Australia.

  Mr Moore—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following
answer to the honourable member’s question:
  (1) Yes.
  (2) IP Australia’s records indicate that the ownership details are as follows:
        PCT/AU92/00555 Patentees: John Edwin Pink
        (Patent No.668524) Brian Lesley Joseph Buffier; Barbara Joan O’Brien
        PCT/AU95/00038 Applicants: John Edwin Pink; Barbara Joan O’Brien

 

      According to IP Australia’s records, both the patent and the application have lapsed.
  (3) There are a large number of Australian and international companies involved in underground
mining.  My Department does not have details of the particular types of technology all these companies
are using.
  (4) The Government is not in a position to determine the value of this intellectual property.  This is a
matter determined by the market, and is dependent on many factors. Success in the marketplace is the
ultimate test of the commercial worth of an invention.

With reference to Question (1) of course Mr Moore would be aware of the Face Emplaced Services Support device because BHP have only done what most other big corporations do - rip the average Aussie off!  You can understand from the "helpfullness" displayed in the examination of Mr Moore's other answers (following) that he has supported this theft to the best of his ability!

In Mr Moore's answer to Question (2) he ignores the possibility that there have been applications for patents made in other countries.  In fact the acronym "PCT" is short for "Patent Cooperation Treaty" and it would be hard for someone to mis-understand the situation to be that I used this PCT facility and applied for a patent in Australia only or Australia has a treaty with itself!  It would also be difficult for someone to confuse a PCT application with an Australian patent application or Australian patent and the difference can be noted in Mr. Moore's own answer where he quotes the Australian Patent Number as 668524 and the PCT Application as PCT/AU92/00555.

Additionally if the http:/clusty.com search engine is used for the words "patent cooperation treaty" the second entry hyperlink reveals the following information;

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (or PCT) provides a unified procedure for filing patent applications to protect inventions worldwide.  A single filing results in a single search (and optionally a preliminary examination), after which the examination (if provided by national law) and grant procedures are handled by the relevant national or regional authorities.

Its "funny" that Mr. Moore should not understand the obvious!

 

The fact that BHP pinched the rights to my invention is about the worst kept secret on the planet so Mr. Moore's Answer (3) makes me think that either he lives in a time warp or he thinks that I am an idiot and I will believe that he speaks the truth!

 

I was so disgusted with the response from the industry that way back in 1995 I undertook an estimation of the worth of the invention.  The exercise involved schoolboy arithmetic and a very limited knowledge of underground mining.  You can tell who went to a public school and gained an education and who went to a priivate school and didn't comprehend what was being taught!  Mr. Moore's Answer (4) is just wholly inadequate - as one would expect!

 

signed:  John Edwin Pink