Document D2 for the Formal Enquiry Panel
Proof that publication of a journal paper relating to the PedSALi project breached an agreement signed by Cheshire Innovation and Manchester UniversityThis publication was particularly disgraceful to the reputation of British science because it included false evidence that a British invention, SALi Technology had poor impact energy absorbing characteristics Lives may have been lost as a consequence.
The following document was sent as an attachment to the publisher of the Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 20 January 2008
Document D2 begins
Evidence that Dr. Oyadiji breached the confidentiality clauses of the PedSALi collaboration agreement
The JEMT web page gives a receiving date of 10 July 2005 for the following paper:
Characterization of the Core Properties of a Shock Absorbing Composite, G. Georgiades, S. O. Oyadiji, et al.JEMT, Volume 129, page 497
According to the confidentiality terms of the collaboration agreement, signed by authorised representatives of The Dow Chemical Company Limited (DCCL), The Victoria University of Manchester and Cheshire Innovation, 16th March 2001 the University should have given the industrial partners 30 days notice of their intention to publish. Both of the dates on the documents below fall well short of 30 days.
The relevant agreement clauses:
5.10 The obligations of confidentiality and non-use set out in this Agreement shall subsist for the duration of this Agreement and for a further period of five (5) years.
5.11 In the event that the University wishes to make any publication regarding the results of the Project the University shall submit such publication to DCCL and Cheshire Innovation not less than thirty (30) days prior to the intended date of such publication and in order that to (sic) DCCL and/or Cheshire Innovation may request that such publication be amended in order to protect commercially sensitive information proprietary to DCCL and Cheshire Innovation. The University should receive notification of any objection to the proposed publication prior to the intended date of such publication. In the event that the University does not receive such notification it shall be entitled to proceed with such publication without prior consent.
Note
My understanding of the date of publication is that it means the date on which the paper was made public, that is revealed to any third party not covered by the PedSALi collaboration agreement. This includes the reception office for the Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology.
However, even if this interpretation is disputed, the University has still broken the agreement because it has not responded to my own letter objecting to publication of the paper on the grounds that it would damage the good name of my intellectual property. This letter was sent two years before the paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology.
All of the authors were sent an email copy of the letter. Dr Oyadiji was also sent a hard copy by UK Royal Mail, Signed For Delivery.
Below
The cover note sent with the papers shows a date of 28th June 2005. That is 12 days before the web site for the journal shows the paper being received.
The envelope below, which is written in Dr Oyadiji's handwriting, shows that the papers posted to Cheshire Innovation were registered as being sent on 8th July 2005.
That is TWO days before the web site for the journal shows the paper being received.
Document D2 ends
Below
A copy of the first page of the JEMT paper with the details of the receiving date enlarged.
***************************************
Additional evidence of PedSALi project papers published in breach of agreement
The cover note from Dr Oyadiji above refers to "papers" in the plural. In fact four papers were included in the package.
As the web page reader can see if they read Courtney's response:
(i) Courtney objected to the publication of all four papers on the grounds that they were scientifically flawed and damaged the good name of SALi Technology.
(ii) Courtney also complained that he had not been informed where and when these papers would be published.
Dr Oyadiji never replied. But Courtney suspected the truth because in March 2005 he had received a confidential tipoff from someone inside Manchester University who wanted to see justice done.
Courtney was informed that the other three papers had been presented at conferences at very pleasant locations in America.
These three papers were scientifically unsound but they served a useful purpose because they helped to fool the EPSRC into paying Manchester University for its PedSALi work.
This is surprising because on 22 March 2005, Courtney had written to Dr John Farrow at the EPSRC warning of the adverse commercial consequences for Cheshire Innovation.
Here is a list of the three conference papers that were used to fool the EPSRC. [Using the same reference numbers as on the PedSALi web page.]
11 S O. Oyadiji et. al., University of Manchester, Core property characterization for a shock absorbing composite, SAVIAC 75th Symposium, 17-22 October 2004. False research published in breach of agreement and under protest from Courtney.
12 S O. Oyadiji et. al., University of Manchester, Characteristics of deformable cylindrical beams filled with a shock absorbing composite, SAVIAC 75th Symposium, 17-22 October 2004. False research published in breach of agreement and under protest from Courtney.
13 G. Georgiades et. al., Impact response of flexible cylindrical tubes filled with a shock absorbing composite, University of Manchester, SPIE Conference 7-10 March 2005. False research published in breach of agreement and under protest from Courtney.
Fait accompli !
All three conference papers were presented at conferences in America1 several months before they were sent to Courtney for approval.
1 (i) Virginia Beach on the East Coast
http://www.vbgov.com/visitors/Pages/default.aspx
and
(ii) San Diego, California on the West Coast
http://www.sandiego.org/plan-your-trip/visitor-information.aspx