Sujoi Su-30 MK2

http://urbc.ru/248423-uomz-otreksya-ot-sapsana.html escribió:UOMZ renounced "Sapsan"

May 12, 2010 (17:27)
Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant can be in the center of the scandal. The reason - the suspension optoelectronic container "Peregrine Falcon" and the device GOES-342. The enterprise is ready to renounce what previously Gorda, in court.

Photo provided by the site http://www.uomz.ru

Pride UOMZ - suspended optoelectronic container "Sapsan" inadvertently caused the conflict between the company and inventor

As stated on the official website of the company, the development of an innovative device "Peregrine" is designed for round-precision targeting of guided weapons in all flight modes. Block precision devices mounted on the aircraft and allows him to maneuver without loss goals.

According to the official statements of the plant, "Peregrine Falcon" was developed by the company in the last decade as part of the job and research work of the Ministry of Defense. Apparently, initial funds for the development of such a device have been received from the public treasury as finance defense order.

Over the past three years, "Peregrine Falcon" has repeatedly demonstrated at various Russian and international exhibitions and air shows, including - in the famous air shows. The official website of UOMZ device is officially in the "Products" section.

It seems to be a remarkable situation: the Urals, the company has developed a high-tech product, which can enter the global arms market. But suddenly it turns out that the whole story with a loud, "peregrines" may be fiction, and fraud. It is possible that in reality nothing of the device, ready for delivery to the army and abroad, there is simply no!

And declare about themselves representatives of the Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant. And they do it quite officially - in the framework of judicial proceedings, in their formal review, trained in the legal service of the company, and signed by the official dignitaries documents. From these statements it follows that no action device "Sapsan" in nature, but there is only a "mock-up", which can not be attributed to the workers and the current models.

Of course, such statements raise a lot of questions. Any device "Sapsan" real or not? What is offered to potential buyers? Why in the official brochures and on the website specified characteristics of the device, and the court UOMZ argues that developed only the external layout without viscera, in fact - a fake, and these characteristics are only "approximate" and "are desirable", as the design documentation for the device is not? Where taxpayers' money has been spent on the defense order and for what?

To understand this, you should refer to the original source. The fact that the sensational statements of the Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant were made in litigation, extremely rare in modern Russian jurisprudence - the protection of patent rights.

Case history

Back in 1998 has several employees of the plant made a technical invention: come up with a unique ball joint that allows compact place the product on air suspension. In fact, the original spherical bearing, which is the center of areas outside of the unit. Because of this variety of cables and wires, which device is connected to the plane can be fixed so as not to interfere with its rotation.

Once the bearing was invented, the plant was proposed to issue the patent. But in a crisis 1998 UOMZ was probably not before - the inventors were refused. And then one of them, Gregory S. Zverzhhovsky, with the consent of his co-filed a patent and started the copyright claims.

In the late '90s UOMZ had not the best years. Work on defense orders have been significantly reduced. A unique device for some time, apparently, remained unclaimed. Sam Gregory S. had to retire.

Imagine his surprise when, a few years later, at the beginning of a new decade, it is learned that the bearing is designed, perhaps, is used in the production of new devices UOMZ. And if the plant does so without permission - it is the legal owner of the patent once it!

Gregory Zverzhhovsky offers FSUE "Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant" to conclude a licensing agreement or assignment of the right to issue the patent, but is refused.
Angered by the inventor of the supplies to the company in court. The trial of the case takes several months, are appointed by the examination devices produced UOMZ. The company "Gorodissky and partners", attracted by the defendant draws the conclusion that the invention Gregory Zverzhhovskogo used in devices of the plant. And here it begins the real legal and technical wonders.

Judge Oktyabrsky District Court Green EV first decide that the illegal use of the invention has taken place, and pay the prescribed fee to the inventor due to him. Then the Regional Court of the Sverdlovsk region cancels the previous decision because of the wrong count of remuneration, but does not refute the argument about the use of the invention. The matter returned for a new trial, and former judge accepts Medvedev.

Begin unexplained incidents. For example, in the minutes of the court session on 28.11.2002, it was stated that the representative of the inventor lawyer Sergei took part in the hearing. He allegedly put forward motions, to give explanations. However, the lawyer Sergei says that at this time the court was not, as has informed the Regional Court of Sverdlovsk region corresponding statement stamped by the board.

At the same meeting, the judge withdrew from the case Medvedev previous expert and appointed a new examination, which carries a patent attorney Sergei Kostromin. At the same time the most interesting that the subject of study are drawings, not the bearings produced in the metal. Kostromin SN It gives a conclusion that the invention is not used in the production UOMZ. After that the previous expert opinion is ignored, the court decides in favor of the federal state unitary enterprise.

But Gregory Zverzhhovsky strongly disagree with this decision and intends to seek the truth. All the more so after a while the judge Medvedev dismiss and deny the status of a judge in connection with the improper performance of judicial duties and the fact of issuance of illegal decisions in the period of its activity. The materials of the investigation of the Qualification Commission of the Supreme Court were sent to the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation on the subject of investigation of a crime.

According to the prosecutor's office of the Oktyabrsky district Zverzhhovskogo checks Kostromina conclusion and concludes that it is obviously false. The criminal case will not start only after so many years - since the test has already managed to pass 3 years.

Zverzhhovsky apply to the court to review the case on newly discovered evidence, but he refused. Even today, the Russian judicial system refuses to re-consider it in relation to other newly discovered evidence. To bring the matter to an end, Zverzhhovsky Gregory was forced to file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (№50730 / 09 Zverzhkhovskiy v. Russia Zverzhkhovskiy v. Russia).

After that, the inventor learned that his bearing, possibly used in other devices of the plant: GOES-342 and in the newest production unit UOMZ - that the opto-electronic container "Sapsan". In 2009, Gregory Zverzhhovsky delivers a new lawsuit against the company "UOMZ" instrument "Sapsan" and GOES-342.

And once again began a legal mess.

The trial court dismissed the case, and the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court Green EV and refuses to conduct the examination. Regional Court overturned the decision and pointed to the need for expertise.

Judicial board of the Sverdlovsk regional court and, in particular, noted: "Its conclusions about the non-use of the invention, the plaintiff in the devices" Sapsan "," Sapsan-E "The Court reasoned explanations of the defendant that the set design and technical documentation in preparation for the production has not been developed, for demonstration at exhibitions made specific layout container "Sapsan", "Sapsan-E" without inner filling. Products "Sapsan", "Sapsan-E" the defendant has not issued and not issued. Meanwhile, in the materials of the case the defendant has made abstract instrument "Sapsan-E", containing information on his appointment, composition, specifications and photos. "

Fragment screenshot site http://www.uomz.ru

Lawyers believe that the Ural defense industry in many ways continues to work on standards half a century ago

Regarding the device GOES-342 clear all bearings, which are issued for a plant known, and they are installed on devices. You can take the bearings produced in the metal and an expertise that will put everything in its place. And if you believe the statements of experts, it is precisely these bearings can be used in the "Sapsan". However, the Court again examines only the drawings on old cases, and issue of examination of the bearing, made in metal, not even considered.

During re-examination of the claim examination is not appointed again.

The Regional Court again cancels part is the second decision in this lawsuit and sends it to a new trial, in particular for the examination of the device GOES-342, which is supplied to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. But this time, the Regional Court had, in fact, based on the same explanation the defendant agrees that the current device "Sapsan" there is only a blank layout, and in this part of the lawsuit fails.

It went to the third round. Apparently, at the "Peregrine" inventor Gregory Zverzhhovskomu have to understand again the European Court of Human Rights.

Position UOMZ

Particularly interesting in this regard UOMZ position, which is guided and court. In its official response to the lawsuit, the company claims that the device has never produced "Sapsan", there is no working examples of such a device and does not perform its tests. According to the representatives UOMZ, at the moment there is only the layout of the device that is not functioning model. No engineering development unit. And this despite the fact that in recent years on behalf of the company makes the statement that "Peregrine" is not just ready for mass production - perhaps for the Ministry of Defence and supplies to foreign markets - but also passed various tests.

The plant itself has demonstrated "Sapsan" various government officials of higher level, deputies, representatives of Rosoboronexport.

In August 2003, "Bulletin UOMZ" number 16 in the article "Max 2003 - will work to the maximum," it reported that the exhibition demonstrated the current model of the "Sapsan". By the way, curious, and what Edward Yalamov himself, whose name is now the factory, did not deny the existence of the development of "Sapsan" in 2002. In an interview with "The regional newspaper", he pointed out that the marketing of this product is one of the priority tasks of the plant.

Deputy Director General UOMZ Veniamin Elinson in 2004 publication in the journal "Military-Industrial Courier" (MIC number 30 (47) of 11-17 August 2004) in the article "Hunter" and "Zoo". Russian optics and electronics are in steady demand, "he said:" Tests have been conducted first two samples of containers "Sapsan-E", and we believe that next year it goes into production. "

The official report UOMZ as the issuer generally stated: "1999 - UOMZ collected the first sample container" Sapsan "to employ guided weapons, fighter aircraft," - and no word on patent litigation.

It turns out that UOMZ without pointing out that testing and development work of such a complex instrument is not produced, advertises pacifier - layout.

It is obvious that these statements directly contradict each other. The device has been tested and either ready to launch into a series or exist only in the form layout. Perhaps such actions and statements by representatives of UOMZ either does not convey a complete and clear information to the public, or their statements in the court uncertain.

Do they know and know whether the detected information and litigation security holders and other interested parties who read reports of the issuer - is unknown. Perhaps it ever pay attention to the FFMS of Russia.

Comments

"This conflict is a classic example of the reluctance of large domestic enterprises to responsibly work with the issue of intellectual property. The plant used to operate on templates 60s, just do not pay attention to those patents, with whom he works. But the situation has seriously changed. Patent and copyright in modern Russia - one of the leading branches of law, they are sufficiently developed and are aimed at protecting the inventor, author, copyright owner. Just ignore him right now it is impossible, even in the defense industry. The reluctance of civilized resolve issues of intellectual property and the right to issue it creates for companies a number of additional risks, including financial. Already, the company found itself in an unpleasant, even silly situations: it is forced to officially declare that the device, which it is going to trade, do not exist. Thus UOMZ he does have a significant reputational harm. How to trust the company, if it is first advertised devices, and then it turns out that this is only the layout? This fact is not a simple equipment and a military unit, the development of which takes time and effort to go it received an order, issued on the basis of simple layout will not start ", - says lawyer Gregory Zverzhhovskogo Sergey Baigulov.

"According to the device logic GOES-342 plant is simple: yes, we are doing the bearings, but they are new, as we get added to improve the mass production of the new" additional feature ". The court in a strange way, these bearings are produced by the plant existing in the metal, research did not stopped in the drawings, "- said the lawyer.

"The plant does not recognize and does not take into account the opinions of authoritative experts in the industry, which indicate that the proverbial" new feature "(in fact, has long been known in the history of the art solution that is generally difficult to patent) is a supplement to the invention, and all the features of the invention Gregory Stanislavovich and his co-plant uses. It's like - pardon the rough comparison - that, for example, to attach to your car fifth wheel and say that this is a new car and the property owner of the fifth wheel. In Art. 1358 of the Civil Code clearly states that if all the features of the invention are used, then the invention is used. Otherwise the plant for a long time to get a patent for a new invention, because since the beginning of the judicial process has been more than 5 years. But that's the problem for the plant that once they try to do this, they may trip over the same patent Gregory Stanislavovich, and their own "addition" is debatable. Even if the plant is trying to patent the invention abroad, these patents will still be contestable. Plant again may face opposition Stanislavovich Pat Gregory. And foreign customers would be difficult in the case of trials to explain why the plant, knowing this moment, supplying them with products like "patent problems." It then claims may fall down on them. Pat tried to challenge the factory, but Rospatent has clearly expressed its position, and the patent is valid and in force now, "- said the lawyer.

"The funny thing about this whole situation around the conflict and patent, which, it turns out, if you believe all the documents, the unit" Peregrine Falcon "was developed ten years - from 1999 to 2009. And during that time the factory craftsmen gathered only a blank layout on which there is no design documentation. This follows from the statements of the company, that the fate of the "Sapsan" letter to the commander decided to some military unit. On the basis of this letter, the Court concluded that the development stopped. Do they know about this letter and the suspension of defense procurement Russian President and the Government of the Russian Federation in charge of directly is deciding the fate of any defense order - is unknown. In my lawyer's request to the Federal Service for Defense Contracts after the court said that he did not know the reasons for stopping work on defense orders, "- said Sergey Baigulov.

Results

Sergey Baigulov believes UOMZ risks losing the ability to produce your innovative device "Sapsan", if you use a patent Zverzhhovskogo. After all, no matter how he was called, over it will always be a risk of legal action hanging. A general debate begins to go beyond Russian jurisdiction. What will happen to the export of products, if the inventor suddenly decides to sell his invention for foreign producers, generally difficult to imagine.

All this could have been avoided if the company originally pursued a competent policy in the field of intellectual property. Even in a situation where it is found that the patent has already missed, it would be much more profitable to buy the world rights to the invention from the copyright holder.

"In my opinion, the plant tries to deny legal rights to reward not only the patent holder, and the second author of the invention, which continues to give his work and power plant. I currently do not know whether the plant uses "administrative resources" in respect of the second author, worked in a factory, but I'm inclined to think that most likely this will not happen. The factory decided to go on principle; Perhaps this is due to the fact that it creates a bad precedent for the enterprise. However, by doing so he only increased their risks. Now his position is, in my opinion, has become increasingly odd and bizarre, "- said the lawyer.

jc65 escribió:Debe ser preocupante para los altos mandos casados con "el proceso" ver como se filtra la información, pues demuestra que no toda la fuerza armada es roja, rojita.

Y triste para nosotros que tengamos que ver dicha información via fuentes extranjeras (Saumeth claro , no marper)

ildefonso machuca escribió:hola CHICOS...

CALT... no respondo en este hilo sobre la crisis... seguiré en el hilo correspondiente

http://www.venemil.net/t1595p480-gobierno-de-nicolas-maduro#271578

JC65... ya lo del audio publicado por creo que esta misma persona Erichsaumeth la verdad es que me dejó un poco desconcertado, de hecho, la grabación a mi me parecia un poco subrealista y montaje, pues aun ahora no entiendo esa falta de "profesionalidad" en el lenguaje y la descripción de las maniobras... y CALT no te enfades... pero los que hablaban de lado y lado no parecian por un lado un oficial de la FAV al mando de una mision/avion... y del lado del ATC no veo que tampoco haya mucha profesionalidad... la verdad es que las conversaciones parecen mas bien de dos personas que estan jugando en linea con algun programa de aviones...

AHORA lo de esta foto ya es un "poco mas" aunque bien puede corresponder a la pantalla de un ATC situado no en venezuela y que haya estado haciendo el seguimiento del vuelo venezolano (dudemos al respecto) vemos que "los vecinos" nos tienen mucho mas controlados de lo que pensabamos...

creo que ES DESDE LUEGO... algo para preocuparse...

agur

jc65 escribió:Debe ser preocupante para los altos mandos casados con "el proceso" ver como se filtra la información, pues demuestra que no toda la fuerza armada es roja, rojita.

Y triste para nosotros que tengamos que ver dicha información via fuentes extranjeras (Saumeth claro , no marper)

a technical invention: come up with a unique ball joint that allows compact place the product on air suspension. In fact, the original spherical bearing, which is the center of areas outside of the unit. Because of this variety of cables and wires, which device is connected to the plane can be fixed so as not to interfere with its rotation.

jc65 escribió:Me hiciste recordar el cuento de un amigo ingeniero mecánico, becado de la G.M de Ayacucho, estudio afuera y solo conocía los términos anglo, y no conseguía trabajo cuando regresó porque le preguntaban por una fresadora y no sabía que era eso (a lo mejor era para hacer fresas ), pues para el era una milling machine.

Xamber escribió:Coño tenemos el avion mas arrecho de sudamerica pero tenemos huecos en el sistema de formacion de pilotos, y eran peores, afortundamente se lograron comprar hace unos años los k-8 y hace menos tiempo los da-40 ... pero seguimos teniendo huecos y grandes, la armada, pues no tiene unidades de superficie con capacidad misilistica moderna, a pesar de contar con buques modernos tu me diras ? Ahora si no sabes lo que significa planifiacion...

calt2002 escribió:No esta bien que hagamos referencia a nuestro propio pais de forma despectiva, para mi es una falta de respeto, ustedes pueden pensar lo que les venga en gana, yo no voy a apoyar a nadie que use ese ofensivo termino contra el lugar donde naci por muchos problemas que tenga, repito ahora entiendo porque no hacen frente al sinverguenza del Peruano que vien aqui solo a hablar mal de nosotros y nuestro pais..  Hay que querer la bandera, no tirarle piedras, esa vaina no se vale.

GuerrerodelAire escribió:

Xamber escribió:Coño tenemos el avion mas arrecho de sudamerica pero tenemos huecos en el sistema de formacion de pilotos, y eran peores, afortundamente se lograron comprar hace unos años los k-8 y hace menos tiempo los da-40 ... pero seguimos teniendo huecos y grandes, la armada, pues no tiene unidades de superficie con capacidad misilistica moderna, a pesar de contar con buques modernos tu me diras ? Ahora si no sabes lo que significa planifiacion...

Yo tengo mi opinion con respecto a la Marina. Veamos lo que paso en Las Malvinas, como ejemplo.
A la hora de un conflicto parecido, que se nos venga dos Porta Aviones y 20 fragatas, con cuatro submarinos atomicos, tendriamos que hacer como los argentinos, recoger la Marina, enviar a todos los buques a puerto..!
Para que sirve tener 10 fragatas misilisticas?
Prefiero ver 40 aviones SU-30 armados con misiles anti-buques. Por lo menos hundiriamos el 80% de la flota.

GuerrerodelAire escribió:

Xamber escribió:Coño tenemos el avion mas arrecho de sudamerica pero tenemos huecos en el sistema de formacion de pilotos, y eran peores, afortundamente se lograron comprar hace unos años los k-8 y hace menos tiempo los da-40 ... pero seguimos teniendo huecos y grandes, la armada, pues no tiene unidades de superficie con capacidad misilistica moderna, a pesar de contar con buques modernos tu me diras ? Ahora si no sabes lo que significa planifiacion...

Yo tengo mi opinion con respecto a la Marina. Veamos lo que paso en Las Malvinas, como ejemplo.
A la hora de un conflicto parecido, que se nos venga dos Porta Aviones y 20 fragatas, con cuatro submarinos atomicos, tendriamos que hacer como los argentinos, recoger la Marina, enviar a todos los buques a puerto..!
Para que sirve tener 10 fragatas misilisticas?
Prefiero ver 40 aviones SU-30 armados con misiles anti-buques. Por lo menos hundiriamos el 80% de la flota.

GuerrerodelAire escribió:Yo tengo mi opinion con respecto a la Marina. Veamos lo que paso en Las Malvinas, como ejemplo.
A la hora de un conflicto parecido, que se nos venga dos Porta Aviones y 20 fragatas, con cuatro submarinos atomicos, tendriamos que hacer como los argentinos, recoger la Marina, enviar a todos los buques a puerto..!
Para que sirve tener 10 fragatas misilisticas?
Prefiero ver 40 aviones SU-30 armados con misiles anti-buques. Por lo menos hundiriamos el 80% de la flota.

Xamber escribió:

GuerrerodelAire escribió:

Xamber escribió:Coño tenemos el avion mas arrecho de sudamerica pero tenemos huecos en el sistema de formacion de pilotos, y eran peores, afortundamente se lograron comprar hace unos años los k-8 y hace menos tiempo los da-40 ... pero seguimos teniendo huecos y grandes, la armada, pues no tiene unidades de superficie con capacidad misilistica moderna, a pesar de contar con buques modernos tu me diras ? Ahora si no sabes lo que significa planifiacion...

Yo tengo mi opinion con respecto a la Marina. Veamos lo que paso en Las Malvinas, como ejemplo.
A la hora de un conflicto parecido, que se nos venga dos Porta Aviones y 20 fragatas, con cuatro submarinos atomicos, tendriamos que hacer como los argentinos, recoger la Marina, enviar a todos los buques a puerto..!
Para que sirve tener 10 fragatas misilisticas?
Prefiero ver 40 aviones SU-30 armados con misiles anti-buques. Por lo menos hundiriamos el 80% de la flota.

Primero que todo estas alienado por la idea loca de que venezuela debe prepararse para pelear con una potencia extranjera llamada estados unidos. 

Segundo tiras al carajo las funciones de la marina como tal, si no es solo ir a la guerra contra otro pais. 

Tercero en caso de guerra tambien pasas por encima la utilidad de las unidades de superficie.

GuerrerodelAire escribió:

Xamber escribió:

GuerrerodelAire escribió:
Yo tengo mi opinion con respecto a la Marina. Veamos lo que paso en Las Malvinas, como ejemplo.
A la hora de un conflicto parecido, que se nos venga dos Porta Aviones y 20 fragatas, con cuatro submarinos atomicos, tendriamos que hacer como los argentinos, recoger la Marina, enviar a todos los buques a puerto..!
Para que sirve tener 10 fragatas misilisticas?
Prefiero ver 40 aviones SU-30 armados con misiles anti-buques. Por lo menos hundiriamos el 80% de la flota.

Primero que todo estas alienado por la idea loca de que venezuela debe prepararse para pelear con una potencia extranjera llamada estados unidos. 

Segundo tiras al carajo las funciones de la marina como tal, si no es solo ir a la guerra contra otro pais. 

Tercero en caso de guerra tambien pasas por encima la utilidad de las unidades de superficie.

Perdon, yo no he dicho Estados Unidos.
De hecho creo que ellos nunca se meterian con algun pais latino americano, recuerda la funcion de la OEA.
Con el problema de Guyana siempre he temido a la Commonwealth, la Reina y sus barquitos.