您能不被美国杜邦认为或诬蔑成一个给杜邦打工的下贱的无赖打工者吗?
(敬致杜邦中国集团公司员工)
尊敬的女仕们、先生们，各位好!
美国杜邦化学公司按照杜邦制订的《1995年协议》在1995年到1998年独占了黄**一项高效、无毒的农业杀虫剂专利技术之后，近六、七年一直用极其卑鄙恶劣的手段拒绝按照杜邦在《1995年协议》第5条中的主动承诺，付给黄**专利费和许可证费（或“完全赔偿”金）。美国杜邦总裁贺利得（Holliday）这个极端无耻、无赖的跨国级的国际流氓反而多次诬蔑中国（P.R.China）是无赖国家(对于这种诬蔑，您作为我们民族和国家的精英与栋梁，您不感到对您是最大侮辱与蔑视吗？)，黄**是无赖份子。当美国杜邦总裁近4年多来坚持诬蔑中国（P.R.China）是无赖国家、黄**是无赖份子时，您在美国杜邦心目中的地位是什么？能不被认为或诬蔑成一个给杜邦打工的下贱的无赖打工者吗？您了解美国杜邦公司吗？十足的流氓公司！您了解美国杜邦总裁吗？十足的流氓总裁!因为美国杜邦及其流氓总裁卑鄙、恶劣、无耻到了令人难以相信的程度，您对此持怀疑态度是完全正常的；但是您可用下述方法证明美国杜邦及其总裁的确是如此卑鄙、恶劣、无耻：
1 向下述邮箱发送Email查问
杜邦中国集团公司（(上海市淮海中路333号瑞安广场15楼)）
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ,
杜邦总部Contact Us:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/contactEmail.jsp
2 打杜邦中国集团公司法律部负责人的电话021-6386 6366-2120，
问他们是否敢公开否论认美国杜邦和美国杜邦总裁的这些极端无耻、无赖行为。他们不敢公开否认美国杜邦和美国杜邦总裁的这些极端无耻、无赖行为，就是公开承认美国杜邦和美国杜邦总裁的这些极端无耻、无赖行为,是跨国级的国际流氓!
下流无耻杜邦,国际流氓! 卑鄙无赖杜邦,强横赖帐!敬请各位，严加惕防!!!
流氓公司,下流无耻的美国杜邦!流氓总裁，下流无耻的贺利得!
这不是造谣诽谤，而是这六、七年来发生的千真万确的事实;更不是谩骂侮辱，这是对美国杜邦及其总裁贺利得（Holliday）言论、行动的精确定性和命名；也不是危言耸听，因为谁也不知道下一个倒霉者是谁。
此致
最崇高的敬礼！
SXF 2007.02.23.
（附）敬致美国总统布什先生的公开信
(Annex:An open letter to American President Mr. Bush)
尊敬的布什总统先生，您好！
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@whitehouse.gov也在 2004年9月代替总统先生发来下述三封内容相同的回信：“Thank you for
e-mailing President Bush. Your ideas and comments are very important to
him.”我的“ideas and [EMAIL PROTECTED] very important to him.”
“very important”对总统先生是何含意，我不敢妄自猜测；但就愚见而言，有下列“important” 。
1.尊敬的总统先生和总统先生领导的美国政府以及伟大的美国人民对靠盗窃、靠耍无赖等无耻方法掠夺别人的知识产权深恶痛绝，而杜邦却正在干此无耻、无赖的勾当。
2.贵国在各种领域拥有的知识产权数量都远远超过世界任何一个国家，深受侵权之害。因此，历来的贵国政府都不遗余力敦促世界其他国家加强保护贵国知识产权的执法力度。但就在贵国政府不遗余力敦促中国政府加强保护贵国知识产权的执法力度并得到您“感到鼓舞”的赞尝时，杜邦却用各种极其无耻的无赖手段侵犯黄先生
的知识产权，这对世界其他国家的政府和公众将是一个极坏的信号，对现行和潜在的知识产权窃贼将是一个极“好”的榜样，对贵国政府保护贵国知识产权的工作是一个极大的破坏，对贵国在世界上崇高地位是一个极大的耻辱。
为了伟大美国人民的光荣，为了众多美国公司的声誉，为了保卫贵国在世界上的崇高地位，为了保护贵国和世
界其他国家知识产权，敬请您和您的政府阻止杜邦的这种极其无耻的侵犯甚至强占行为，强制杜邦履行在协议
中主动承诺的义务。
我们坚信，美国不是一个包庇和纵容无赖的国家，美国政府不是一个包庇和纵容无赖的政府；杜邦这个无赖在
尊敬的总统先生和美国政府的教育下，是会懂得羞耻的，是能够改掉无赖行为成为一个正常的公司的。
由于事实证据充足，杜邦和黄先生双方的权利和义务明确，法律关系简单，所以只要贵国政府也加强知识产权
保护的执法力度，杜邦公司对黄先生的知识产权的侵犯是完全可以阻止的，杜邦公司肯定会向黄先生支付专利费、许可证费或等额的“完全赔偿”金的。
此致
最崇高的敬礼！
全责代理人： SXF 2005.09.17.23：59
摘要
1. 从1993年4月起到1994年，黄先生应杜邦要求，向杜邦提供了近10次文字技术资料，供杜邦专家组进行
可行性分析。
2. 1995年2月22日杜邦技术转让与许可证经理Sklar博士 （E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY Robert
F. Sklar Ph. D. Manager,Technology Transfer
Licensing)来中国上海，要与黄先生“签订许多协议”。黄先生坚持要在让杜邦看了样品后再签协议，而当时样品尚在提纯过程中，故未签协议。
3 1995年3月28日黄先生向杜邦寄出了第壹批样品。
4. 1995年9月7日黄先生收到杜邦寄来的《BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
AGREEMENT（1995年协议)》，要求黄先生签署此协议并再提供样品。黄先生按杜邦要求署了此协议并向杜邦寄出了第贰批样品。杜邦在《1995年协议》第5条中向黄先生主动承诺，黄先生将有提取专利费、许可证费的权利。杜邦在《1995年协议》第8条中规定，黄先生不得与任何大学或企业作任何合作（黄先生为此而谢绝了几家公司要求合作的
请求）。
5. 1998年9月10日杜邦发信向黄先生要到了第叁批样品。
6 1999年杜邦对第叁批样品进行一个多月的Insecticide
Screening（际实上，同时进行了杂草杀灭试验和霉菌杀灭试验。杜邦要求对这些试验全部保密）。
7. 2000年6月8日杜邦发信称对黄先生的样品不感兴趣,拒绝向黄先生支付专利费和特许证费。 8.2005.06.02.
杜邦签署信件，对黄先生进行威胁-恫吓，阻止黄先生发此E-mail。
9.杜邦在2005年10月中旬到中国公安机关对黄先生进行诬告陷害，企图以此卑劣的行为强迫黄先生仃发此要求杜邦根据法律来履行杜邦在协议中承担的义务的E-mail。但是因为中国公安机关严格按照“以事实为依据，以法律为准绳”办案，杜邦的这一阴谋未能得逞。
An open letter to American President Mr. Bush
Hello, my respectable President Mr. Bush:
The fact that DuPont declined to fulfill the agreement has been presented to
you for several times via [EMAIL PROTECTED]; As a result, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sent back three letters containing the following same contents on the behalf of
Mr. President in Sep 2004:”Thank you for e-mailing President Bush. Your ideas
and comments are very important to him.” My ”ideas and comments” are as
follows: it is verified by Mr. Huang with adequate facts and irrefutable legal
evidences that DuPont must disburse Mr. Huang patent fee, license fee or
equivalent “Utter Compensation” fee and DuPont’s persistent refusal to disburse
these fees infringes upon the intellectual property rights of Mr. Huang. [EMAIL
PROTECTED] mentioned ”are very important to him.” I don’t dare to unduly
surmise the meaning of “very important” to Mr. President; However, according to
my humble opinions, there exits the following “important”: on the one hand,
respectable Mr. President, the American Government led by Mr. President as well
as the great American people bitterly hate the predation of the intellectual
property rights of
others through brazen means such as stealing, shameless acts; in contrast,
DuPont is committing such brazen and shameless deals; on the other hand, the
number of your country’s intellectual property rights in a variety of fields is
far in excess of that of any nations in the world and suffers greatly from
rights infringement. Therefore, your government always reserves no efforts in
urging other nations to intensify the law enforcement strength to protect your
country’s intellectual property rights. However, while your government reserves
no efforts in urging the Chinese government to intensify the law enforcement
strength to protect your country’s intellectual property rights and receives
your “more encouraged” praise, DuPont is infringing the intellectual property
rights of Mr. Huang through various extremely brazen and shameless means, which
constitutes an extremely bad signal to the governments and public of other
nations in the world, a extremely “good” model for current and potential
thieves of intellectual property rights, an enormous damage to your government
protection of your country’s intellectual property rights, and a tremendous
humiliation to your country’s lofty status in the world. For the sake of the
glory of the great American people and the reputation of a legion of American
corporations, in order to safeguard your country’s lofty status in the world
and protect the intellectual property rights of your country and other nations
in the world, we humbly request you and your government to prevent DuPont’s
such extremely brazen infringement and even seizure behaviors, and force DuPont
to carry out it’s voluntarily promised obligations in the agreement. We firmly
believe that the United State is not a country that shields and connives at
rascals and the American government is not a government that shields and
connives at rascals; Under the instruction of our respectable Mr. President and
the Americangovernment, the rascal of DuPont shall be aware of shame and be
able to turn into a normal corporation by giving up shameless behaviors. Due to
the adequate evidences, the clear-cut rights and obligations of both parties of
DuPont and Mr. Huang, and simple legal relations, the infringement of the
intellectual property rights of Mr. Huang by DuPont can be absolutely prevented
and DuPont will surely disburse Mr. Huang patent fee, license fee or equivalent
“Utter Compensation” fee as long as your government intensifies the law
enforcement strength to protect intellectual property rights as well.
With best regards!
Annex:
Heartfelt thanks for your reading my E-mail and your mail of attention
to this matter. I would like to make some replenishment concerning the matter,
for you to judge and decide.
I Abstract
1. At the request of Du Pont, Mr. Huang has for 10 times submitted written
technical materials to Du Pont from April 1993 to 1994, for expert group of Du
Pont to conduct feasibility analysis.
2. On February 22, 1995, Dr Robert F Sklar, Technology Transfer Licensing
Manager of DuPont arrived in Shanghai in China, to “sign many agreements” with
Mr. Huang. Mr. Huang insisted DuPont examines samples first before signs any
agreement. However, as samples were still in the process of purification at the
time, no agreements were signed then.
3. On March 28, 1995, Mr. Huang sent the first batch of samples to Du Pont
by post.
4. On September 7, 1995, Mr. Huang received “Biological Evaluation
Agreement” (1995 Agreement) sent by Du Pont, requiring Mr. Huang to sign this
agreement and again provide samples. Mr. Huang signed the agreement and sent
second batch of samples as requested by DuPont.
DuPont admit in Article 5 of the “1995 Agreement” that Mr. Huang will be
entitled to claim patent and licensing fees. DuPont states in Article 8 of the
“1995 Agreement” that Mr. Huang may not cooperate with any universities or
enterprises in any form before and after signing of this agreement (for this
reason, Mr. Huang has refused cooperation request of several companies).
5. On September 10, 1998, DuPont sent a letter to Mr. Huang, asking for
third batch of samples.
6. In 1999, DuPont carried out a month-long insecticide screening on the
third batch of samples (in fact, it has carried out weeds killing test and
mould killing test in the meantime), and required to keep all these tests a
secret.
7. On June 8, 2000, DuPont sent a letter saying it was not interested in
samples provided by Mr. Huang, and refused to pay Mr. Huang patent and
licensing fees.
8.The mail signed by DuPont on June 2th, 2005, threaten Mr.Huang ,and prevent
Mr.Huang send the
E-mail.
Seek response from E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/contactEmail.jsp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
