STOP ABUSE the pawns

Stop Abuse
    My 2 Cents     MIDI SpeakerCollectionNew!     TRIM your browser     Directory

SIGN or VIEW Guest Book  |  TRIM your browser

Israel Fried - the Inventor
his Struggle against the IAI

On Friday, November 11, 1996, Yediot Achronot published an article by Ariela Ringel-Hofman.   It was the outstanding story of a 49 years old physicist, Israel Frid.

On December 22, 1992, U.S. Patent was granted to the physicist, Fried, over Space launcher and method for launching objects into space U.S. Patent 5172875.   The essence of his invention is a multi-stage space launcher for launching satellites and other payloads into space for orbiting around the Earth.   The ratio of the weight of any lower rocket stage to the weight of the rocket stage directly above it is between 0.5 and less than 2.5!

Two years later, Israeli Aircraft Industry, IAI's MLM Division, filed against Fried a lawsuit, alleging that he had plundered their proprietary by applying privately to acquire U.S. Patent over the "Shavit" - a small satellite launch vehicle that lifts satellites to low Earth orbits.   Alternatively, they pleaded that even if Fried had invented something then it was their proprietary, as Fried invented it in the course and as part of his duties at this firm.

Fried could not find a competent defence lawyer, as he has been unemployed following an alleged concocted conspiracy against him.   Moreover, "Malmav" a section of the Israeli secret service did not grant him any defence lawyer from the list that he had provided.   They used a banal pretext, "secrecy requirements."

The trial was conducted behind closed doors.   The verdict was sharply given (November 1996) by Hon. Judge Sarah Sirotah.   She "did not believe defendant's version" - she wrote - "defendant's shrewdness greed and passion motivated him."
"He had not acted in good faith, or perhaps he was looking for vengeance" over his former employer, the IAI.   The few good words she wrote were even more hurting,
"he is a clever man" - she wrote - "and he knew how to focus on the issues."

Following this verdict the reporter met with Fried.   He was quite excited and agitated, putting salt in his coffee instead of sugar, filling his glass over the edge, likely surfing elsewhere.   "I don't know why the judge ruled that I was greedy.   Every inventor wishes to be recognized, and every inventor would look for a reward" - said Fried to the reporter.

He used the cheapest means of transportation arriving at the meetings with the journalist.   Quite seldom he arrived with his smoky Renault.   It may show his detrimental financial situation after all those awful years for him.   He was unable to be hired for employment anywhere in Israel after the IAI had fired him on March 31, 1988, because of "reduction of man power."

    Open questions:
  1. If Fried was not a good employee then why had the IAI kept him working for elevn years, from 1977 to 1988?
  2. Why had Fried proposal to save 70-80% of a launcher size been initially ignored by the IAI?   (See U.S. Patent.)
  3. Why has the IAI delayed his promotion and hindered his life at the work place, in an alleged attempt to induce his resignation?
  4. It was apparently proven during this trial that Fried had attempted to consult with the IAI and the Israeli Ministry of Defence in 1988 with respect to his patent application.
  5. Has the IAI and the State of Israel acted in good faith?
    In 1989, a year after he had been denied application for an Israeli patent, he applied for a U.S. Patent that was granted December 1992.   Only then the IAI filed against him a lawsuit, although they had known he was about to file this application.
  6. Why does the head of "Malmav" (secret service) prohibit the IAI and the Ministry of Defense staff to comment over his allegation before and after it is published by Yediot Achronot?
  7. Why had the legal counsel of the IAI oferred Fried a payment of 3,000 Israeli Shekels (less than $1,000) for his invention?
  8. Why has the court ignored the fact that the IAI had lost its right to appeal over the U.S. patent?   Judge Sirotah ruled that even if there was a negligence on behalf ohf the IAI to appeal, Fried may not benefit from their irresponsibility.

    Notwithstanding the court granted Fried the fees that he had paid for U.S. Patent application, also ruled that the IAI should reimburse Fried for the hours he had spent for applying, if the IAI decides to use this U.S. patent.

A retired (from the IAI) senior officer responded anonymously that the court decision was likely proper with respect to the issue whether Fried had a legal right over the patent that he applied for.   However, the conduct of the IAI and the Ministry of Defence was quite unfair, to say the least.   They taught Fried a lesson that he had not deserved. Adv. Jacob Kalderon who defended Fried in this trial said to the reporter, "it's not as easy to find people who would testify against the establishment."

A year after this incident, in January 1998, Israel secretly launched the Ofek 4 spy satellite, but it failed to reach its proper orbit.   The unsuccessful launch followed the failed August launch of the fifth test of the "Arrow-2" missile and a fire last April at IAI's MLM Division plant in Be'er Ya'acov, which makes the "Arrow" and "Shavit" missiles.   Apparently IAI has not used the configuration proposed by Israel Fried.

Member of People before Lawyers Ring
Web - [Next Site] [Previous Site] [Random Site] [List] - Ring
The right of people comes before the profits of lawyers!

Movement for Quality Government
This Page had been Hosted By Geocities   Updated July 25, 1998 e-mail
[an error occurred while processing this directive]