Das aktuelle Thema.
Richard Bandler's Statement
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 01:06:17
Subject: Richard Bandlers Statement
I think you will find the following very interesting - Its a statement from Richard Bandler
The following is my opinion as to my role in the development of what had been called "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" or "NLP". It only represents my opinion. I am, if necessary, willing to demonstrate the efficacy of my statements both in the court of public discourse as well as in a court of law.
Much anxiety seems to have arisen surrounding litigation in which I am currently involved as well as my registration of the mark NLP(r) in the United Kingdom. Such anxieties have, to my knowledge, largely been instigated by persons and organisations that have a pecuniary interest in being able to market certain intellectual properties, which I am contending, are mine.
The purpose of the litigation I have recently commenced in the USA is not, as I believe it has been characterised by other, to control the entire world of intellectual properties that are not mine. The purpose of this litigation is to stop those who are currently exploiting my work-product, name and reputation without my consent, and to hold accountable those persons and entities who have entered into written contracts with me for the use of my work-product and name, and who have failed to live up to such contracts.
Although I have heard the opinion expressed that all NLP(r) should be in the public domain so that all can use such technologies without being required to enter into contractual obligations for the use thereof, I have never given my work-product into the public domain. I have also never barred people, who I believe are competent, form using my work-product as long as they have agreed to credit their sources appropriately and have agreed that I hold the rights to my work-product.
The litigation I have instigated is largely about whether or not I, as an individual, can exercise control over and commercially benefit form my work-product as well as the use of my name and name identity. In order to secure those rights, I have, and continue to, require that each trainee seeking certification, execute a license agreement. In order to ensure that I, and the public are able to distinguish my products from those of others I have, over the last sixteen years registered several trademarks in several different countries.
There doe not seem to be any genuine controversy as to whether or not I
developed, at least, large portions of what is commonly referred to as "NLP". I have however heard it argued that I can't hold rights to what I contend are my references to others' work.
What I have done and continue to do is far more than summarise and reference others' work. I build technologies that allow me to predict which effects various permutations of the elements that comprise such technologies will have regardless of whether or not those permutations are, have been or will be an actual behaviour that anyone engages in.
It is precisely this difference that distinguishes these technologies, or "models", that I have developed, from mere mimicry. It also requires that the single elements upon which I base my calculations be separate from the idiosyncrasies and habits of any individual.
My ability to subsequently calculate the effects various permutations of the elements will have, requires that I, in order to gain benefit from my own technologies, engage in behaviours that those, from whom I gleaned some of these elements, did not engage in. The proper application of these models actually precludes imitation and builds a foundation upon which people can be individual yet still be able to direct their communication.
Additionally, the works of those who I have supposedly merely "summarised and referenced" is publicly available and have been accessed by hundreds of thousands of people. There would be no controversy as to the rights to benefit from what I contend are my intellectual properties, if my technologies didn't allow people to do things beyond what those, from whom I learned certain things were able to teach.
It is at this point I have heard the argument that, even though the above may be true, I can't own what I am currently seeking adjudication for because I did not make my developments alone, but rather in partnership with others. I wish to point out that prior to ever having met the other "co-founder of NLP" I was already teaching experimental workshops based upon models that I had developed.
Additionally, in 1981, a permanent injunction was entered in Santa Cruz Superior Court enjoining John T. Grinder Jr, his agents, officers, employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert or participating with him from "... enganging in or performaing any and all of the following, unless and except specifically authorized or licenced by the plaintiff or his authorized agent:
1) Using the name of logo of the Society of Neuro-Linguistic Programming or any facsmile therof which may tend to mislead or deviece the public as being under the aegis of the Society of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
2) Conducting seminars purporting to offer certification in the field of Society of
3) Utilising Marketing devices developed by the plaintiff.
4) Soliciting or contacting clients, employees, agents or contractors for any purpose detrimental to the plaintiff...."
In a license attached to the injunction I grant to Mr. Grinder the following:
"BANDLER hereby agrees and hereby does authorise and license GRINDER to perform and conduct six (6) certification programs per year, for a period of ten (10) years under the aegis of the Society of Neuro-Linguistic Programming... GRINDER shall be entitled to all gross revenues of testing fees in conjuction with said programs, except that shall pay BANDLER 20% of said testing revenues to cover costs of administrative and
while "Grinder hereby agrees to transfer and does hereby transfer all his interest and that of UNLIMITED, LTD. in said partnership to NOT, LTD."
This judgment is one of the bases upon which I have brought this litigation, It is for this reason that any question as to whether or not I did develop what I am contending to be my intellectual properties, is not determinative of the question of who is legally allowed to control and commercially benefit from those intellectual properties.
I understand that many a grim picture has been painted as to possible
repercussions of my prevailing in this litigation as well as the possible consequences of my continuing to hold a registration for the mark of NLP(R). I have not engaged in any actions against unwitting and innocent "practitioners".
I have, however, filed suit against several individuals and entities who, I believe, know that they are exploiting my work-product and have either failed to live up to contracts they have with me. or have used my name or presence in connection with their products in order to gain an advantage in the marketplace.
I have in the past, to the extent that I was aware of them, always sought to settle such conflicts and contractual disputes without resorting to litigation.
I currently find myself forced to seek adjudication as all of my attempts at negotiation have met upon deaf ears and I do wish to continue to be able to generate my livelihood by teaching what I create.
I realise that any position I take will most likely be construed by some as an attempt to sway the public's opinion. As much as you must realise that I have an interest into the outcome of the pending litigation, and have been expressing here what are only my opinions as to these subjects, you must also realise that my opposition has an interest in its outcome as well.
It is for this very reason, I suggest that, if you must form an opinion on this matter, you do so solely on the basis of those things which you can, from your own personal experience, investigate, evaluate and determine to be true.