permaculture

[Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>]

I would like to build on David Holmgren's observations here with some 
further thoughts.
At 12:05 PM 7/12/01 +1000, you wrote:
> As indicated in message from Michael Dehan, I was a late opponent of a 
> previous, now withdrawn attempt to trademark Permaculture in Australia by 
> persons unconnected with the movement. I am not surprised by this current 
> claim by Bill and Lisa Mollison although it is obviously most unfortunate.

When Bill and Lisa first contacted me about giving them my Trademark 
application they also mentioned that someone else had applied in Australia 
and that they had convinced him to withdraw his application.  I was 
unwilling to turn over the trademark, should it be granted, to an 
individual, nor could I under law since the trademark application was made 
by the Permaculture Institute and non-profits cannot transfer assets to any 
entity except another non-profit.  I ultimately agree to transfer ownership 
of the trademark to the Permaculture Institute in Australia, if it were 
ever granted.

My thoughts when I applied for the trademark were: Alarm that the word 
permaculture was open for anyone to use and therefore my livelihood as a 
designer and teacher was imperiled;  Anger that Bill had told students 
around the world that the word was protected and for their exclusive use, 
once certified, and that in fact the protection was non-existent; 
Responsibility for the many students that I have taught and to which I had 
parroted Bill's statement that the word was exclusive to all graduates of 
the certification course.

I made application through the  Permaculture Institute and on advice of an 
attorney did not apply, initially, in the name of the graduates of the pc 
certification course because he said it could be amended later and 
would  confuse the issue if I applied in the name of graduates.

I received several threatening letters from Bill and Lisa and their 
attorney demanding that I turn over the trademark, (which I  have never 
received), immediately.  I wrote Bill that I was saddened by the 
constrictive nature of his new view of permaculture and that it flew in the 
face of his previous teachings.  I also told him that by trying to secure a 
trademark I was doing the job that he had claimed to have done in the early 
eighties.

Previous to this I had been accused of stealing his publishing company 
"Tagari Publications" from which I spent innumerable hours having to prove 
my innocence.  Once I did convince them that I was not a thief it was on to 
the next phase, defending myself of the charge of trying to steal 
permaculture. If we all own permaculture, as graduates, how can we steal it 
anyhow.

After having taught with Bill for over five years and considered myself his 
friend for close to twenty years it is very confusing and hurtful to find 
myself the enemy.  I have devoted the latter part of my life to promoting 
and supporting permaculture and Bill's work, and still think that his 
brilliance as a teacher and promulgator of permaculture is unmatched.


> Various contributors this these list serves have made useful practical and 
> philosphical points and Toby Hemmingway's  and Scott Pitman's stories are 
> particularly instructive.

There are many more stories that have not been made public that are equally 
disturbing.  Perhaps the lesson in all of this is that boot camp is over 
and it is time for the "troops" to become responsible leaders within the 
permaculture movement.  In many ways I see the conversations generated by 
this unfortunate turn of events as a sign of the maturing of permaculture.

> I am head down on completing the manuscript of my own book which could 
> infringe Bill's sense of copyright/trademark even more than Toby's. I have 
> no intention of engaging in any such exchanges and will publish my work 
> regardless.

I think that all of us have to continue our work as in the past and not be 
intimidated or deflected by this aberration of permaculture.

> I agree that the work goes on whether it is called permaculture or not and 
> as long ago as 1980 considered not associating myself with the promotion 
> of permaculture. Over time the good work emerging from the movement 
> convinced me the term permaculture was more useful than not and have 
> become more solid in that conviction.

I share David's view on this.  Permaculture has a very good name in many of 
the countries I visit and is growing in popularity in the United States.  I 
disagree that we should abandon the word and go our separate 
ways.  Permaculture is also a movement of concerned and committed people 
and that may be its most powerful and effective tool.  There is name 
recognition which didn't exist a few years back and it is invaluable in 
convening courses and in some cases working with city officials, and 
government agencies.  I have worked hard to promote permaculture as have 
many of my colleagues and for the most part the results have been an 
increase in awareness of the general population and a commitment to healing 
the planet.

> My main concern it that others who have devoted so much to promoting and 
> developing permaculture are being treated in this way.
>
> Although I think Intellectual Property Australia should reject this 
> application as invalid by their own assessment, a formal opposition would 
> greatly increase the likelihood of a favourable outcome and provide an 
> insurance that any future claims are rejected.
>
> Ideally the opposition should come from the widest representative body in 
> Australia such as Permaculture International Limited.

As I said in an earlier dispatch I have until August 27 to appeal the 
decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to withhold the 
trademark on permaculture.  Is that trademark useful to the graduates?; 
should we all join in this appeal, or should it be dropped and we take our 
chances that the unprotected word will not be usurped by bottom feeders?
It hasn't been the case so far, except with rare exceptions, so this all 
may be moot, but in the past people have challenged misuse of the word with 
the righteous, (now specious), claim that permaculture was protected by 
copyright to the graduates of the Permaculture Certification 
course.   There is, of course, no guarantee that the appeal would prevail 
since permaculture is now considered common domain, according to the 
reviewer of my application.

> I would like to acknowledge the work of permaculture colleage Michael 
> Dahan in mounting my previous objection which was done  at very short 
> notice. I am prepared to submit an  objection  to this current application 
> if necessary.
>
> David Holmgren

It is good to hear your thoughts and concerns on this David, thank you.

Scott Pittman