The chronological events that took place are as follows:

September 1981

I (Peter van Oossanen) was visited in Wageningen by Michael Boud, resident partner in London of the Australian firm of solicitors Parker & Parker, on 22nd September 1981. He had been instructed by Warren Jones to investigate the pro's and cons of applying for a patent on the winged keel. Michael wrote a report on his meeting with me, see the attached document.

the dutch connection with the invention is undeniable

I want to draw your attention to page 5, section 3 "The Rules", where Michael states that the invention (the keel) was a team effort and the role of the Dutch was "undeniable" and "crucial". Michael further explains in this report that:

it is desirable to keep a low profile on the Dutch connection

Michael continues on page 6 stating that:

to counter-balance any suggestion of undue Dutch influence, the application for any patent should be made by an Australian and an Australian should also be shown as the Inventor

Michael also visited the Dutch patent solicitor "Nederlandsch Octrooibureau" at my suggestion and his report on that visit can be found on pages 7 through 11.

October 1981 - May 1982

Warren Jones decided to go ahead with the patent application and I was asked by Michael by letter dated 12th October 1981 to provide the drawings of the keel and a technical description thereof so that Mr. Veldhuijsen of the "Nederlandsch Octrooibureau" could start draughting the patent document, which I did.

The patent application was drawn up by Mr. Veldhuijsen and I put in a lot of work to ensure that the subject document was technically sound. Ben Lexcen also provided some comments. The preliminary patent search was carried out revealing that there was no so-called pre-judicial material (other patents in particular) preventing the patent examiner in due course formally approving the patent. The patent was first drawn up in Dutch and subsequently translated into English. Instructions to this effect were given to me by Michael Boud by telex on 4th May 1982 (see attached document).

to arrange immediate official translation of the patent application and other relevant doucuments (if any) into english

July 1982

Michael Boud sent me a copy of a letter dated 9th July 1982 to Mr. Veldhuijsen stating that all the paper work had been signed and the documentation (the patent) filed, see the attached document.

Parker & Parker then contacted a patent attorney in the USA about a possible patent application in the USA (important to avoid copying of the keel by US syndicates involved in the AC). In a letter dated 12th July 1982 Michael Boud informed John Longley that a US patent application needs to be lodged within 12 months of the filing of the original Dutch patent on 5th February 1982, see the attached document. Subsequent patent documentation was then prepared for filing in the USA. The original US patent application was lodged on 30th September 2009.

September - December 1982

The US patent attorney was critical of the translated Dutch patent text and, in a letter dated 23rd September 1982, he requested Michael Boud permission to contact me to obtain a more detailed description of the keel, see the attached document.

ideally we would like to speak to dr. van oossenen to obtain a more detailed description of the keel

I was asked to travel to Washington for a meeting with the US patent attorneys, which meeting took place on 16th November 1982. The US patent attorney sent me a telex on 22nd November 1982, see the attached document , summarizing the actions that arose from that meeting.

One of the points that was discussed was the subject of who invented the keel. I had given an account of the whole process and I was surprised to hear that in the USA the name of the inventor also needs to be listed on the application (contrary to the situation in other countries). I was asked to resolve the situation by stating that Ben Lexcen was the leader of the team and that his name (only) should be on the patent application. I sent a telex to this effect to the US patent Attorney on 2nd December 1982. This was not considered as the solution to the problem however.

January 1983

After further correspondence between Michael Boud on behalf of the America's Cup Challenge 1983 Ltd (Warren Jones) and Douglas B. Henderson, the US patent attorney, the latter wrote a letter dated 13th January 1983 describing the circumstances in which the name of the leader of a team of specialists working on an invention is sufficient on a patent and when this is not the case, see the attached document.

on the other hand, where the leader of the team only gives general instructions, and the team members actually conceived the specific features which are claimed in the patent application, then the team leader is at best a co-inventor with the member or members of the team who made the specific features.

In the light of this specification of when it is sufficient to only include the name of the leader of the team on the patent application, I wrote a telex to Michael Boud, see the attached document, stating that:

Ben Lexcen was the leader of the research team as it operated at NSMB in 1981. He was responsible for, and gave instructions relative to the work that was carried out. The keel configuration was conceived, designed and researched mainly by J. Slooff and myself

I went on to say (see point 5) that:

In my opinion it would be appropriate, therefore, for Ben Lexcen, J. Slooff and myself to be the applicants for the US patent. In this way US law would not be violated while the 1983 challenge would not be endangered because of not fulfilling the requirement mentioned under item 2

February 1983

Warren Jones, who had not busied himself with the patent application up to this point, then wrote me a letter dated 10th February 1983, see the attached document, in which he expressed his concerns about the difficulties that would arise if any name other than that of Ben would be mentioned on the patent application. I was somewhat upset by this because he obviously didn't want to concede the roles that Joop Slooff and I had played in the development of the keel, not even in a private letter to me. I replied by letter dated 28th February 1983, see the attached document, stating that:

I would have wished that in discussions between you and I, the truth relative to the design of the underwater configuration of Australia II were not camouflaged by discussions about inventors and designers, as in the first paragraph of your letter. The fact is that AII's keel, aft-body, bustle and rudder configuration were conceived and originally drawn by myself. Joop Slooff gave valuable advice as to some of the angles and lengths of the keel-winglet configuration! Ben took care of the form of the above-water bow and stern, decided on the freeboard, and re-faired the final bustle configuration. I carried out many calculations relative to the influence of displacement, waterline length, length of forward and aft overhang, position of the longitudinal centre of buoyancy, prismatic coefficient, wetted area, and gave Ben advice on the best value for each of these important parameters - advice which he adhered to in almost every respect. The roles that Joop Slooff and I played during the design stage were significant. AII's underwater configuration is mainly the result of the work that NLR and NSMB put into it

March 1983

This item was the subject of further discussion between Warren and myself on the 19th March 1983 when I was in Melbourne for a week observing the trials between "Challenge 12" and AII. It was then that I was given to understand very clearly that there can never be any talk of who did what in respect of the design of the underwater hull configuration of AII! I could have walked away then and there but I elected to stay involved.

Warren Jones wrote a letter to Michael Boud on 24th March 1983 that he and I had met in Melbourne and that Ben Lexcen was the designer of the keel, see the attached document.

I was also firmly requested to sign a statement to the effect that Ben had designed the keel, which I did. I was not given a copy of that statement.

A further "continuation-in-part" of US Patent Application Serial No. 429,434 was prepared, adopting a more explicit description of the keel and drawings which we had prepared, see the attached document. I have no proof of whether or not this was actually filed or not.

September 1983

During the America's Cup races in Newport "The Australian Challenge for the 1983 America's Cup Ltd" was challenged by Mr. R.K. Salminen for having infringed his US patent (No. 4,193,366). This patent describes the use of horizontal fins on the hull of a sail boat to increase the boat's stability. To resolve this issue it was necessary to show the attorneys acting on behalf of Mr. Salminen Australia II's keel and to describe and discuss how the winglets on AII's keel function. Mr. Salminen agreed to delay such a meeting till after the America's Cup and the meeting was scheduled for 30th September 1983.

I had by then already left Newport and was attending a series of meetings at the US Navy research center in Washington. I was urgently called back to Newport to attend the meeting with Mr. Salminen and his representatives because It was necessary to explicitly explain in what way the winglets on Australia II's keel act differently to the fins described in Mr. Salminen's patent. I travelled back to Newport and explained the physics of the winglets and the keel to Mr. Salminen and his consultants. Ben was also there. The meeting took all day but in the end it was resolved that the winglets on AII develop hydrodynamic forces not providing extra stability.

October 1983

I received a letter dated from Warren Jones dated 18th October 1983 attaching instructions to the US patent attorneys to not pursue the patent application any further, see the attached document.

Postscript

The above should be reflected on when people come forward who state that I told them that Ben had designed the keel, in meetings or in interviews during the months after September 1983. There was no way in which I could reveal the truth. I have kept my promise made to Warren Jones on 19th March 1983 for 25 years and it is only now, after various people in the AII team itself have come out to say we had nothing to do with the design of Australia II, that I needed to speak out.

Back...