On January 17, 2000, G. Fox e-mailed Ben Ware that Marek claimed that WebWisdom has trademarks on LecCorder, Tango Interactive, Buena Vista, WebWidsom and that cannot be used by NPAC without explicit statements each time that WebWisdom.com owns the trademark. In that e-mail, G. Fox questioned what to do in future documents and work, what to do with existing material on web where there are some 100,000 pages and what to do with current research projects and to whether the names should be changed.

Ben Ware's response to G. Fox was to question whether Marek's request was enforceable, reviewing the history of the use of the trademark. Ben Ware indicated that he would be getting a legal response and also talk to Marek and until he does, suggested that G. Fox take no action on past or future work or documents.

After a conversation with Marek, Ben Ware e-mailed on January 18th G. Fox and stated that Marek's problem was the obliteration of the WW.com web products by the large number of references to your foils that turn up on any search of the web with those names. He felt that Marek was testing G. Fox to see if he would cooperate. Ben Ware indicated "I think you are free to cooperate with him or not, as you choose". G. Fox responded by his willingness to change names for future research.

In response to an e-mail from G. Fox January 21st reviewing a proposed amendment to the WebWisdom license agreement, Karin Carey e-mailed back that the proposed paragraph 1.1.3. refers to copyright, part of SU policy and does not need clarification, know how–this pertains to knowledge that permits the software to work (not to G.Fox ideas), trademarks and working to resolve this issue, trade secrets refers to any information not generally known by a competitor. She concluded by saying "the short answer is that it is neither our intent nor right to own all your 'ideas'". On January 25th, Marek wrote G.Fox concerning patent application "the patent has nothing to do with produce license. Incidentally I think I will agree to a non-exclusive license for WebWisdom's system, as per your request."

To further clarify, Strickland wrote a letter dated February 3rd to Professor Ware questioning the meaning of the license agreement and proposed amendment stating that Dr. Fox feels that it is critical that he is able to continue to do his research without any impediments and would like the license agreements to make this clear. Strickland also asked for an update on trademarks and prior scholarship issues which B. Ware was investigating and thought that those issues should be resolved in the amendment. Further, two issues concerning patents were raised, particularly issue number 2 which stated that the patent includes ideas clearly reduced to practice and Dr. Fox's desire to pursue research in areas that are not reduced to practice and afraid that their inclusion in the patent application precludes further research.

On February 9th, Ben Ware e-mailed Geoffrey Fox that he will be considered a professor on leave until June 30th and considered NPAC director until that date. He discussed the fact that funding for NPAC was at a deficit but could see some money coming in from FSU as a subcontract. He outlined the procedure concerning equipment purchased either through federal funding, non-federal sponsors including the State, and equipment purchased with SU funds.

On February 25th, I wrote a letter to B. Ware and K. Carey summarizing positions to date, indicating that it was presumed that Tango 1.4 and Tango 2 core software, Tango 1.4 and Tango 2 applications, Buena Vista Audio Video Conferencing and LecCorder lecture recorder be covered by the proposed amendment to the license from SU to WebWisdom. I went on to indicate that we requested that the license differentiate items reduced to practice from current active research. Reference was then made to ongoing research and software development including the SV2 scientific visualization package, two versions of the JavaScript shared browser, Perl programs www.foil and autoedit, etc. I stated Dr. Fox's request that this software be put in the public domain. Karin Carey responded to me by letter dated March 2nd stating that Syracuse University is happy to consider amendments to the term of the license agreement between the University and WebWisdom, she would be pleased to review any amendments that were acceptable to WebWisdom and Dr. Fox.

Of course during the month of March, concern was revisions to the patent application and by letter dated March 13th, Peter Dichiara wrote to Dr. Fox indicating that the investigation of co-
inventorship would continue after the supplemental correction procedures for the existing patent application were filed and attached to his letter was Dr. Fox's e-mail to him of March 11th.

As you can see, we have collected together all messages we have received and upon the understanding expressed in those messages, this is the understanding on which we have been proceeding. It was on this basis that Dr. Fox executed the Combined Declaration in mid-March concerning the Patent Application and has proceeded to effectuate an orderly transition from Syracuse to FSU.

At this point, it seems that what is needed is direct communication between Syracuse University (which owns all technology covered by the WebWisdom agreement) and Florida State so that this matter can be finalized to the satisfaction of both Universities.