Flipback books or the Pothi form for Roman characters

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

This is a serious matter like the attempt to extend copyright upon traditional herbs like neem. As is wellknown the attempt was foiled.

Best
DB



________________________________
 From: Christophe Vielle <christophe.vielle at UCLOUVAIN.BE>
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk 
Sent: Friday, 20 July 2012 8:06 PM
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Flipback books or the Pothi form for Roman characters
 

Dear List,
In reading the article "Flipback books: new direction of dead end" 
http://www.thisbloglife.com/2012/07/flipback-books-new-direction-or-dead-end/
I was astonished to hear that the Dutch publishing company "Jongbloed" (http://www.jongbloed.com/) had attached a copyright to the Dwarsligger® book format (http://www.dwarsligger.com/ or http://www.dwarsligger.nl/) they pretend to have created in 2009 (see the interview of their international marketing manager at http://laurastanfill.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/the-flipback-part-2/
or, in Dutch, of the general manager at http://www.amboanthos.com/Uploads/pdf/090828%20boekblad%20artikel.pdf : "the greatest book-innovation after Gutenberg"), and which is known on the English speaking market as the Flipback format (Hodder
& Stoughton Publ.), or in French as "ultra- or hyper-poche" (La Martinière Publ.). 
I wonder what's the difference with the Pothi form used in Indian printing since the 19th century and still in use in publishing houses like the Venkateswara Press in Mumbai (see the smallest pocket Bhagavadgita available in
Flipback/Pothi form at http://www.khe-shri.com/khemraj.htm). Can this Western (at least Dutch...) commercial capture (this is not very Christian for a Bible publisher...) of an Indian design remains without reaction?
Best wishes,
Christophe Vielle


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20120721/eac27620/attachment.htm>