Talk:Alfred A. Tomatis/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Alfred A. Tomatis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Some additional remarks on trademarks

No doubt, there exists indeed a trademark 'Tomatis' and 'Tomatis + logo', and these are owned by the Luxembourg company. Not less and not more. There does not exist a trademark 'Tomatis Method' or 'Tomatis practioner' or 'Tomatis(R) practitioner', however. The Tomatis Method can be performed by any practitioner who has the required training. To do so, a practitioner of the Tomatis Method has not to have a licence from the Luxembourg company. The only difference is, that he is not allowed to do this under a name and logo which are indeed owned by the Luxembourg company. However, the Luxemburg company has no monopoly on the Tomatis Method. Most of the practioners of the Tomatis Method worldwide practice this without any "license" from the Luxemburg company, because they simply do not use or want to use their logo. The company nevertheless tries to monopolize the "method" but it should not misuse this Wikipedia article for this purpose. This article is an article about the life of a person, which means: It is not a battlefield for trademark controversies and it is not a platform for commercial interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsen2012 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The company again

This paragraph about the company appears to be extremly controversial. Again and again the article about A. Tomatis is used as a playground for commercial interests. Tomatis Developpement is not owned by Alfred A. Tomatis. If Tomatis Developpement wishes to make itself known, it should try to create an own article as a commercial platform to represent its interests. I am erasing the entire paragraph since it is of no value to this article. Saturnarius (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Many things have been said about the company Tomatis Developpement in this talk page. After some researches on institutionnel websites (WIPO and USPTO, I have found that "Tomatis" is indeed a trademark : here is the one for US : http://www.wipo.int/romarin//pdf/42/19/4219954.pdf You can also have a look on the US trademark data base and you will find Tomatis as well as Tomatis+logo : http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp

I have the filling that as soon as the page is dedicated to the Tomatis Method (including the device) and not only to Alfred Tomatis, Tomatis Developpement is allowed to specified that "Tomatis" is a trademark. This fact appears to be true et neutral. So I correct the content of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer4561 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC) This biographical article is about the person Alfred A. Tomatis. This has nothing to do with a company and its trademarks. The company has not any exclusive right on the 'Tomatis Method' but tries to wake the impression that it had such rights. As Saturnarius already stated above: If the company wants to make itself known, it should write an own article on Wikipedia instead of using a biographical article as a platform for its linking and promoting misleading information. The history of the assets which have been transferred to the Luxembourg company is not without controversy. So please keep this story away from this place and make an own article on Tomatis Developpement S. A.Ibsen2012 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Who knows the "Honor Society for Promoting Arts and Letters"

Can anybody tell me, what this is and where it is located? The only sites (googled) which give some evidence of such a Society are sites from "Tomatisians" about Tomatis. But it makes absolutely no sense to me and is not meaningful at all to present the names of organizations which cannot be identified in reality. I find it important to keep all information verifiable and trustworthy.Ibsen2012 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

External Links again

These links should be deleted for following reasons: Link one (the so called "official website") 1. It's primarily a commercial website aiming at 2. Winning new commercial partners and 3. Selling a device ("Solisten") which has not been invented by Dr. Tomatis and which 4. Has little to do with the ideas, theories and person of Dr. Tomatis and the Tomatis Method 5. The "official" organisation has no right on the term or the name 'Tomatis Method' 6. The main business idea of the organization is to sell the Tomatis brand name and logo 7. However, everybody with a special training can practice the Tomatis Method 8. The "official" organization does not have special rights to perform such trainings 9. The vast majority of practitioners worldwide is NOT organized in the "official" organization and does not practice the Tomatis Method under their logo 10.The "official link" has practically nothing to do with the subject of the article 11.The article is about a person, the link is about a kind of Franchise Method 12.The pretense of the "official link" is, that they have any rights to the Tomatis Method 13.They do not have such rights nor do they have or own any patents from Tomatis'inventions

Link two (the "Association") 1. Does in my opinion not comply with Wikipedia guidelines and quality standards because 2. Parts of this website are accessible only with an account 3. Parts of this website don't work at all, for example the search forms 4. Parts of this website have not been updated for a very long time, for example: 5. It shows an application form for an event which took place in the year 2011 (if it did at all) 6. Subject of the article is a biographical one, subject of the link is an association of practitioners 7. The site does not give any further biographical information about Dr. Tomatis 8. The linked site pretends to represent all Tomatis practitioners which is not true 9. The site pretends that there are special rights to the 'Tomatis Method', which is not true (see above) 10. The vast majority of the practitioners of the Tomatis Method is not a Member of this association

With these two links a biographical article in Wikipedia is in my opinion misused as a platform for creating an image that is not covered by reality, using not very trustworthy claims and information. (note, that in earlier versions it was claimed for example that they had patents or rights on the name 'Tomatis Method'; both has been deleted in the meantime).Ibsen2012 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ohlala, ohlala, bon soir: Liens externes

Very interesting! Only a few hours after Saturnarius has deleted the - also in my opinion - completely illegitime links of a so called "official website", these links are online again. Without any word or comment on the criticism in the Talks about this subject. They obviously seem not to understand any word that is written in the Talks and comments of Ibsen and Saturnarius. Ohlala! Otherwise they had argued something substantially on this. But they just seem to be Watchdogs of the "Tomatis officials". All they have to do is to watch their links, whatever criticism is written. Or will there come any comment later? I do nothing have again watchdogs, but they should have a minimal language qualification and some knowledge about the subjects to be able to do substantial wikipediaing instead of just reconstructing links that have been deleted for reason. What, for example, is about the link to the so called "IARCTC" organization of Tomatis practitioners? This organization claims to have organized the worldwide practitioners of the Tomatis Method (see for example the French Wikipedia, where they explicitely claim to have grouped the Tomatis Centers or practitioners worldwide in this organization), which is definitively not true. This link to the website of IARCTC undermines heavily the approach of Wikipedia to link to websites with a minimum quality standard and reputation only. Quality? Take a try, and you will be able to judge yourself if this is a "quality" website: for example, search for practitioners on their search site, try all the search terms and search methods they offer (there are some awful search terms among them, by the way). What will you find? You will find nothing! 600 practitioners organized in this club - where are they ??? Search also on this site for their so called "scientific journal" Ricochet! You will find out by yourself: The last issue - full of anecdotes instead of substantal reports - is from the year 2008. A very active organization this must be! Their invitation for a worldwide IARCTC meeting in Panama in the Year 2011 (!!!!) still ( on July 9, 2012) is collecting for participants on their site, try it. And so on, and so on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsen2012 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Commercial Links

As stated by Ibsen2012, Tomatis Developpement SA, here linked as "official website" does not own the rights to the "Tomatis Method". The trademark "Tomatis Method" is not protected and the inventions by A.A.Tomatis are no longer protected by any patent. The company is simply the proprietor of the word mark and the word and design mark "Tomatis". The statement that "other companies using the logos must be under license to Tomatis Developpement SA" is correct but misleading. It creates the impression that only those practitioners, who are licensed by this company are permitted to practise the Tomatis Method. This is not the case. The vast majority of therapists, who are practicing the method developed by A.A. Tomatis are neither under license to Tomatis Developpement SA nor under contract to any other company but unaffiliated practitioners. The interests of this vast majority of Tomatis practitioners are neglected or undermined by the pretense that the Tomatis Method could only be applied under the umbrella of this franchise system. Therefore, in my opinion these links are not in accordance and guidelines of Wikipedia concerning the neutrality and objectiveness of information and the (mis)use of bibliographical Wikipedia articles. Without doubt, the primary interest of this "official website" is to sell products and services or to acquire new commercial partners. This becomes apparent as this site is promoting a device (Solisten), which was not invented by A.A.Tomatis nor does it comply at all with the original Tomatis Method. Saturnarius (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Saturnarius (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Which US Patents?

In the companies section of this article it says, that former Tomatis patents are now owned by a Luxembourg company. To my knowledge, there were filed 5 Tomatis US patents long time ago. The last of these patents (US Patent 4,327,252), filed in April 1982, ran out 10 years ago. So which patents are being held by this company?Ibsen2012 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsen2012 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference No. 8

Under this reference is an external weblink to a company, which obviously is licensee to the owner of the - as he reclaims so for itself - "official website". There can be found statements of Depardieu, Sting and a singer Benjamin Luxon. For none of the citations is given any source. On YouTube you can indeed find a video with Depardieu talking about his experiences with Tomatis. If this original source could not be linked for any reason it can be mentioned in words in the article (and everybody will then be able to find it) If there exists a reliable source for the statement of Sting (Reference 8), that could be linked or mentioned too. The existing link reference 8 seems to primarily serve a commercial interest und is in my opinion not a reliable and neutral source of information.Ibsen2012 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsen2012 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Official"

There is an external link of a so called "official link" in this article. What makes this official link "official" concerning the biographical subject and character of this article? I can not see that there is any further information about Dr. Alfred Tomatis on this website. Nothing which is or could not be said in the Wikipedia article. I only can see a kind of rather untrustworthy, barker-like advertisement of a company, that may have bought a logo 10 years ago, but definetely has not brought any serious research on the Tomatis Method one step further in all these years and seems to have no interest in this at all. (What might they do with the money they get from their licensees for merely using their "official" logo??) One must also know that the vast majority of practitioners of the Tomatis Method - about 600 to 800 worldwide - is not affiliated or in any way contracted to the so called "official" Tomatis Developpement SA organization, which might have 150 to 200 practitioners worldwide under their roof - about 20% of the practitioners worldwide. 80% of the practitioners worldwide do obviously not see any need and use of an "official" organization. What for? To have the right to bear a logo? The "official" Tomatis Developpement SA also at some occasions reclaims to have rights on the term or content of "Tomatis Method". This is definetively not true. They do not have any rights on the term "Tomatis Method", neither in US nor in other countries. Everybody with sufficient specialized training can practice the Tomatis Method and name it so. They also reclaim on some occasions to have any patents. They do not have any patent at all! The only thing they truely have and their main legitimation of existence is selling the right to use a certain logo. Should this be enough to reclaim an "official" position on Wikipedia on a bibliographic article about a person?? Do they "officially" speak or act in the sense or name of the person Dr. Alfred Tomatis? Obviously not. It seems to me: This article is not a showpiece for Wikipedia.Ibsen2012 (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

punar 08:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Many of the links in the External Links section are ads to Pro-Tomatis Centers performing treatments of various kinds. The neutral standpoint of these centers is questionable. Should they be removed?

there is more info about tomatis methods about the electronic ear. I will try to add more in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Treatments

Without further double blind research to support the effectiveness of the technique, it cannot be claimed that the technique has treated various disorders and so I've changed the emphasis to reflect that.--Vannin (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Support needed

There are a number of unsupported claims in here that need referencing, otherwise they should probably come out. I've tried to mark some of them--Vannin (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Links

I've removed some of the links - these are all to companies that repeat the same advertising from the Tomatis Developpement SA. I'm not sure whether the Lawton piece should go as well. This would appear to be an undergrad term paper, but it does include some references.--Vannin (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychologist and Educator

I've taken out the claim that Tomatis was a Psychologist and Educator, as I could not find any indication that he was ever registered as a Psychologist nor that he had worked as a teacher. But if anyone has any information to the contrary, please let me know.--Vannin (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

lead

I've reverted the sentence in the lead that says that Tomatis' method alleviated many disorders - because the research section listed in the article does not support that and the lead should reflect the article.--Vannin (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Awards and honors

From whom? This list is inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.115.15 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, in this form the list says nothing, is ridiculous and has an information value = Zero Ibsen2012 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I've invited a few editors here to discuss some issues related to the Tomatis article and associated method. Some ground rules to keep in mind:

Stay civil, polite, even kind. This is not a battleground, and we're here to write an encyclopedia.
This is not a court room. Legal accusations are rarely if ever appropriate for interacting with the Wikipedia community; in fact, should you make them you will likely not be able to participate further. For that matter, any commentary about another editors' motivations is usually just a distraction. Try to focus on the content, not the contributor.
Our task is to neutrally summarize published, reliable sources in proportion to the coverage their views receive. If you plan to make a claim about the state of the world, cite a source. It should be a respected book, established magazine, expert website, academic journal, trade publication, or other media from a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Self-published blogs, forums, social media, and personal/unestablished websites rarely make good secondary sources.
Primary documents are rarely appropriate to settle disputes, especially legal documents; we rely on secondary sources which summarize the state of evidence.
If you have a personal or professional vested interest in the state of this article, then you probably should not edit it but instead should stick to the talk page (this page) and make your case to others who can review your proposals and approve changes. If you disagree with the current state of the article, outline a specific piece, claim, or statement and suggest an alternative while providing sources which inform your proposal.
Please sign your comments with ~~~~

Thanks! Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Trademark, licensed practitioners, patents

Thank you very much for submitting this case to the community. I have not redacted the article dedicated to Alfred Tomatis. Still, I am implicated in the developpement of the Tomatis Method. I am his grand son and I really care about the image of my grand father. Alfred Tomatis protected his technics (Tomatis Method) thanks to patents and trademarks and licenses. He created a logo and protected this logo as well as the world TOMATIS. All this protection has been transmitted to his company Tomatis International which becamed after he died Tomatis Developpement. The situation is quite simple, Alfred Tomatis wished to control his technics to be sure that it was applied in a good manner. It was the purpose of the company he created. Because he died, many people said that they can now use the trademarks "Tomatis" and called them Tomatis practitioners. The fact is that he transmitted all the IP to the company which is still alived. Talking about Alfred Tomatis and avoiding that he created a company wish is still runing and which has got the trademarks make for me no sense. Moreover, I would like to add that it is important for the public to know that their is an official website dedicated to the Tomatis Method. It is my opinion. In the talk page of Alfred Tomatis it is written that Tomatis is not a trademark. This information is not right. The name Tomatis is protected in US Patent and Trademark Office. Thank you very much for you reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer4561 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming and for being so open about your background. Could you please provide links to the sources which support your summary of the situation in the section below... (the patents, any articles about the method, etc.) Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In USPTO website, you will find two trademarks in the database : one for the logo another one for TOMATIS name. I cannot provide the link since it generates a temporary link. In Europe, The TOMATIS trademark has been protected after a legal third opposition which has been rejected by the Court. That is to say that the Office recognised the rights of TOMATIS DEVELOPPEMENT S.A. Please see on the WIPO link bellow (Sources). Following, there is also a decision from WIPO granting to TOMATIS DEVELOPPEMENT S.A. the tomatis.com website based on the TOMATIS trademark: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1790.html

Please note that the trademarks have all been registred many years ago. Even if the patents are not anymore valuable, the trademarks are still protected of course. For more information about the patent please see the last one done under the name of TOMATIS INTERNATIONAL : http://www.google.com/patents/EP0523222A1?cl=en&dq=tomatis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1lu_UImvC9SZ0QX44oHYDw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCQ

Ocaasi, As yo can see all this documents are legal and neutral. If you go through wikipedia and find the biography of any inventors, you will find information on their company as well as website company... Ie coco chanel; henry ford ; Pierre Taitinger; David Thomson and so one. So why keeping it secret for TOMATIS DEVELOPPEMENT company, appart creating a confusion for the public ? What do you think ? Thank you again for your implication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer4561 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi, thank you for the invitation to discuss this matter. To my knowledge, Tomatis Developpement SA had not been founded by Dr. Alfred Tomatis. I did never doubt, that there exists a trademark or company logo (which, however, only refers to "TOMATIS name, connected with the logo", but not for the use just as a name, which is a common family name in Italy and France)registered to the Luxembourg company. What is tried in the article, however, is in my view to wake the impression, that the trademark also protects words like 'Tomatis Method', 'Tomatis Practitioner' etc and the name 'Tomatis' at all. This is not the case. It is also not true, that a Tomatis practitioner had to be licensed by the Luxembourg company (this was in this sense written in an earlier version of the article). In the Internet you will find lots of websites of institutes and people worldwide who practice the Tomatis method, but are not necessariliy licensed by the Luxembourg company. Only a minority of them is licensed and shows any 'official' Tomatis logo. There was also claimed in the article repeatedly, that there were held any patents by the Luxembourg company, which to my knowledge seems also not to be true. All patents ever existing on Tomatis' inventions have run out a long time ago (as far as I know, they in fact already had run out by the time, the Luxembourg company was established), which is too the case for the patent mentioned above by Blazer under the google-link. All this is done, in my opinion, to monopolize the "method" and to claim an "official" status of the Luxembourg company's website with the necessity for practitioners to get a license. I think again, the article is about a person, it is biographical. It is not a platform for the interests of a company. The company's linked website is purely commercial (its obviously aiming to win franchise partners/licensees and to sell a device called Solisten, which has not been invented by Dr. Tomatis and has little to to with his ideas) and it gives not any additional or valuable information about the person Alfred Tomatis, which could not as well be given in the article.

The case can last but not least merely be compared to names like Henry Ford, David Thomson etc. These people were entrepeneurs in first line and are identified with the companies they established, whereas Alfred Tomatis was a medicinist and inventor in first line, and he was not at all the founder of Tomatis Developpement SA. But nevertheless: Would you ever link the website of Ford Motor Company as the "official website" to a biographical article about Henry Ford (or General Electric's website as "official website" to an article about Thomas Alva Edison)?? Really, I do not think so.

People who are interested in the Tomatis Method will easily find www.tomatis.com, if they want to. To claim on Wikipedia, that this is was an "official website" is something different and has in my opinion no basis, however. Me also seems, the competence of other former talk editors, like Saturnarius, should contribute here, too - has he been contacted?Ibsen2012 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition I just revised some versions of the article and found, that some information in the article, given with reliable sources (L'Express, for example), have been simply deleted in September/October without any comment. I am not so convinced, that it makes sense to simply delete well sourced facts just because they might not fit into one's image of the person, even if it was one's grandfather. (I do explicitely not mean the stupid "warning stuff" and the "pseudoscience stuff", two edits of doubtful value for me).Ibsen2012 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ibsen2012, I have duly noted all the legal points you are bringing to this page. Let me know respond in details even if I do not think it is the right place to do so :

I think that you know that Tomatis International has been created by Alfred Tomatis in the 80's. This company was the owner of trademarks and patents related to the Tomatis Method. All the assets of this company has been legally transmitted to Tomatis Developpement after the death of Alfred Tomatis. Do you want me to post here the official notary document prooving the transfer of trademraks, patents and know-how ?
As soon as TOMATIS is a trademark (as you agreed by the way), the name "Tomatis" is legally protected. People are not authorized to use it to promote their own activities except if they have signed a License agreement with Tomatis Developpement Co. It is a fact. For exemple "Apple" is a trademark, you cannot launch an "Apple store" or an "Apple effect" or "Appel center" or saying that you are an "Apple practitioner" to promote or explain your activity. It is exactly same for "ford" or..."Tomatis". Please, refer to the legal law in US for this point. In France, you have for example "Perrier" or "Taitinger" which are family names. You cannot produce your wine and saying that it is "Taitinger wine". Same for Tomatis with any combination "Tomatis Method" or "Tomatis Practitioner" or "Tomatis center".
3Regarding the Patents, you know that it is a legal protection for technology for 20 years. The last I have send to this page shows that the Patent finshed last year. I agree their is no more patent for the moment, still there is a trademark.
TOMATIS DEVELOPPEMENT Company is licensing more than 700 Professionnals all over the world (in 62 counrties) meaning that they can use Tomatis trademark in their websites. Their is no obligation to use the LOGO if they do not wish. Please visit the page find us in tomatis.com. Saying that their are many websites using the Tomatis trademrak does not mean that they can freely use it. They have signed an authorization license agreement after following a training and being equipped.
As you can see, I do not think that there is a minority of people licensed by Tomatis Developpement. It is a majority if you make inquiries in google for exemple and have a look on "find us" page of tomatis.com
SOLISTEN is a professional portable technology reproducing our TOMATIS Effect. Of course, this device has not been created by Alfred. At this time, it was not possible to do so due to the technology developpement. Do you think that the developpement of Ford company and technology stopped after the death of Henry Ford ?

This is an interesting argument, Blazer. Of course, the developpement of Ford company did not stop after the death of Henry Ford: There are Ford cars nowadays, that run faster, are more comfortable and have modern features completely different from the cars at the time of Henry Ford. Everybody can see this, can test it, can experience it, can take place in such a modern car and drive it. But what about SOLISTEN? There is only one "instance" who can claim, that this is a progress, that it is even better than that what Tomatis did. One cannot see, one cannot compare, one cannot really test or experience the differnce. How should one? One can only "believe" the message of the company, which sells this device - or one can "believe" it not. Do you see the difference? Ibsen2012 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Alfred Tomatis quit the Medical Concil to focus on his invention and to launch his own company. I am sorry but indeed he was an inventor AND entrepreneur.

Funny, that you categorize him now as "inventor and entrepreneur" or do I misunderstand you, Blazer? - In thousands of websites, also on all international Wikipedia websites, also on nearly all websites of practitioners of the Tomatis Method, he is categorized as doctor of medicine, physician or otolaryngolist. You seem to want to redefine that, do you?Ibsen2012 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

tomatis.com is not providing directly to the public any devices or training. It is not e-commerce website as well. It provides pedagogical informations about the Method with a neutral tone. Their is only a page with a form to complete by professionals who are interested to be trained.
The first sentence in Henry Ford page is redirecting to the HENRY FORD COMPANY...

Again, my goal is not to promote tomatis.com website through wikipedia. (I have not created this page). Still, I cannot let people post wrong informations (even if it is in the TALK PAGE). It is my duty to correct it. Moreover, I think all I have said is prooven by neutral documents.

Ibsen2012, I understand that you are against the "monopolisation" of the Tomatis Method as you said. But please note It was the wish and the will of Alfred Tomatis to protect his Method and invention. Why ? No doubt that it is was a safeguards against possible abuses and distortions...

Finally, I agree with you that we could create a wikipedia page dedicated to "Tomatis Developpement Company" and inform about trademarks, patents, license, technology developpement, practitionners, partenerships and so one. Ocaasi, Tomatis Developpement is one of the biggest organisation dedicated to the "auditory stimulation" which is a very specific field of activity I confess. It has several partenerships with public institutions for research. Do you think it is enough to publish a neutral article about this company under the control of community (including you Ibsen2012 of course :-) ? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer4561 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Blazer, I could give you lots of links of Tomatis practitioners in Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany etc. etc.) and US, who are not affiliated with the Luxembourg company, one of the largest institutes (if not the largest) in Europe is among them - you can find this out by yourself without difficulty.

In my opinion, the "official" status is a thing, which the Luxembourg company lends just to itself, based on the mere fact, that they have accidently "won" or bought a trademark after bankruptcy of the original Tomatis International. Some time after the death of Dr. Tomatis they got the tomatis URL by decision of an ICANN Panel, but the ICANN Panel does not decide about an "official" status. They have through this furthermore not become "owners" of the worldwide practiced 'Tomatis Method'.

For me, this is not enough to reclaim an "official" status. I think, there is not such a thing like an "official" Tomatis website at all, and there is no need for it.

If you stated above, that one could not say he was a "Tomatis Practitioner" (unless he pays license fees to the Luxemburg company), in which words should he explain what he is doing when practicing the method (the same is for the expression Tomatis Method, Tomatis Therapy etc.)?

You also talked about "distortions" of the method, against which a protection had to be established. Do you think, that the method/theory really is so well and sufficiently defined and consistent, that a company with commercial interests in foreground could - in a way like a 'pope' - make up decisions like: This way to do it, is a 'distortion', but this way to do it is not a 'distortion'? My scientific educational background and intensive literature studies on the method tell me, that this is not so.

Who could give that Luxembourg company the authorization to be in such a position if they not gave it to themselves?

Also, especially for the so called mobile device (offered by the Luxembourg company), there are many practitioners, who think that this device is a 'distortion' of essential elements of the original method, and they have good reasons. I think, the method is again today so vital and dynamic, that the practitioners in all the world should practice and optimize it according to their daily experiences and studies and not according to a commercial company, which defines "right ways", pretending a necessity of "licenses" and reclaiming to know exactly, what is a distortion and what not. I think, this is not a good service to the worldwide colorful community of Tomatis practitioners and the further growth of the ideas and the method itself.Ibsen2012 (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please also read this article about generic words and trademarks, especially the last paragraph of it:http://www.udrpcommentaries.com/enforcing-trademark-rights-of-word-alleged-to-be-generic/Ibsen2012 (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ibsen, when you work in a such touchy area which help so many people with strong difficulties around the world you need to apply rules and not let people "invent" their own practice. Look at EEG, PNL... and all the derivative because there is no rules... It is the purpose of the license which has been decided by Alfred Tomatis (again). Any well performed organisation has rules to avoid distortions. I understand you disagree with this vision and it is your opinion. You can say "Tomatis therapy" in an informative article as anyone can talk about "Apple". In the contrary, you cannot promote your own activity by saying that you are doing "Tomatis therapy", as anyone cannot sell a device by saying it is "apple device".

You are confusing method (or technic) with theory. It is quite different. Many people invented new technics or devices based on the theory of Alfred T. Still they are not calling it Tomatis. You are degreniting Tomatis Developpement company by saiyng that they have "accidently won" trademarks. Honestly ? do you really think that a company can accidently win a trademark ? Finally, you are always talking about commercial interest avoiding that fees is paying research, developpment, helping associations and so on. I do not think it is a swearword.

Anyway, I think I have brought to you reliable information about Alfred Tomatis, his company, patents, and trademarks now owned by Tomatis Developpement. You can disagree or pretend there is no need for "official network" but still... there is a "legaly authorized network" or "official network".

Ibsen, I think you and me are two implicated to redact anything in the Alfred Tomatis' wikipedia page. My idea was simply to correct wrong informations provided in the Talk page about the trademarks. Now if the community think that we cannot add information about the company created by Alfred Tomatis and his logo and trademraks, I am ok with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer4561 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Blazer, dear Ibsen, I am happy to follow your interesting discussion and I will contribute some comments myself by thecoming weekend. I hope then to be able to put some additional oil into the fire of your discussion. Saturnarius (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

note. Please indent your comments using one more : than the person before you. Also, please sign your comments using ~~~~. Thanks, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for some information about Tomatis and I found this interesting discussion that you guys initiated.

It is quite impressive all these discussions. As far as I understand your discussion Alfred Tomatis registered himself the Tradeamrk Tomatis innthe 80' through the company he created to support his development Tomatis International. He registered the trademark at this time in different countries. I can easily understand his motivations as he gave his patronym to his technique he had the necessity to protect it through a trademark. Then the company Tomatis International has been bought by a company called Tomatis Developpement and this company seems to have pursued the registration of trademarks in more countries. So it makes sense to me to have a reference in the Alfred Tomatis wiki page to the trademark owner of the brand. This is a good way to specify that this is a brand as it is the case in other biography pages of people who gave their patronym to a trademark. It could be a good idea, as it has been suggested, to dedicate a page to the Tomatis Method as today it seems to me that the Method is more than just what it was 20 years ago with Alfred Tomatis. On such page we could have also some recent research that was not existing when Tomatis was alive. I understood from my investigations that there are people who are working in this field but who are not using the name Tomatis but sometimes Audio Psycho Phonology, sometimes other designation. This is the case in Germany, in Switzerland, Belgium and France for instance. I always thought that there was a reason as they were talking about Tomatis but nevrr wrote that on their brochure or website. I can understand the point: the Trademark. So I hope you could find a solution as I believe in this technique and its efficiency so it will be nice to have a wiki page with accurate information. ≈≈≈≈Wonder2012

Wonder, I think you worked out most of this fine. I think, however, the initial question was, if a company which has come to a trademark under circumstances, which must not be discussed here, is authorized to give itself an "official" status and promote this via Wikipedia. I think, it is a self authorization and the biographical article thereby is misused and again and again edited to fit to the interests of a company.

The best would be in my opinion to make a Wikipedia article about the Luxembourg company and its activities and to hold the biographical article free from commercial interests in order to get an informative and accurate article about the person Tomatis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsen2012 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Ibsen2012 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, dear Blazer, but in my ears your talk about "distortion" sounds to me a little bit like a statement of a 'politbureau', where older men know and define the only truth and try to take control of other people's doings and thinkings on the path of their only truth and knowledge. Nobody invents his own method. As far as I know, in nearly all countries, practitioners have established professional associations in order to communicate and to change their knowledge and support research activities. To these associations belong practitioners who have been trained by the Luxembourg company as well as practitioners who have been trained by others.

For me, the role of a "owner of the truth" always includes a certain risk, that the truth is distorted. That may be the reason, why you, Blazer, feeling yourself as an "official representative" and trying to subordinate a biographical article to the interests of the "official" company, thereby deleting facts and sources, which might not like, (but which in my opinion belong to a biographical article) and on the other integrating sometimes not so accurate statements about and in the interest of a company.

I give you some examples about your edits, Blazer:

On October 23 Blazer deleted the source to the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine (Farmington Hills), saying it was not a "major publication". Blazer also deleted a perhaps a bit critical voice, the study of Lois Kam Heymann (Random House), also saying, that it was not a "major publication". I think "major publication" cannot be a suitable criterion in such special fields, where publications generally will reach only very limited edition sizes. Do you for example think, that the publication of Pierre Sollier by Mozart Brain Lab is a "major publication"? You did not delete this, Blazer.

On October 18th Blazer deleted a reference/source (L'Express), in which is reported the lawsuit against Dr. Tomatis in the year 1993 where he was sentenced for illegally practicing. I think this reference/source and the fact belongs to a biographical article, even if it may not fit one's image of the person. The deletion of this shows me, that you, Blazer, seem not to be interested in an accurate and informative biographical article, but in an article which can serve as a platform of a company.

On September 13th you edit, that "All Tomatis® Practitioners must be trained and authorized by this company" (where 'this company' means Tomatis Developpement SA, Luxembourg). Your statement is at least misleading, if not wrong, as many practitioners worldwide, who perform the therapy on basis of and with the Tomatis method, must NOT be trained and are not trained by this company. This is, what I mean, when I say, you try to "monopolize".

On August 4th you, Blazer, deleted without comment the true statement: "The company, however, does not own the trademark 'Tomatis Method'. The Tomatis Method can be practiced - and is practiced - under this name by any therapist, who has completed the required training." Even you, Blazer, never claimed that the Luxembourg company owned a trademark "Tomatis Method". The term "Tomatis Method" is a generic term and can to my knowledge not be protected by a trademark registration. (I give you official sources about this, if you are interested)

Last but not least I am interested about another matter: Blazer, you stated, that license fees are necessary for research. Can you tell me something about the research projects of the last ten years, which have been financed by the Luxembourg company? What progress of knowledge can be stated compaired to the knowledge in the year 2002? I just have an "academic interest" in these questions, not any commercial or similar interests - that's the reason for my question and you, Blazer, seem to have the competence to give some information here. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsen2012 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Licensed and "not licensed" (?) practitioners of Tomatis Method/APP in Europe

I take at first the example Switzerland, because Switzerland is one of the countries in which the therapy on basis of Dr. Tomatis is often payed by the regular health insurance system. I also give information about Germany, France and Belgium.

There are 18 institutes organized in a professional association "Schweizerischer Berufsverband für Audio-Psycho-Phonologie nach A. Tomatis"

As far as websites can be found of their members, ONLY ONE of these websites show the "Tomatis-Logo" and two of the members' websites link to the so called "official" Luxembourg company on their link page.

Germany: I found 36 practitioners/institutes of the Tomatis Method or APP in Germany. As far as websites of these can be found (29), 6 of these websites show the (so called "official") Tomatis-Logo on their websites and 9 have a link to the so called "official" website of the Luxembourg company. 23 of these do NOT show the "official" Tomatis logo and 20 do NOT have a link to the so called "official" website of the Tomatis Method.

To be noticed additionally: 22 sites of affiliated ("official") practitioners ("official" Tomatis practitioners/institutes) for Germany could be found in the "Find-us" section on the "official" website (www.tomatis.com) of the Luxembourg company on Dec 8th 2012. 8 of them did not have a website at all or they were mislinked (accidently of course, to the website of the Luxembourg company), which means, that avtually 14 websites could be really identified and be checked. Only 4 of these websites showed the "official" Tomatis Logo (sometimes a bid hidden) and 6 of these websites had a link to the so called "official partner".

France: It seems not to be so easy to find out Tomatis related websites of practitioners of the Tomatis Method or APP in France, but from those 12 I found, only 3 show the so called "official" Logo and only 4 link to www.tomatis.com from their websites. Even institutes belonging to the "official" network (according to information on the "official" website tomatis.com itself), do frequently not show the "official" Logo and not link to the "official" www.tomatis.com.

Belgium: In Belgium is the biggest European institute for APP (Tomatis Method) and the only Tomatis-Museum worldwide. They do not show the Logo of the "official" Luxembourg company, but perhaps they have a link to the "official" tomatis.com (I did not check this). This largest European institute seems not to be affiliated to the Luxembourg company.

To resume this: in 4 major European countries only a vast minority of practitioners of the Tomatis Method or APP seem to be affiliated to the official Luxembourg company and they obviously seem not to have any identification with the company, which calls itself "official".

There can be investigated further countries, of course.Ibsen2012 (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting sidefact: The Find us page of www.tomatis.com can not be reached since December 10th...Ibsen2012 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Official or not official

Dear fellow combatants, as promised, I will add the following information, which I was able to gather within the last days. So far, we all agree that ′Tomatis′ is definitely a registered trademark. Yet, I came across a very interesting court decision in Germany: issue to register ′Tomatis- method′ and ′Tomatis-institute′ was denied on the grounds that ″the name of goods or services have become customary in everyday language″. By the way, the terms 'Tomatis method' and 'Tomatis institute' have been used descriptively for more than 30 years - long before the Luxemburg company existed. This makes the discussion about official licenses and who is permitted to issue them obsolete, doesn’t it?

There are hundreds of so-called “Tomatis-practitioners” praticing the "Tomatis method"(hyphenated of unhyphenated). Many received their training and electronic equipment from the center in Belgium; some were trained by the original company “Tomatis International” in Paris; some were trained and equipped by Tomatis Developpement SA, Luxembourg, others received their training in the USA or elsewhere, using electronic ears supplied by third parties after patent protection has ended. Many of these ′pracitioners′ founded their own organisations in their respective countries, the largest one seems to be in Belgium with many more members than the Luxembourg company.

As to Tomatis Developpement SA, Luxembourg, claiming ′official′ representation of A.A.Tomatis and the ′Tomatis method′ by installing an ′official website′ in the Wiki article,I would like to draw your attention to the legal dispute between A.A.Tomatis and the successor company in the late 1990s. As you, Balzer, probably well know, Tomatis took legal actions to reclaim all intellectual and industrial property rights, since he saw his inventions betrayed by the successor company. Only the death of Tomatis brought this controversial issue to an end. You might want to add this biographical information to the Wiki article of Tomatis? Or perhaps not?

What else could be added to the Tomatis article? How about some more interesting things about his invention, the electronic ear, or other interesting details of his life, like why he tried to create a new organisation in England before his death. Or about his family. There could be lots of interesting stuff to add. But a link to a so-called “official” Tomatis website? I'ld think rather not. Saturnarius (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Saturnarius, dear Blazer, as far as I know, this can be also found on the European trademark office (http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html) because the term Tomatis Method is generic, which means, it is a term, that can not be protected by law, because it has become part of everyday language. (In my opinion the same will be true for the term 'Tomatis practitioner'). People who are interested in the therapy would normally choose a practitioner, who is recommended and has a good reputation und thereby is successful on a regional basis and not because a self authorized company far away presumes to separate the worldwide community of practitioners in "good" ones and "bad" ones (=ones, who 'distort' the real thing as Blazer would perhaps say). This impression will namely be the result to a normally not so well informed reader/enduser, when he reads in Wikipedia things like 'a real practioner has to be licensed by XYZ.' The article handles eventually a kind of medical issue and therefore one should all the more be careful about claims, which are misleading. Why not just say, that there is a possibility for practitioners to organize and be licensed in associations like XYZ, ABC, CDE ....? But again, this all would actually not fit and find place in a biographical article. Can you agree with this?Ibsen2012 (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

note: I'm glad everyone is participating helpfully and focusing on the content rather than eachother's motivations. I also notice a lot of 'statements about the world' without providing reliable secondary sources to back up those claims. Remember that Wikipedia does not engage in original research to determine what is true. Instead we merely summarize what other secondary sources have said. This bears repeating. Please find secondary sources that comment on these issues. We can't rely on individual patent applications or legal cases by themselves. We need sources which comment on those primary documents. Thanks again for your continued civil and constructive participation. Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One more secondary source I just found: Dr. Tomatis' will was it obviously not, that the successor Luxembourg company would become his intellectual heiress. Some months before his death, he and his wife Lena gave all intellectual property and documents to the Tomatis association in Belgium called Mozart Brain Lab, Mr. Joseph Vervoort. This also refutes claims of an "official" status of the Luxemburg company.

The document is cited and translated here:

"Nous soussignes Alfred et Lena Tomatis certifions que nous avons fait le don de milliens de livres et de documents de recherches dans le but de pourvions les travaux qu'ils ont realises dans le domaine de l'audio psycho phonologie a Monsieur Joseph Vervoort cet heritage intellectuel sera conserve dans un musee realises dans un batiment de l'Association Mozart Brain Lab, rue de la Gaze, a St. Truiden (Belgique)

Carcassonne, le 24. 02. 01 Alfred Tomatis L.A. Tomatis"

Translation:

"We the undersigned, Alfred and Léna Tomatis confirm that we have given thousands of books and documents to Mr. Jozef Vervoort with the aim, that my research work will be continued in the field of audio-psycho-phonology. This intellectual heritage should be brought to and conserved in a museum of the association Mozart Brain Lab, housed rue de la Gaze 36 in Sint-Truiden (Belgium).

Carcassonne, le 24. 02. 01 Alfred Tomatis L.A. Tomatis"

Source: http://www.atlantis-vzw.com/tomatis.html

(On this website is shown the handwritten copy of the document cited above.)

I want to explicitly indicate on this place, that I do not have any connections or any personal or professional interests to any of the companies mentioned in this discussion. I have an exclusively academic interest in the person, the biography, the ideas and the method of Dr. Tomatis.Ibsen2012 (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC) → Hello everyone, thank you for your comments. Ocassi I understand we need to keep focus on reliable sources. Except providing documentation from official institutions I do know what else I could bring to the discussion. Ibsen2012 and Saturnius, I think you are creating a confusion (on purpose?) between IP (trademarks, patents...) and litterature (like books and documentation) granted for a museum. I think you are also creating a confusion between association and commercial company : Mozart brain lab is a company (with licensees fees incomes) not an association as you mentioned. I think you are creating a confusion between a disciplin called Audio-Psycho-Phonoly which is not controlled by any rules and the Tomatis Method. Finally, I think you are creating a confusion bewteen a generic name (which, by the way, is never written with a majuscule at the beggining of the word) and a trademark. Also, you are talking about thousands of people who are using the Tomatis Method without being licensed. You mentionned the belgium, but I do not know what you are talking about. Finally, when you are talking about new innovation developped by Tomatis Developpement suggesting it is not reliable, please take into account that you are talking about the daily work of more than 1000 therapits who help people all over the world and obtain very good results thank's to the Tomatis Method.Blazer4561 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Blazer, YOU WRITE: "....you are creating a confusion (on purpose?) between IP (trademarks, patents...) and litterature (like books and documentation) granted for a museum."

Granted to a museum? Please, read the legacy once more. The books and documents were given explicitely with the aim, "... that the research work will be continued... ". YOU WRITE:"...you are creating a confusion between a disciplin called Audio-Psycho-Phonoly which is not controlled by any rules and the Tomatis Method..." In all literature APP and Tomatis Method are looked upon as synonymas. You say these are different things? There were no rules for APP? Is APP not a discipline created by Tomatis? Did he not say, what this is? Did he never establish any rules how to do it? Never write thousands of books and articles? Never say, how to apply his Method? Never trained practitioners? So, these are and there you find the rules! Think of an architect: An architect also has to work with rules (static, mathmatic, physical, design etc.). It is exactly the same with a practitioner of APP and Tomatis. He has to work with these rules or he will otherwise fail and get no more new clients. In many countries there are additional legal rules and controls for practitioners. The confusion is absolutely on your side. The only thing, that is true is, that a Luxemburg company owns a trademark. Not more and not less. Everything else is self authorization. The practitioners worldwide do not get any better knowledge when they buy the right to show a certain trademark on their advertising. They get their knowledge from all the results, Dr. Tomatis has published in thousands of books and magazines. On the basis of all these sources and on his or her own experiences and education, a practitioner of APP/Tomatis Method can properly apply the method without any infringement of any rights of the Luxembourg company. And they do so! Look at the internet, google a bit and you will find out yourself. Why should they do it better with a trademark?? It's you who confuse things. You write:"... I think you are also creating a confusion between association and commercial company : Mozart brain lab is a company (with licensees fees incomes) not an association as you mentioned." Sorry, Blazer, but this has just been translated from the legacy of Dr. Tomatis, cited above. Citation should always be correct, or what do you think?? As far as I know, the belgium association works on the legal base of a non-profit-organization which is different from a commercial company. The Luxembourg company, however, is a purely commercial company, which even addresses to endusers (not only potential practitioners) directly with messages in a sometimes barker-like tone, but that is up to them. YOU WRITE:"... Finally, when you are talking about new innovation developped by Tomatis Developpement suggesting it is not reliable..." I never talked about, if this device (as a device) is reliable or not. Another question is, if with this device the Tomatis Method (based on the rules known originally from Dr. Tomatis of how to apply) can really be done in a correct manner. But anyway, this device was not invented by Dr. Tomatis. Dr. Tomatis invented the Electronic Ear as you know and he stated rules on how to apply it. The device is not an Electronic Ear, it is something different and it is in my opinion not applied in a way, which corresponds to the rules of treatment originally established by Dr. Tomatis. But perhaps you have reliable results of research (secondary sources...) which can correct this opinion?Ibsen2012 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)