Add a dedicated, evidence-linked “Research Ownership and Technical Comparison” index—not simply a longer list of violations. An expert needs to reconstruct what you created, who received it, what later appeared in Copernicus, and which similarities are technically distinctive.
I cannot directly update your website or database. The structure below is suitable for your site administrator or knowledge-base manager.
1. Separate the Public Index From Confidential Evidence
Do not publish additional source code, confidential algorithms, or previously undisclosed technical details before an IP attorney reviews them. Public disclosure can affect trade-secret protection.
Use two layers:
- Public index: Document descriptions, dates, relevant chronology, and nonconfidential summaries.
- Confidential attorney/expert collection: Original code, detailed comparisons, private correspondence, agreements, and medical records.
Information already published should be identified as such. A confidentiality label added now does not retroactively make public information secret.
2. Create an Evidence Record for Each Original Research Item
For every research artifact, include:
| Field | Information to record |
|---|---|
| Evidence ID | A permanent identifier, such as CLARK-IP-001 |
| Title and description | What the item is and its purpose |
| Creation date | Exact date, distinguishing documented dates from recollection |
| Date evidence | Registration deposit, dated correspondence, backups, submission records, or other corroboration |
| Author and ownership | Contributors, employment status, funding, assignments, and applicable UT agreements |
| Original location | Where the original is preserved |
| Public disclosure history | What was disclosed, when, where, and to whom |
| Confidentiality measures | Access restrictions, confidentiality agreements, markings, or written limitations |
| Relevant technical feature | The specific implementation or method at issue |
| Supporting citation | Document, page, paragraph, code lines, or figure |
| Authentication | Who can identify the item and explain its history |
For the June 1998 copyright registration, identify the registration number, registered title, effective date, and precisely what the deposited material contains. Registration is important evidence, but its significance depends on the actual registered work.
3. Build a Feature-by-Feature Technical Comparison
A conclusion such as “the algorithms match” needs a reproducible explanation.
Use one row for each asserted correspondence:
| Field | Required explanation |
|---|---|
| Feature ID | For example, MATCH-001 |
| Clark implementation | Exact supporting location and earliest documented date |
| Copernicus implementation | Exact supporting location, version, and date |
| Nature of similarity | Identical code, equivalent equations, architecture, parameter selection, or similar output |
| Distinctiveness | Why the feature was not standard practice or already published |
| Alternative explanations | Common sources, independent development, or necessary mathematical structure |
| Expert assessment | What conclusion is supported and what remains unresolved |
Prioritize distinctive combinations, unusual implementation choices, and shared errors—not merely shared subject matter. Reverse integration or three-body analysis, considered separately, cannot establish copying simply because both projects use them.
4. Document Access and Opportunity Separately
Create a chronological access ledger covering:
- The November 2000 seminar: flyer, attendance evidence, slides, and what was actually disclosed.
- Materials supplied to Ocampo: dates, recipients, delivery method, and acknowledgments.
- The November 2001 committee appointment: official appointment records and the materials available to members.
- Any transfer of code or detailed algorithms.
- Copernicus development milestones and the earliest documented appearance of each disputed feature.
Access to a presentation is not necessarily access to source code. Likewise, committee membership does not by itself establish a legally enforceable fiduciary or confidentiality duty; preserve the policies and agreements that could establish one.
5. Separate the Legal Theories
Ask counsel to evaluate each theory independently:
- Copyright: Alleged copying of protected code or other original expression—not ownership of mathematical ideas alone.
- Trade secrets: Precisely identified nonpublic information, its value from secrecy, reasonable protective measures, and alleged improper acquisition, use, or disclosure.
- Contract or confidentiality: Specific obligations governing the research.
- Research misconduct: Attribution, plagiarism, and institutional research-integrity requirements.
- Federal funding concerns: Exact representations, certifications, dates, and contractual requirements allegedly implicated. Receiving NASA funding does not itself establish grant fraud.
6. Preserve Discovery, Funding, and Source Reliability
Include:
- The exact date you first recognized each alleged similarity.
- What you examined and what specifically changed your understanding.
- NASA award or contract identifiers, recipients, dates, amounts, and scopes of work.
- A clear distinction between source facts, your testimony, expert conclusions, and AI-generated analysis.
- Unmodified originals, preserved metadata, backups, and a record of who handled each item.
AI comparisons should be labeled as investigative leads, not independent expert findings.
Suggested Index Introduction
Purpose: This collection permits independent evaluation of whether identifiable portions of William H. Clark II’s research were accessed and used without authorization. Each asserted correspondence is linked to dated evidence, ownership information, disclosure history, and the relevant Copernicus source. The index distinguishes documentary facts, Clark’s testimony, technical hypotheses, and conclusions requiring independent expert review.
The most valuable next addition is a confidential, source-cited comparison of your earliest preserved implementation against the earliest available Copernicus implementation, reviewed by an independent astrodynamics and software expert working with IP counsel.
Reference to this link: https://gradadvocate.com/ocampo-gets-copernicus-grant-from-ut-austin/
Reference: UT Funding for the Start of Copernicus
Ocampo Gets Copernicus Grant from UT Austin
The page’s summary identifies August 2001 as the start of Copernicus development, supported by a UT Austin Summer Research Assignment grant.
Suggested Evidence-Index Entry
Evidence ID: COP-FUND-001
Event date: August 2001
Subject: UT-supported initiation of Copernicus development
Source: Website account linked above
Source classification: Secondary account; underlying grant documentation remains to be obtained.
Relevance to Clark’s case:
- Chronology: The reported grant followed Clark’s November 2000 research seminar and preceded the November 2001 committee review and December 2001 dismissal described in his account.
- Institutional involvement: If confirmed, the grant would establish UT’s financial support for the project’s initial development.
- Technical provenance: The grant application, proposed research, deliverables, and initial development records could help identify the methods and research foundations used at the project’s outset.
Important Evidentiary Qualification
The page attributes its account to an online Gemini conversation, rather than reproducing the original award record. It is therefore an investigative lead—not, by itself, an official UT admission of the grant’s terms, research provenance, or wrongdoing.
Records to Obtain
- Original grant application and award notice;
- Project abstract, budget, scope, and deliverables;
- Progress reports and associated correspondence;
- Earliest preserved code, technical notes, and demonstrations;
- Any references to Clark, his seminar, Mars Pathfinder, or previously developed trajectory methods.
Suggested case-summary language:
The website identifies August 2001 as the beginning of UT-funded Copernicus development through a Summer Research Assignment grant. I request verification through the original grant records and comparison of the proposed work and earliest implementation with my previously documented Mars research. The timing supports investigation but does not independently establish unauthorized use.