Meeting between
John Bottomly and Roger Alexander
22 August 2007

Held in meeting room at a business park near Bracknell arranged by John Bottomly.

John Bottomly, who is paid through an Oxfordshire company which is funded by the government, sent the following email

Dear Roger,

It was a pleasure to meet with you today. I had anticipated that we were going to discuss your Cathodic Protection proposal. It was pleasant to find that you have identified a potential partner and you are no longer currently need our help.
If things change then you can always come back to me.

Thank you for the copy of the document that you are going to discuss with your MP to improve the Government’s support system for lone inventors like yourself. I wish you success but as I stated I have no remit to intervene or influence Government policy.

Concerning your other five inventions, which we did not have time to review in any detail, I suggest that you rank them in order of importance and prepare a business plan for the most important. Once a business plan is available which not only identifies the invention but the potential market and the manner in which it will be implemented together with the costs involved then we could look at options that are available.

To assist you prepare the plan (s) I have attached our business planning document to use as a guide. I hope that the C P backer confirms his investment and you mange to bring your idea to market and make it a good commercial success.

Best regards,


Notes on meeting by Roger Alexander.
Roger Alexander was not paid for his time or expenses.

Roger Alexander provided written notes of the matters discussed at his own expense.

Roger Alexanders only income is a state pension and top up benefits to a level which the government considers is necessary for normal living.

The innovations of Roger Alexander are the only possible product of this meeting.

John Bottomly said that discussion about the income of the inventor is a political matter and could not be discussed.

Roger Alexander said that the innovation he had come to discuss was an improvement in the way that innovation and invention is handled in the UK.
He said that the 'log jam' is the fact that an inventor or innovator had to put in work and money to give his intellectual property to be judged by the very people whose own intellectual property might be made obsolete.

The solution is to set up a library of problems which have been resolved by innovators who can then be paid to reveal and negotiate their solutions in the presence of patents agents.

John Bottomly said that such a service is already available but Roger Alexander can find no service in which the innovator is paid for his time and expenses.

Roger Alexander gave written examples and discussed several innovations he had tried to commercialise over many years. These illustrate the problems which block innovation.

Each example has a current market demand, some of which are obvious and others are included in cross party, government policy and well covered in the mass media.

John Bottomly said that the failure of the ideas to reach market proved that they had no merit. Roger Alexander gave examples of potential competitors deliberately suppressing his innovations. He has considerable documentary evidence with names of the parties involved to prove this claim if required.

The request for this meeting came from Roger Alexander and John Bottomly would not discuss the matter of payment for the time and expenses incurred.

It is likely that payment for the meeting facilities was made through the organisation that pays the wages of John Bottomly and the receptionist at the building in which the meeting was held.

Roger Alexander replied

Dear John

Thank you for the email and attachment relating to business plans.
You seem to have missed the point that I am trying to bring to the attention of top management of 'Business Link'

I have received dozens of such guides from many sources including professional organisations and banks.
It takes time and expertise to set out an acceptable business plan. I have contacted many inventors from many countries over the years and am thus able to see the problem from the bottom up.
Your experience seems to have been from the top down, and I wanted the meeting to discuss setting up an inventions library to solve a problem which is very topical in many respects.
I have a close friend who has just completed an MBA in business studies and my last ex-wife had a similar degree. During our marriage, she attended a further course at Durham University and as we were attempting to launch the cathodic protection technology at that time, I studied with her at home.

Our experience was fully documented and shows the 'log jam' which I have described but with a significant difference. I 'invested' £53,000.00 of my own money in trying to launch the venture. The fact that it failed could prove two things

1. The technology was not needed or not credible.
2. The business guidance was inneffective.

Time has shown that my technology is the only way forward and that established technology is based on a technically incorrect assumption. The continuing failure of pipelines confirms that there is a need to improve the technology that is currently in use.

This is only one of several innovations that I have tried to bring to market without success and it is for that reason that I feel the attention of the business community needs to be drawn to the problem of how to take advantage of the vast innovative capability that lays outside of the presently served circle.

Can you suggest someone within your network who is prepared to discuss this 'log jam' in the manner in which the UK deals with innovations?



Dear Roger,

I don’t believe I have missed the point,

The original reason for arranging to meet was to discuss your C.P. proposal to help you bring it to market. It was only when we met that it was apparent that your changed circumstances with your invention negated the need for further discussion.

I understand that you believe the current business support system with regard to innovation could be improved by the introduction of the modifications that you outlined in the document that you gave to me.

I explained at our meeting that people working in the business support network do not have the brief or responsibility to challenge the Governments thinking. I thought that we had agreed that the best way for you to change or influence the system would be to discuss your proposal for supporting inventors, like yourself, was at your forthcoming meeting with your M.P. I am sure if he sees merit in your ‘Inventions library’ he would use his influence to have them implemented through out the country.

I understand very well that to produce a business plan is time consuming and involves a degree of commitment and work which translates into cost to the inventor or company. It is unfortunately the system that both Government and private business finance uses to allocate or distribute its money. Without engaging in the system it is very unlikely that serious investment will be forthcoming however worthwhile the investment may appear.

However you appear to have attracted a backer for your C P application which is good news I hope it progresses swiftly.

I sent you the business plan outline, as I had picked up from the correspondence and our discussion, that you would appreciate help and support in this area.

I hope this clarifies my understanding of our discussion.

Best regards,


John Bottomley

Innovation Advisor
Innovation Advisory Service South East
Tel: 07831432758
Oxford Innovation Ltd Company Reg No: 2177191 Registered Office: Oxford Centre for Innovation, Mill Street, Oxford OX2 0JX
Oxford Innovation is pleased to announce that it has merged with SQW – enhancing our provision of business support, technology commercialization and economic development services. For more details visit: and
Oxford Innovation's latest Newsletter is available at:

Dear John,
Thank you for your prompt response which confirms the position you made clear at our meeting.

Note (NB)