of claims in the press. We are entirely focused on the issue of how ideas transmit through large organizations, often organically and unconsciously.

This becomes an even more complex issue when work and material submitted by small organizations is subject to stringent Confidentiality Agreements. The issue for us is not about the object nor is it about Heatherwick’s design. It does bear a striking resemblance to our project work and sketchbook from 2008 and as such this has been the point of focus of the press.

But for us this is not the point. It is the written narrative that we are concerned with as this is key component in the way we work, developing scenarios for clients that allow them to imagine possibilities years ahead of time and catalyze thinking within their organizations to deliver socially engaged innovation­­­­.

It is the narrative scenario along with our other tender content that we believe proved inspirational at LOCOG and this is what it was intended to do. All we have ever sought from LOCOG since July 2012 is a formal acknowledgement of this.”

Sawsan

I don't believe such thing! They can't be that silly to copy the design and claim it. And I do believe that conceptual thinking and connecting the same dots can lead to the same conclusions. I've been before where I saw one of my designs a year later published under the name of another designer where I'm sure that he didn't ever see it.

S_Rosengold

Does anyone know why exactly the 'Olympic flower' sketchbook is missing on Issuu?
Sounds strange too me I don't believe atopia until I see there previous presentation with those sketches.

Anyways the cauldron WASN'T a great design though. Its just too silly to fight over it guys.

Really?

The details to which you are all referring to are the narrative sequence for the way the torches were brought into the stadium not the cauldron itself. Also the striking resemblance you are all talking about is between the shape of Heatherwick's cauldron and the Vague structure shown in rough sketches of 