An IH-friendly reason for the claimed delay in finding a test site

Quote from Mats Lewan

Hank, they might have replicated, but not with high COP and with long term stability. Like Parkhomov for example. And they might therefore argue that Rossi has retained some essential info, even though Rossi claims he told them everything. The devil is in the details.

This is an important question. The license agreement clearly states that any IP connected to the E-Cat, including any new IP that is developed, must be shared with IH. It is for the court to interpret the agreement, but I suspect that Rossi is not going to be happy with its resolution of this specific question.

Quote from DMS

Stupid question: Who owns this 1 mw plant?

I believe this is all still the same plant that was purchased by IH for the initial $1.5M. So the plant would now be owned by IH.

Quote from Guest

Perhaps you're right (I have no idea), but if so that still doesn't remove the contractual condition that Rossi teach them everything (and provide any and all assistance) they need to produce the fuel and replicate his results.

If mixing or preparing the fuel truly is an art-driven process that can only be manually performed by one person alone (Rossi), then the technology would probably be worthless from a commercial standpoint. I hope that's not the case!

Rossi wants to produce a fuel mix that a robot can replicate a million times a month in a factory producing small 100 watt reactors that can be put together in a modular way based on function. This integrated industrialization of the reactor is inherent in the design of the reactor similar to the way a commuter chip is engineered. The fuel might be mixed through vapor disposition. Rossi's design is complete when product is on the market.

Quote from axil

Reading how the 89M is paid to Rossiu has nothing to do with IP. Final payment is strictly based on a positive ERV report. IMHO, I.H. cannot holdback payment because they are not satisfied with the distribution of IP. That was decided with the 10M payment.

Any IP issues are red herrings with regards to the final payment $89M based on the letter of the licence agreement.

This assumes that the contract does not stand or fall as one thing. If any party violates an important provision of the contract, the court may decide that the entire thing is void, interpreted in a way that does not prevent Rossi from going on to make money from some other venture. (I'm just speculating, here.)

Quote from Eric Walker

One question I have about the actions of IH in this connection is that there was language in the license agreement around non-competition. It is hard to see how IH's funding of Brillouin and Miley would be compatible with this language, even if there was no transfer of Rossi's IP.

Reading the contract it appears that the non-compete language (section 13.3) only expressly prevents Rossi/Leonardo from competing with IH, not the other way around unless IH has breached the contract. I think the section 1 says IH can also sublicense to anyone they see fit, so likely covered by that as well.

I don't understand this. If IH owns the plant, they own the fuel in both the spent and unspent backup reactors. They also own right to all the electronics. There must be ways to reverse engineer things from a working plant they own. This smells bad. I have hard time believing Rossi here. I was optimistic about this tech but this makes no sense. One can't discount fraud on Rossi's part

Quote from Eric Walker

This assumes that the contract does not stand or fall as one thing. If any party violates an important provision of the contract, the court may decide that the entire thing is void, interpreted in a way that does not prevent Rossi from going on to make money from some other venture. (I'm just speculating, here.)

I believe there are more options for the court than just declaring the entire thing void. They could award damages on one side or the other, or even compel either or both of the parties to perform their contractual duties as originally agreed. This would make it really risky for another party to try to purchase a license from Rossi while the litigation is ongoing, as they could end up losing it and any investment they make to enable themselves to produce or sell the product.

Quote from Guest

Reading the contract it appears that the non-compete language (section 13.3) only expressly prevents Rossi/Leonardo from competing with IH, not the other way around unless IH has breached the contract. I think the section 1 says IH can also sublicense to anyone they see fit, so likely covered by that as well.

Thank you—I read section 13.3 incorrectly. I glossed over the last clause, which talks about IH not working with a competitor of Rossi/Leonardo for two years, and see now that that's in the event of a termination of the agreement due to a breach by IH.

But why would the money be chasing a non existent water heater fraudulent scam?

Quote from Thomas<br>Clarke

they just need to reckon there is a decent chance he has something

So if you believe, when they are looking through the Astroturf, there may be a few blades of 'real' grass, then that's a legitimate
reason. Even though the Astroturf lie is obvious to everyone else.

Who owns the LENR Astroturf anyway, Rossi, IH, Skeptics, Woodford,
big oil?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Astroturf

For a few blades of real grass I like me356: Reactor parameters
Well it looks like 'real grass' to me, and amazingly has similarities to what Rossi seems to be doing.

Best regards
Frank

Thomas

If its Astroturf (i.e. a big deception for ulterior motives) then almost certainly there will be grass underneath the deception, so either way its got to be grass (i.e. the LENR phenomena is a real artefact!) I grant you it may not be marketable or safe ..... yet!

Best regards
Frank