[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/25/rossi-and-ih-conflict-over-production-hhiram/']The following post was submitted by Hhiram. An interesting exchange on JONP was posted yesterday between user Gene and Rossi: Gene April 24, 2016 at 1:10 AM Dr Andrea Rossi, In past you already had written in this blog that you were working to make a massive production factory. It was more than three years […][/feedquote]
Rossi and IH Conflict Over Production? (Hhiram)
-
This seems to be in line with my thoughts on another thread:
Display MoreDr Andrea Rossi's case:
(1) He has invented a mechanism to make LENR work and work very well. Many others can make LENR work and it is a proven phenomena for real, of that there is no doubt (exhibit 1 jcf14, exhibit 2 ERV report). He has sold his IP to IH in good faith under strict contract terms, but they are not expert enough to make it work for themselves and so they claim ("without success"). As a result they have given his IP to his competitors who also have tried to make it work under contract to IH ("without success") or so they claim, the Judge and members of the Jury will be asked to consider IH may be stalling for time so they can beat Dr Rossi to the market. This they have done without his consent and which forms part of his complaint as it is in contravention of the terms of the contract.
(2) As proof IH believes his invention works he has evidence they submitted an application (without his consent) for a patent in which they claim it works and is useful.
(3) Were it not for the fact that IH have refused to pay him the agreed balance of $89 million on a successful outcome of the one year test COP > 6 - (see exhibit 2 ERV report), he would still be helping them transform his invention into a marketable product.
(4) He will of course invite the judge and members of the jury to see the invention working for themselves in his 'container'.Industrial Heats defence:
(1) IH cannot make Dr Rossi's invention work, they have asked other experts in the field to help with this which is 'legitimate due diligence', 'without success'.
(2) Yes IH applied for a patent with IP which Dr Rossi sold to them which they believe is 'their' property and so the patent application is legal, they have not broken any contract conditions doing this.
(3) Yes IH believe Dr Rossi's invention works and have not questioned the ERV report, but can't make it work for themselves, they can only conclude Dr Rossi has not given them the necessary IP and technical assistance to make it work since it is very clear to IH Dr Rossi's 1MW e-cat works. Until Dr Rossi does help them make it work, they have 'legitimately' withheld the $89 million.
(4) As soon as they can make one of their own e-cats work with Dr Rossi's IP and expertise to their own satisfaction they will happily give Dr Rossi the balance of $89 million, IH will of course invite the Judge and members of the jury to see their own failed attempts to make Dr Rossi's invention work after following all Dr Rossi's instructions.Best regards
Frank -
Frank,
I think at this point we have as many possible scenarios as we have posters! Your's, along with Sifferkoll and
Lewan's in Rossi's corner, is as good as any. Thx. And in the opposing corner, we have this Dewey Weaver, supposedly non-de-guerre...NCKHawk, and others on IH's side with their pet theories, that are also, at this point, as plausible.Throw in the lie factor, honest disagreements over terms of the contract, legal posturing, public posturing for an advantage, and probably a bunch of other things, and the real story could be a little of everything, or none of the above. Crazy I know, but interesting to the max.
After the InfiniteEnergy article came out I thought the believers would cave, accept the hopelessness of defending Rossi further, and get on with championing the other LENR+ players in IHs portfolio. I know I did. But I have been pleasantly impressed, that instead the Rossi supporters have made some valid arguments in Rossi's defense. Picked him up off the canvas, breathed a little life back into him, and threw him back in the ring for another round.
While holding his own in this court of public opinion -with the help of his JONP and blog fan base, probably won't help much in front of a jury (although it could), it may improve Rossi's chances of an out of court settlement, and up the amount Darden will be willing to settle...if he (Rossi) is angling for that as many, including myself, think.
Getting beyond the almost endless theories, right now, without knowing hardly any of the relevant facts, i.e. the ERV report, IH's observer report, IH's legal reply, customer testimony, bills, etc., I think we have chosen sides based on the trust factor...or, who do we trust more? Some, like myself, don't trust Rossi in the least, as he already has a rich history of lying, while some distrust Darden because he is viewed as an industrialist, or Venture Capitalist more concerned with enriching himself than saving the planet.
I hope it turns out that Rossi , and his defenders are right. The 1MW's COP was 50, the customer trustworthy, Penon qualified, there were widgets produced. Then we can get on to saving the planet...9 long years after Rossi first began shopping his Ecat by the way. Knowing Rossi though the way I have come to know him after following him 5 years now...well, we shall see soon if my instincts are good.
-
How about the possibility that both parties are hoping that their respective patents issue soon, giving them the upper hand.
IH got their units working, but only after installing some of their own NEW proprietary technology (for which they have applied for a patent).
Rossi withheld some of his technology because his NEW patent has not issued yet. Rossi's initial patent might not be valid (expert cannot reproduce from the info in the patent) so he feels he needs the NEW follow on patent.
Actually Rossi feels he needs 202 new patents...or so he once stated.d
