Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Nothing Rossi taught to IH worked. IH took some steps to protect IP based on public disclosures that we knew Rossi would be making. Provisionals were filed with the belief that reactors had previously worked elsewhere and with the hope they would eventually work in the IH labs. It's funny how much focus there is on that part of the story. Offensive and defensive patent applications are filed all the time and those that don't prove useful melt away in one click.

    AlainCo


    I have looked at the contract but cannot find it at the moment, but I will answer your points as best I can.
    1- the IP transfer appears to be broadly worded to include any derivative inventions of the E-cat, that then would be for the court to decide.
    2- not sure how this works. If IH own the IP they will want to produce units, they will need to contract the production out to someone who is skilled in the area, it might be quite easy to claim this is legitimate use of the IP, unless this particularly hurts Rossi then he may have a case.
    3- If IH asked other 'persons skilled in the art' to substantiate it for them, then perhaps so. If Rossi can show other 'persons skilled in the art' could 'replicate' and 'substantiate' but chose to withhold that information from IH or withhold it from the court with the knowledge of IH, then for sure Rossi will win and IH et al might be in contempt of court.
    4- If IH own the IP I think they can do what they like with it unless there are restrictions in the contract, so that would I think be down to the 'fine print'.


    Best regards
    Frank

    What I don't understand is the Covenant not to compete provision of the licence agreement.


    IH cannot compete against Rossi. How can IH give Rossi's IP to his competition and still not claim not to compete against Rossi?

    Axil


    That will be for the court to decide, but the more expensive the legal representation the better the case that can be made perhaps, Unless there is factual evidence; I think we will have to wait and see on that one.


    Best regards
    Frank

    I have seen the claim that "IH built the Lugano reactor". OK, even if true, the arguments posted by Thomas Clarke and I on the web have shown that while the test may not have been a total failure [test bungled], any excess heat was small, and probably not of commercial value. Meanwhile Rossi is boasting about MW heat outputs and COPs of 50. THAT technology would be of commercial interest and THAT would be the technology important to transfer to IH. It is double-talk and specious for Rossi to claim he transferred THE technology if what he is referring to is the Lugano hotCat technology - sort of like throwing IH a [worthless] bone. Did Rossi transfer the kW/MW eCat technology to the extent that a high COP was measured in IH's lab with Rossi and IH engineers agreeing on the result? This would seem to be a mandatory part of the technology transfer. I think this is the core question to be resolved. Because, if this technology transfer didn't happen, then it makes no difference what Rossi thought he proved in the 350 day test.

    Bob

    Just seen on Rossi blog reader (2 hours ago) 'Hoover' brought to the attention of Rossi "test made by Brillouin in Washington DC: but it is a copy of your Hot Cat"


    Rossi in his reply seems to think this is okay providing it 'stays in the lab'. So if he persists with claiming IH breached the contract sharing IP with his competitors, he may also have to prove the reactor 'came out of the lab' and in some way transferred into real or expected 'competition' that caused harm or potential harm for Rossi.


    I suspect his reply is tempered by legal advice that he may have received. Or it could be that negotiations are on-going in the background. Who knows, there may be a re-union after all.

    Best regards
    Frank

    The 1 MW reactor was a moving target during the 1 year test and was constantly modified. The COP of 50 was not certified until the test was over. How could IH require a COP of 50 before the COP was demonstrated. The agreement was made based on a COP of 6 or more. First things first, Rossi should first be paid and then the next step is for IH to become COP 50 capable. IH is using their 95 million leverage to become high COP capable now. After Rossi is paid, they have no leverage remaining to become a high COP vendor.


    IH should have including wording in the agreement to insure that they were COP 50(or whatever the COP come from the test) capable before payment was made. That is, if they didn't trust in Rossi's honesty and integrity.

    Axil


    But they did, it was worded in a legal way but I think it meant that any new or subsequent inventions or knowledge deriving from the technology was included.


    Dewey


    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Axil - I keep seeing this - what is the basis for the story that IH gave Rossi IP to others?


    This is what Rossi is claiming in his 'complaint' this is what the court will need to consider. If they find it is true, they will then need to consider if it was a breach of contract. For it to be a breach of contract even Rossi seems to be saying it isn't providing it 'stays in the lab'


    Best regards
    Frank

    Frank - is the Brillouin "demo" in DC the basis for Rossi's claim that IH shared his IP with others?


    If yes, that is a disputed "fact" that will be easily dispatched at the appropriate time.


    I've got to hand it to him - the imaginations on Planet Rossi are exceptional.

    I suspect that one factor in the case might be that IH began to think that the subunits of the 1MW plant were not suitable for widespread domestic use; and the industrial customers for megawatts-worth of low-temperature steam were quite limited in number in their territory.


    There just aren't that many high volume dim sum factories ;)



    After the 95M payment, what does Rossi loss if Rossi does not meet the requirement for complete IP transfer? It seems to me...nothing. IH must trust that Rossi will do the right thing.


    -------------------


    Andrea Rossi
    April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM
    Hank Mills:
    They prepared everything, the charges, the body of the reactor EVERYTHING !!!.
    I just teached to them what to do.
    They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp.
    Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has always made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent applications made before their agreement with IH, and you will find confirmation of what I am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I have studied them and probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote about 100 pages of notes about their patents ). And now the singular coincidence: they make the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they made a public demo in Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is the Copy-Cat of something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has ever made before the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Dewey


    You are shooting from the hip a bit here; take a break. See above.


    Axil


    IH will not complete on the payment until Rossi gives the required information, unless of course the court order them to do so which I don't think is likely.


    Quote from axil

    Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence:


    Yes I have seen that, but now I think the goal posts have changed see Hoover's blog to Rossi 2 hours ago.
    Sharing IP appears to be okay providing it does not come 'out of the lab'.


    Best regards
    Frank

    What evidence could Rossi have that Brillouin's experiment had come from IH? There were pictures, substantial descriptions, and analyses of the fuel and ash published publicly (Lugano report). This allowed Parkhomov to create his hotCat-like experiment. It allowed MFMP (Ryan Hunt and his team at HUG) to reproduce the molded ceramic heater tube assembly with the integral heater coil (hotCat copy - actually looked better than the Lugano reactor itself). The Lugano report was released 10/8/2015, and by 10/16/2014 I had made drawings from which MFMP and Ryan Hunt were building a replica. Here is a photo of the replica being tested at Ryan's lab:


    HUG-hotCat replica: https://drive.google.com/file/…hMm1Td2c/view?usp=sharing


    There have been so many people trying to replicate hotCat and Parkhomov technology - it is in almost every lab working on LENR. With all of this public disclosure and public experimentation, what is it that that made Rossi believe that IH gave confidential information to Brillouin? Can he testify to a specific transfer?

    Bob


    Then IH seem to be home and dry, if Rossi cannot 'prove' the IP came from IH. In any case it also appears the technology needs to 'come out of the lab' and cause 'a competition risk' to be a breach of contract.


    Best regards
    Frank


    Rossi has always stated that anyone can replicate his IP in the lab, but they cannot compete against him in the marketplace.


    Rossi must consider that showing a copy of his IP to Congress is a competitive action.

    Quote from frankwtu

    Axil


    Okay, my misunderstanding on that. So what constitutes competition, that's what Rossi will need to prove if he is to win that particular complaint.


    Best regards
    Frank


    I only goes to reason that Brillouin must have patented the system that they demoed to Congress. If they did not, then it is a misrepresentation of their capabilities and IP.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.