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

Thomas - I appreciate your comments and commend your ongoing efforts.

The Planet Rossi folks play by their own rules / interpretations but that is their right as well and one of the reasons why Rossi established his own orbit, supporting ecosystem, spin methodology using partial truths, fabrications and deceptions. The guy is a genius in more than one regard.

Things have changed though. He has taken money from and made a commitment to folks who play by the rules and expect accountability. By his own hand, Rossi now has to play by the rule of law. While I may be wrong about this, I predict that will become increasingly burdensome for him.

Darden and the team have put their money, time and resources on the line in an effort to prove LENR works with the goal of putting it to work as a helpful solution for our ailing planet. Looks like one of those deals was not a good one and that is what happens in high risk investing. If Rossi cannot deliver a working reactor then that bad bet will be cleaned up by litigation and that will likely be a multi-year grind.

An interesting several months ahead. Tally-ho!

Sifferkoll - as you may soon figure out, Rossi's machines don't work as advertised these days. IH would be grateful and pleased with 100 watts of fully characterized / verified excess heat at a COP above 3 from an Ecat but Rossi has zero interest in accepting that challenge which is very telling.

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor with him.

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rossi's machines don't work as advertised these days.

But they don't need to work 'as advertised' just as specified in accordance with the contract, and the contract specifies ERV report and COP > 6.

No spin required only facts.

Now, if IH et al challenge the ERV report, they will need an 'expert witness'. The only witness I know of who could fit this bill is Thomas, but I am sure, knowledgeable though he certainly is, he would not claim to be 'expert' for the purposes of challenging 'Penon'. Whoever it is, they will be 'cross examined by 'Rossi's 'expert witness' and the Jury will then have to decide.

All your PR and spin will be of no consequence and indeed is of no consequence.

Best regards
Frank

Good one Frank - I'm really looking forward to your interpretation of the Penon report. We'll be sorting the men from the boys in the not too distant future. The expert battle will also be highly entertaining but I am mainly looking forward to Rossi's deposition.

Dewey

I don't know what your skill area is (if you have one) but if the court does not believe Rossi's invention 'works' and think it is not (potentially) useful, they will rule it 'illusory'. When (and if) they do, the contract will be deemed to be unsafe, the case will be dismissed and everyone will go home. No battle, no side show, and you will be able to sue IH (if you have shares in IH) for fraud, since they may have entered into a contract with you over 'nothing'. Unless of course IH say they thought Rossi's invention worked all along, then you will just loose your investment and your court costs.

If however, the court make no such ruling, then in effect the court will be ruling that indeed the contract has 'substance' and will wish to consider who if anyone is in breach.

You cannot have the plaintiff and defendant fighting in a court of law over a 'fairy tale'. So if you honestly think Rossi's invention is a 'fairy tale', and you believe the court will think so too, the contract will be deemed to be invalid.

However, to make a contract based on 'nothing' might just be considered fraud. Then IH and Rossi will be targets for the Dewey Weavers of the investment world.

Stay tuned, if you can pick up the signal on your planet.

Best regards
Frank

Quote

The only witness I know of who could fit this bill is Thomas, but I am sure, knowledgeable though he certainly is, he would not claim to be 'expert' for the purposes of challenging 'Penon'.

Actually, I think I'm likely more expert than Penon:
(1) My background to date gives me a broader and deeper experience of electrical measurement and theory, and a better math and research basis on which to analyse things like thermography (which neither Penon nor I am experts in, I'd be pretty sure).
(2) Penon made very egregious errors (that I would never make) in his report as published by Rossi. Unless he wrote a better report but allowed Rossi to change it...
(3) Penon is not an obvious expert, and does not have much in the way of qualifications, for the job.

However - I'd be a lousy expert witness for the Court case, they need a well-qualified physicist who has worked with spectrographic thermography (not just noddy point an IR camera at something an hope). Or, for the ERV report, the competences would be general physics + electrical theory + steam thermodynamics + calorimetry + magic

Magic? Good at seeing how things can be not as they seem...

Also some people make better expert witnesses just because of character - I don't think I'd do so well there. Though maybe better than Penon!

Quote

It appears that what you are telling us about Rossi -your "spin", on the case, IH's intent, does not quite match the "bits and pieces" you feed us.

It is pretty simple to me - I may be wrong of course.

IH believe in LENR, bet on Rossi having it knowing there was a risk. They now believe Rossi has not given it to them (when clearly according to the contract - he should have). Not just "he has got something better" but as Dewey says "They'd be happy with even 100W excess power at COP=3".

So IH reckon:
(1) Either they were mislead by all those many independent reports, and Rossi is probably responsible, probably has nothing commercial
Or
(2) Rossi has the real stuff but is deliberately withholding it.

Either way they have strong grounds for disbelieving the ERV test (though I'm not sure they can prove it is false, they can probably prove it does not prove the test's benchmark claims).

Also, being LENR believers, they probably reckon even if Rossi's stuff does not work anywhere near where the tests say it does, maybe he still has something. In that case they want to get the something because they know they can do a much better job of validating and commercialising it than Rossi.The point about patents is you hold them just in case some day they may be useful. You do not have to prove they are useful (and of course most end up having no value at all).

I don't know which of these differing views they reckon is most likely. They don't have to choose. And therefore they will not give up what they think is rightfully theirs (the IP) on the off-chance it might be useful.

Tom

Shane D - Darden was invited to Sweden.
Believe what you choose to believe.

Dewey

So, can you confirm the ERV (Penon) report is now in the court docket? If it isn't, can you confirm IH will be placing it there soon? When?

If it doesn't get into the court docket soon it will not be considered.

Besides what you and I think will not matter, its what the Jury thinks that matters!.

Best regards
Frank

The premise of the contract (License Agreement) was that Rossi/Leonardo is the "sole owner" of all E-Cat IP.

"WHEREAS Leonardo and/or Rossi are the solo owners of the patents, designs, trade secrets,
technology, know-how (including atl the knowledge necessary to produce thermal energy by
means of apparatuses derived from the technology), product and business plans and all other
intellectual property related directly or indirectly to energy production and conversion
technologies and to the development, manufacture and sale of products using such
technologies, including the Energy Catalyzer ("E-Cat") the catalyzer formula used to fuel the
E-Cat the "Hot Cat" and related energy production and conversion technologies (collectively, the "E-Cat IP"), ..."

But that's not the truth.

Have a look at WO 2013008219 A2/EP 2754156 A2 (clearly covers the E-Cat IP) and notice the priority date (July 14, 2011). Check this date with the priority date (March 14, 2012) of Rossi's main patent US 9,115,913 B1 and you will recognize that its enforcement will be difficult or impossible.

The contract could be considered as insubstantial.

The only remaining question is, wether Rossi could knew about this before he signed the contract and had given his warranty (in which case it would be fraud).

12. Representations and Warranties of Leonardo and Rossi
...
(g) "To the knowledge of Leonardo and Rossi, none of the E-Cat IP infringes upon the rights of any other Person nor has the E_Cat IP been infringed upon by any other Person AND THERE IS NO PRIOR ART THAT would ADVERSELY AFFECT the validity, ENFORCEABILITY, term of scope of any Licensed Patent. ..."

P.S.
That's also the reason, why new Rossi/Leonardo products must base on other IP (and need a new brand).

Quote

Have a look at WO 2013008219 A2/EP 2754156 A2 (clearly covers the E-Cat IP) and notice the priority date (July 14, 2011). Check this date with the priority date (March 14, 2012) of Rossi's main patent US 9,115,913 B1 and you will recognize that its enforcement will be difficult or impossible.

Just one point here. None of the E-Cat patents enable someone skilled in the art to make LENR work. If they did the world would be a very different place. IH I expect now will confirm that, but it is pretty obvious... They still might have some indirect value if some other IP actually got the LENR magic going.

In the lawsuit, Rossi asserts that he transferred the technology to IH, that IH based there on successfully and independently replicated the ecat. He shares some details around this. Nothing of this has to be true of course. IH certainly don't agree, according to IH the ecat has never been validated. I can't see the point in assuming a scenario (ecat works but the technology not transferred) that both parties involved agree is not the case

I believe that Darden went to Sweden to speak to the Lugano testers to explain to them how they got erroneous results. I read that Mats Lewan has recently spoken to the Swedish testers and they told him that Darden showed evidence of no heat production. I think Darden had to make this trip to line all of his ducks up in a row before filing his response to the suit. AR will point to Lugano as a validation of the e-cat, but Darden will show otherwise. The only question is will Darden get a written retraction from the testers regarding their results. Apparently the Swedes were confident in their results up to a couple of weeks ago, but now based on what Darden showed them they aren't so sure.

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Good one Frank - I'm really looking forward to your interpretation of the Penon report. We'll be sorting the men from the boys in the not too distant future. The expert battle will also be highly entertaining but I am mainly looking forward to Rossi's deposition.

So, can you confirm the ERV (Penon) report is now in the court docket? If it isn't, can you confirm IH will be placing it there soon? When? If it doesn't get into the court docket soon it will not be considered.

Besides what you and I think will not matter, it’s what the Jury thinks that matters! If the Judge thinks the Jury will have problems, he may ask for expert witnesses, then the fun will start. How about Nathan Lewis?

Quote from Deleo

AR will point to Lugano as a validation of the e-cat, but Darden will show otherwise.

But the Lugano test does not form part of the contract, the ERV report does.

Best regards
Frank

I admit that it's more fun to speculate about technical aspects and possible COP factors, but I think the Rossi/I.H. dispute is a simple contract/patent case and the base of the contract vanished with the patent situation. From I.H.'s POV it is comprehensible that they didn't spent more money for a commercially worthless (not enforceable) IP. No matter if the technology works as claimed or not.

There is nothing against a good preparation ...

But I don't believe, that they will present the Lugano report to a jury and then discuss LENR+ in a court room ...

If they want a simple legal exit, I showed it.

Quote

The only remaining question is, wether Rossi could knew about this before he signed the contract and had given his warranty (in which case it would be fraud).

He could not have known because the patent application was not publically available by the date of license agreement.

Quote from Zuffhaus

In the lawsuit, Rossi asserts that he transferred the technology to IH, that IH based there on successfully and independently replicated the ecat. He shares some details around this. Nothing of this has to be true of course. IH certainly don't agree, according to IH the ecat has never been validated. I can't see the point in assuming a scenario (ecat works but the technology not transferred) that both parties involved agree is not the case

If it's the case that IH never saw evidence of LENR producing excess heat, why on earth did they pay the the first lot of money?

If they thought they did, then changed their minds, will they be countersuing to get their money back?