Alain seems to agree with the idea that IH is doing this to save Rossi from his own incompetence. I'd like to have a much more clearer picture of that line of thought, because insisting on a fake patent (assuming that IH honestly thinks E-cat does not work) AFAIK is punishable by law.
The patent attorney has corrected a few mistakes which he had made when he had filed the original application in 2014.
No big deal.
And that says nothing about IH's current valuation of E-Cat IP.
Hi Tom.
Just to get this straight.
It's normal to pay a patent attorney to write an amendment to a patent when you actually think this patent is not worth the paper its written on and/or don't believe in the technology and its inventor?
Display MoreHi all
Simple question: Why is Industrial Heat claiming Andrea Rossi as their inventor?
Another question: Why is Industrial Heat claiming Rossi's technology works?
And another question: Why is Industrial Heat still claiming Rossi's intellectual…
Hi Tom.
Just to get this straight.
It's normal to pay a patent attorney to write an amendment to a patent when you actually think this patent is not worth the paper its written on and/or don't believe in the technology and its inventor?
Monty - check out the TWO posts at different times on the other thread where I have answered this exact question (in detail) - also Eric Walker's suggestion.
most recent Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test
I think it safe to assume that Rossi asserts for the sake of the dispute, rightly or wrongly, that the invention covered by the patent application is valuable and protectable. IH can't simply drop the application because since the application has become public Rossi can't re-file. The invention will become part of the public domain if IH does not pursue the application. So any maintained interest by IH can very well just be a sign of risk mitigration. There can be other tactical reasons too that doesn't reflect a maintained belief in the technology.
It's normal to pay a patent attorney to write an amendment to a patent when you actually think this patent is not worth the paper its written on and/or don't believe in the technology and its inventor?
That the patent attorney had corrected his own mistakes, has to be deduced by the remarks in the amendment:
"... No new matter is added by the amendments."
I would assume that he proceeds in this way without explicit commission and at his own expense.
The main mistake of this application was not corrected:
For example in the US Patent-Law, (it is the same at WIPO and EPO) 35 U.S. Code § 112 - Specification
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The patent attorney once more failed to specify the exact composition of the ingredients of the fuel, to enable any person skilled in the art to replicate the invention, so the disclosure is inadequate for every patent-office on this planet.
The patent attorney once more failed to specify the exact composition of the ingredients of the fuel, to enable any person skilled in the art to replicate the invention, so the disclosure is inadequate for every patent-office on this planet.
It seems that we do not get any big news from this minor application update. i want to emphasize that it is still application and I would bet that E-Cat applications will not get updated with fuel details until just last minute before 'owner' of the technology is ready for competitive mass production. - who ever it is.
Walker - there is no Chinese deal. You are believing one of the many Rossi / Sifferkoll fabrications. IH investors are big boys and happen to be quite pleased with their investment at this stage of the process. There is a fly in the ointment but that will soon be cured.
As I've understood, Chinese 200Mn$ investment is in a general purpose Technology Park, not only Darden, not only LENR...
As I understand from various interaction, failure of one technology is only one of the possible problems of LENr commercialization.
You can have problems of engineering, problem of marketing, problem of scaling , problem of funding, problems of team building, problem of technology ecosystem management, problem of regulation, of political or social acceptance, of environmental concerns, of competition (not so awful infact, market is huger than anyone mouth), ...
Really investing in LENR is risky, like sending 3 boat to west indies starting from Portugal.
It can payback, or not.
Different groups Walker.
