Quote from "Weaver"Cradle-to-Cradle
Sorry! Thanks for pointing this out. I had no idea that the words "Cradle to Cradle" were trademarked and will of course not use them anymore. I do like to concept though and liked to sound of it when I heard it a year ago. Picture is modified now.
klippan.sifferkoll.se/img/c2c.png
c2cproducts.com/Copyright.aspx
I do not see copyvio there. The name alone, as pointed out, would not be copyvio. While there could be a trademark or service mark violation, that's a stretch in this case. Sifferkoll, by the way, is apparently known. His last name is shown on the cyclist. The last letter is L. Mats Lewan writes about him by name. His blog is low information density, high implications and imprecations. But at least he's open.
Sifferkoll - thank you very much for noting that and for the correction. You take pride in your trademark and copyright and I'm pleased to see that you honor the trademarks and copyrights of others. If possible, I would like to get some clarification on where "Fred Voepfl" is posting.
Walker continues to drone away....proof needed of one side but not of the other.
Walker - Not going to post the ERV just yet. We have some additional information to extract first.
You should pay close attention to the validation and GPT terms though - that will give you a head-start on the others.
Display MoreHi all
If as claimed Dewey Weaver has a report giving proof that the plant did not full-fill the requirements of the test then all he has to do is post it up.
So far he has not done this.
Kind Regards walker
This is complete fluff, all too common on these fora. Dewey Weaver, first of all, is not a "representative" of IH. He's an investor in it. He apparently has some access to confidential information. Whether he reveals confidential information is between him and IH, but he cannot be expected to release reports even if he has copies, and he might not. Nevertheless he does have inside information. For lots of reasons, he cannot publish it. We could make the same kinds of stupid questions about, say, Andrea Rossi. If he claims the ERV report was positive, why doesn't he publish it? In fact, Rossi has a commitment under the agreement to keep the IP confidential. IH has no such commitment, apparently, but this is an issue under litigation, Rossi is claiming improper treatment of his IP. If IH were to go ahead and release it, while the matter is before the Court .... well, I expect that the lawyers would say Don't Do That!
Most of the time, I don't read the fora, because the information density is low, because of crap like this. I've been active here the past few days because, well, the planets aligned and I'm doing what I've long done, react to what is in front of me. That's not the best of my life, for sure. On the other hand, I learn things when I do it that later turn out to be valuable. Sometimes. In the end, we do what we do and then we die.
Oh, he lives in the ECN (troll) Dungeon 
Walker continues to drone away....proof needed of one side but not of the other.
The concept of Planet Rossi can be useful. Since Planet Rossi is not a person, Planet Rossi is not responsible for anything like consistency or even-handedness. Meanwhile I'm reminded of the trolls who will quote a long post, following it with tl;dr. And then others object to the waste of information space, quoting it all. The old story of the monks: three monks had a vow of silence, but, eating breakfast, one says, "this cereal is fantastic!" The second one says "we have a vow of silence!" The third says, "I am the only one who has not broken the vow!"
QuoteWalker - Not going to post the ERV just yet. We have some additional information to extract first.
You should pay close attention to the validation and GPT terms though - that will give you a head-start on the others.
This was the occasion of my response. Yes. Studying the terms in the Agreement is quite likely to create a stronger understanding of what's coming, when it arrives. Most of Planet Rossi -- and many others -- do not bother to become familiar with, for example, the terms of the Agreement, the details of the Complaint, and the Motion to Dismiss, but are quite ready to express strong opinions. That's what happens on these fora and blog comments. That's why the scientists mostly stay away.
Walker wrote:
I think it FAR more likely that a licensee is not paying a licensor because the contract was not fulfilled.
I don't know how one would assess "likely." And "likely" is irrelevant, because the details of a case matter. It could be totally unlikely, the only time that it's ever happened, but ... if it happened, it happened. The issue will be whether or not there was fraudulent representation, and my sense of the general conditions of the case is that it is highly unlikely that detrimental reliance on Cherokee's assets reasonably arose for Rossi. And even so, it would not be Cherokee on the hook unless it were shown that Cherokee, the company, was involved. Cherokee, the company, did not invest in IH, apparently. Two of its officers did. If these distinctions are not maintained, much U.S. business descends into chaos. Those officers, it would come as no surprise, could easily be seen, by virtue of their known positions, to have access to major investment, if needed. Proving fraudulent representation here would be extremely difficult.
But not necessarily impossible, so the possibility of Rossi's claim surviving the Motion to Dismiss on this count might exist. Even if it's terribly difficult to prove. I don't see that adequate fact was alleged, and the asserted record in the Complaint shows that the Agreement was with IH, not with Rossi, and Rossi's sputterings about what he thought, four years later, are not nearly enough. That all makes him look like a poor, clueless idiot. This can be a hard lesson: if it's not in writing, perhaps it doesn't exist. So unless the plaintiff's response to the Motion to Dismiss fixes the problem, the lawsuit might still be going down in flames.
Rossi did not understand that, for the major investment to go forward, he had to actually convince IH that the IP was adequate and the plant was working satisfactorily, no matter what the Agreement said, no matter what the ERV wrote. So suppose IH made a bad agreement. Therefore Cherokee should pay for it? Why? Just because two principals in IH were officers of Cherokee? Just because they may have assured Rossi, that, if needed, they could raise the $89 million from or in association with Cherokee?
Hardly. If Rossi believed he could get away with this, he was crazy. But we already suspect that. Notice: this analysis does not reject the ERV. It doesn't claim that Rossi was a fraud. It's looking at normal business practices, even though many people don't understand business, this is not unethical, what is being suggested here. It's reality.
Quote from "Weaver""A certified 1MW of output power for 24 hours with a COP of 4+ would be worth more than $89M and yes,that could be raised from the existing network on relatively short notice. I don't expect you to be able to grasp or understand that. I also don't want to come across as anything other than confident in my convictions and our capabilities."
I very much doubt that IH could raise $89M on short notice for a technology where they do not own/control the IP. This whole saga sort of proves that point ... Even though IH has the COP~11 IP, as they state in the patent appl., an investor would be curious to know more about the COP~50 tech, and the quarkX before opening the wallet.
Walker, your badgering of Dewey Weaver for information he has said he cannot provide on several occasions does not win people to your views or garner sympathy. It looks instead like you're intentionally harassing him. There's a word that has been coined to express this general behavior on Internet forums. Since you seem sincere, I'm sure this is not your intention.
Sifferkoll - glad to see you back here posting. More than investors are curious about Rossi's claims. There are investigators involved now thanks to all the racket that Rossi raised with his PR war. You guys poked the dragon - might be a larger than expected price to pay.
Walker - I know a way that we can make some interim progress. Please ask Rossi how much pressure he designed the individual reactors in the 1MW unit to withstand then check back with me.
Abd - please understand that the IH risk profile is not potential fit for Cherokee investment. Cherokee investment funds are mainly for brownfield to greenfield investments. Darden does have a stable of investors developed for his various interest. He has never had an issue raising funds when needed / justified.
Hi all
In reply to Dewey Weaver on his post
... Please ask Rossi how much pressure he designed the individual reactors in the 1MW unit to withstand then check back with me.
I will let you ask him. With your claimed links to IH you must have had contact with him.
Kind Regards walker
Walker - I'll give you a helper question. Do you think that Rossi's design for the individual reactors in the 1MW unit could withstand 2 Psi of internal pressure?
You bring up a lot of "red flags"/gotchas (temperature values, removal of steam traps, instrumentation).
I don't think any of this really proves the test failed, but I understand that they raise a lot of doubt. Most likely you are looking at the test assuming it is a failure and looking for any piece of evidence that validates your doubt.
If somehow IH had built a trust relationship with Rossi, it would have been easy to clarify all the red flags you are mentioning above, a long time before the end of the test.
When did the relationship between Rossi and IH break down? Or did Rossi and IH just never work together?
While IH could be in the right in this whole story, it appears to me that somewhere in that e-cat story they failed. It could be in the way you managed or communicated with Rossi, or maybe you were too passive/hands off? I'm sure you could have done better at some point. Sure you took a $10 million risk, but now you are on the line for $89 million and maybe even more (I know you think you will win, but who knows?)... Notwithstanding the costs and opportunity loss of having to work on this lawsuit.
Are the IH officers looking back at their own actions and learning from this failure?
"Weaver" wrote:
I very much doubt that IH could raise $89M on short notice for a technology where they do not own/control the IP. This whole saga sort of proves that point ... Even though IH has the COP~11 IP, as they state in the patent appl., an investor would be curious to know more about the COP~50 tech, and the quarkX before opening the wallet.
Torkel seems to completely miss something. The "existing network" is not just Cherokee, a $2.2 billion corporation, but those who invest in projects sponsored in some way by Cherokee, it's a network of investors, and Cherokee routinely leverages that network, which is substantially larger than Cherokee. We don't need to depend on Weaver's statements. It's obvious.
Yes, with the lawsuit and Rossi's behavior, right now, they would have trouble raising a nickel to pay to Rossi. Weaver is not a spokesperson for IH, but an investor in it. He identifies with IH, as such, so he writes "we" that way.
However, the Agreement provided that, yes, they "owned" the IP, that is, had a full right to it, and they owned a license for a large chunk of the planet, and the Agreement included disclosure to them of any future improvements. Read section 13.4 of the Agreement. Seems clear to me. However, if Rossi did not provideimproved IP to IH, then he was in violation of the Agreement. If IH had a genuine Guaranteed Performance Test -- which means fully satisfactory, able to convince neutral and cautious investors, and not only a formal one where one expert might be convinced, and if the IP had been disclosed such that the plant could be (or better, was) constructed by IH without Rossi's personal intervention, but only intervention through documents, then, yes. IH could easily have raised the $89 million. From that point, Rossi's continued cooperation would not be necessary. He was contractually prohibited from competing with IH in the IH license territory, and that Agreement would have Rossi tied up in court for years if he tried to violate the Agreement.
Torkel's position essentially requires that Rossi be in violation of the Agreement. This is Planet Rossi, where everything Rossi does is perfectly justified and proper and of course he didn't disclose the QuarkX IP to IH, why should he disclose it to a bunch of crooks? And since, if the technology really worked and the ERV was positive, and since it makes no business sense to spit in the face of an inventor of such a breakthrough technology, IH must have another motivation, which is what I see in Torkel's writings, a conspiracy to suppress cold fusion. The evil bastards!
And Rossi, being too busy doing the Inventor Thing, was too busy to consult an attorney when dealing with IH. After all, Darden has a nice face and access to $2.2 billion, so who needs an attorney anyway? On Planet Rossi, attorneys are all greedy bastards, anyway. How could any decent human being be so evil? To deprive this genius of the ability to give enormous sums to children with cancer, personally chosen?
None of this means that the Rossi Effect is not real, nor does it mean that Rossi committed fraud. It simply means that Rossi created an appearance of all this, by many actions over the years.
The chickens come home to roost.
