IH preventing Rossi from publishing ERV, according to Dewey Weaver

    I take no interest in the non-technical issues of LENR such as legal wrangling. Instead, I will remind you of the IBM versus Sperry-Rand-Univac dispute that dragged out for many years regarding the invention of the electronic computer.


    What was really going on in that dispute is that both parties wanted to delay the entry of third party competitors. Therefore the lawyers made a pretense of battling each other so as to create an encumbered technical area.


    If this reminds you of anything, go for it.


    IH became disillusioned about the complexity of the LENR tech that Rossi produced. They realized that Rossi was essential to any technology and market ambitions that IH would field.


    It is like an analogy from history where Pope Julius II getting Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel for him to teach the Pope's court of artists how to paint. When Julius saw what it took, the Pope knew Michelangelo was the only guy who could do the job and all the second rate painters that the Pope hired were not going to come close to what Michelangelo could do.


    Michelangelo knew the Pope wanted to keep him as a slave to the Pope's ambitions and dreams of glory and being a free spirit Michelangelo bolted from the Pope's service.


    Michelangelo has the genius and reputation to do exactly what he wanted to do and would not be constrained to servitude by any possessive patron.

    Scuromeo


    Quote from scuromio

    take no interest in the non-technical issues of LENR such as legal wrangling. Instead, I will remind you of the IBM versus Sperry-Rand-Univac dispute that dragged out for many years regarding the invention of the electronic computer.


    What was really going on in that dispute is that both parties wanted to delay the entry of third party competitors. Therefore the lawyers made a pretense of battling each other so as to create an encumbered technical area.


    If this reminds you of anything, go for it.


    I have to admit, this was one of my earliest thoughts. My logic being that if a court (and in this case a 'Patent court') found the invention works, then both sides would benefit, the court costs being small in comparison to the potential rewards. This may still be the case. Although I do not discount a conspiracy to 'slow down' the introduction of the technology until 'players' are ready.


    Alan


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Unlikely in this case, because of what might be termed 'disparity of firepower'. If this was IH as potential inventors claiming prior art vs another potential inventor claiming the same IP it would be possible. Here we have a (slightly ) more straightforward claim of 'works, doesn't work'.


    Not sure about what you say here, I don't see it as 'black and white' as that. IH et al have not said 'officially' Rossi's invention 'does not work' only that their efforts to 'make it work' have been without success'. (how many replicators are in the same boat) Then comes all the propaganda which we must reject, especially from Dewey et al as this is only opinion whether true or not cannot have any bearing on the case in its present form. The only influence it may have is to 'unsettle' the Rossi camp into reacting in a way that IH et all may be able to capitalise on.


    So Whilst it is 'fun' to use TC's vernacular, we must be careful to sort the wheat from the chaff, and I am afraid most of what we have at the moment is 'chaff' in my opinion.


    Best regards
    Frank


    This is what I wrote, and I stand by it

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Then you misunderstood the answer you were given.


    I respectfully asked you to provide even a shred of evidence to back your claim via USPTO regulations/laws or even a single case showing what you claim....you failed on both accounts. I have spoken to a patent lawyer to confirm my claim...can I at least see your law degree IHFB?

    Dewey


    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Frank - are you inferring that the state court in Florida is a patent court?


    From the court docket
    Entry No11 order Clerks Notice Reassigning Case Wed 4:08 PM CLERKS NOTICE REASSIGNING CASE. Case re-categorized as PATENT case and reassigned to Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga for all further proceedings. Senior Judge James Lawrence King no longer assigned to case (vp)


    Best regards
    Frank

    Dewey



    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Thanks Frank - duly noted.


    I suggest you let IH et al and their lawyers know! Pleased to be of service.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Alan


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Unlikely in this case, because of what might be termed 'disparity of firepower'. If this was IH as potential inventors claiming prior art vs another potential inventor claiming the same IP it would be possible. Here we have a (slightly ) more straightforward claim of 'works, doesn't work'.


    The current 'legal position' in my opinion is Rossi's invention 'does work' assuming the ERV report says so. and there is no 'formal' negative response to Lugano.


    It will be for IH to prove to the court the contrary, if it becomes a 'contention' at the moment there is nothing in the court docket that suggests IH are claiming or have claimed it 'does not work' only they have not been able to make it work, these are totally different concepts. For example, you may go to a shop and buy a lamp, get it home, plug it in and find it does not work. Take the shop/manufacture/inventor to court saying 'look, I cant get this thing you sold me (here is the sales docket - contract) to work'!


    The shop get back to the supplier and inventor who appears in court and says, the customer failed to put as bulb in the lamp, this is covered in the instructions we send out with every lamp. Look here is one that does work (Lugano ERV) so you can see I am right.


    Of course then you have the opportunity to prove the inventor wrong but this will be time consuming and expensive as IH must do. Then the inventor will have the opportunity to challenge your claim giving endless examples of other people who manufacture lamps that need 'bulbs' in order to make them work.


    The upside to this (if it goes that far) is we may all get to know what the 'bulb' in Rossi's 'lamp' is and we will all be able to fit one in our LENR lamps. But then they still may not work!!!!!!!


    Best regards
    Frank

    • Official Post

    The whole IH-Rossi story is completely weird in my eyes. For me, the bizarre behaviour already started at the early contract phase between IH and Rossi.


    We have the following initial situation:


    - IH consits of a very skilled and experienced management staff (at least Darden), working in the energy and environment field since decades and can be expected to be very experienced in doing negotiations.


    - Rossi has a dubious image since years/decades. He's known to be difficult to get on with and has italian temperament. He also was accused for investment scam. A lot very alarming information about Rossi can be found easily in seconds using google. So IH should have known that.


    - The whole idea of cold fusion or LENR is seen at least questionable since decades by scientists too.


    So what I don't understand is: Why were Cherokee/IH so much incautious dealing with Rossi, knowing all the facts above?


    They should have double or tripple checked each single sentense coming out of Rossi's mouth, before paying one single cent. @Dewey Weaver often said that IH has very skilled scientists. So why didn't they use them?


    Why didn't IH make clear that they want a really independent test (not Rossi style), with their own scientists, already during the negotiations?
    Even on a blackbox such a test with proper equipment and skilled scientist could give clear indications whether the inside of the blackbox is worth 10 M$.


    Either Rossi wants the money or he should look for another investor.


    I expected IH is clever enough and has the negotiation skills. But they seem to be very stupid by just trusting Rossi says if all @Dewey Weaver said is true.


    Sorry for that, but something in this story smells like fouling fish!
    Either the guys at IH are naive like kids, or...I don't know...is there another possibility?


    But the behaviour of IH just didn't fit into the picture @Dewey Weaver is painting with his claims.

    Question for Dewey Weaver: What is a "characterized" reactor?


    Dewey, you have often said that IH is on the lookout for a process/device/reactor that it can both characterize and verify. I think we more or less understand what you mean by verify. But could you please enlighten us as to what your or IH means by "characterize"? The term seems fairly ambiguous, and it would be helpful for us to understand IH's (unofficial) position if we had a clearer sense of what you mean by "characterize." Thank you!

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.