Actually it is correct IHFB. The only thing that would happen is the patent would be rejected or revoked...there is not a legal mechanism for the device actually working as stated in the patent.
Actually, not correct. If you KNOW it doesn't work as stated in the application, and file anyway, that is not with meeting your various legal duties with the patent office.
It is out already. It was in the legal papers, and Rossi gave the name and address in his interview with Lewan. It is:
Well, yes we know the name of the "shell" company. What is not known, at least very widely, is whether there is a larger going concern behind the shell company. That is what needs to come out during trial.
Well, yes we know the name of the "shell" company. What is not known, at least very widely, is whether there is a larger going concern behind the shell company.
By "larger concern" do you mean a company that owns this company? It would have be listed in the official records in Florida. As you see, nothing is listed. This is a shell company with only Henry W. Johnson listed as agent. See their annual report.
Johnson is Rossi's lawyer.
It truly blows my mind that those in the Rossi camp do not see the obvious hint of misdoings and shenanigans in the VERY simple fact that Henry Johnson is not only the president of JM Products, but also Rossi's attorney! Below was Rossi's explaination of this completely obvious and absurd conflict of interest and huge piece of evidence of fraud in my opinion. J.M. Products business filing was filed on 06/27/2014, yet this was supposedly already a company that makes metal sponges or is it chemical distribution and the stars aligned that the head of this company coincidentally could use the steam and/or heat from the E-Cat plant AND happened to be in Rossi's attorney's office?? And then on top of it...this mysterious company just goes ahead and makes Rossi's lawyer (and their lawyer supposedly) the president of this company! How incredibly outlandish....how is this not another HUGE red flag for those in the Rossi camp? I honestly am not trying to be confrontational over this, I am just having a hard time understanding how this is not a big deal.
Andrea Rossi April 8, 2016 at 9:54 "I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and appointed President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney. IH knew all this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement with JM Products to make the test in their factory. When IH met with the President of JM in Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also my Attorney. No problem has been raised by IH.Warm Regards,A.R."
By "larger concern" do you mean a company that owns this company? It would have be listed in the official records in Florida. As you see, nothing is listed. This is a shell company with only Henry W. Johnson listed as agent. See their annual report.
Johnson is Rossi's lawyer.
Shell companies are used to hide true ownership, and are often registered by lawyers as company agents. This is bread and butter for lawyers.
Actually, not correct. If you KNOW it doesn't work as stated in the application, and file anyway, that is not with meeting your various legal duties with the patent office.
First of all it would be impossible to determine if an individual was to "KNOW it doesn't work as stated in the application" so on that point it is moot. Next you have a case where a individual was either mislead by an inventor or by their own very work to believe the patent would work...when it does not...and this is very often the case as there are thousands of patents that do not work on file...literally thousands. So again moot point. Then you have the fact that there is no legal mechanism in the patent process for determination of operation of patent art...nor is it the function of the patent process. You are WAY in over your head on this one IHFB. Please provide reference to how this could be so.
First of all it would be impossible to determine if an individual was to "KNOW it doesn't work as stated in the application" so on that point it is moot. Next you have a case where a individual was either mislead by an inventor or by their own very work to believe the patent would work...when it does not...and this is very often the case as there are thousands of patents that do not work on file...literally thousands. So again moot point. Then you have the fact that there is no legal mechanism in the patent process for determination of operation of patent art...nor is it the function of the patent process. You are WAY in over your head on this one IHFB. Please provide reference to how this could be so.
If and when a patent gets litigated, everything comes out. Email trails, testimony, anything a defendant can do to poke holes. And if there is evidence that the inventor or applicants, or their attorney, knew it didn't work, there are consequences.
If and when a patent gets litigated, everything comes out. Email trails, testimony, anything a defendant can do to poke holes. And if there is evidence that the inventor or applicants, or their attorney, knew it didn't work, there are consequences.
You just are not getting it. It is illegal to infringe on a patent, but it is not illegal to file for a patent on a device that does not end up working. You are not understanding the function of the USPTO. Please point me to ANY information to support your claims...USPTO documentation of associated laws you speak of or even a case to support your claim. You are not correct.
You just are not getting it.
I'm afraid you don't get it. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.
It is illegal to infringe on a patent, but it is not illegal to file for a patent on a device that does not end up working.
That isn't my point. So, I think perhaps, you are missing the point.
You are not understanding the function of the USPTO. Please point me to ANY information to support your claims...USPTO documentation of associated laws you speak of or even a case to support your claim. You are not correct.
Just look at the duties owed to the patent office by applicants, inventors, and attorneys. Not too hard to find.
Shell companies are a way of life in this world. See the 'Panama papers'. I would also make a joke on this being Florida, but not everyone knows it. Also I think the point that has been made repeatedly is 'Why did IH agree to this test?' Why wait a year? They should be counter suing the living Florida out of Rossi. There seem to be things going on that both sides do not want public. As much as I don't believe that Rossi has the LENR goods, I can not. I do know his tests are bogus and contrived. But if I was a suitor (and IH certainly was) They both agreed to legal documents on both sides -> Things do not add up.
I will say this, whomever advised convinced IH on signing that document on the year test screwed somebody (also behind a company) for ELEVEN MILLION BIG ONES. And even saying 'you want clean energy for the world' does not pass the smoke test here.
Display MoreI'm afraid you don't get it. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.
That isn't my point. So, I think perhaps, you are missing the point.
Just look at the duties owed to the patent office by applicants, inventors, and attorneys. Not too hard to find.
I was absolutely not missing your point....I was mentioning a situation where there is a legal mechanism within the USPTO, but again you are completely wrong that it is illegal to file a patent for a device that does not end up working as claimed. How do duties owed have anything to do with me asking for proof of your claim of what is illegal. That was a non-answer. I await proof of your claim.
but again you are completely wrong that it is illegal to file a patent for a device that does not end up working as claimed.
But that is not what I stated now, is it?
I thought I read it was the ERV who blocked him rather than AR himself. Is that correct?
I thought that, too. If it was true, it would make a mockery of the ERV's independence. Instead, this is what Mats Lewan tells us:
QuoteIH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance.
So we in the peanut gallery have no specific knowledge at this point that the ERV blocked IH's expert from accessing the customer area. Instead we learn via Rossi that the ERV agreed with Rossi that it wasn't important to know where the water came from and where it was used (i.e., to see the customer area). Even if we have no basis for concluding that the ERV blocked access to IH's expert, we are still left with the absurd situation of IH's expert not being allowed access to the customer area. People can argue about black boxes all they want. The fact is that IH's expert would have been incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer area.
Perhaps Rossi's lawyer advised him that he was not permitted to release the ERV report under the terms of the contract he signed.
I doubt it will be all that enlightening, anyway. It will contain none of the meaty stuff about who did what, when, how, and why.
It will be a load of data points, endless fuel for discussion, but probative of nothing - because the ways in which the data were generated will be the subject of most of the debate.
A proper report would go well beyond a load of data points to include all of the meaty stuff you're referring to.
But that is not what I stated now, is it?
Then what exactly ARE you stating if not that?
I hope that does not happen, because it will free Rossi to defraud someone else. Based on Lewan's interview I gather he is already doing that, in Europe.
Hi Jed. While I have no particular quibble with your sentiments Jed, I would advise you to choose your words a little more carefully while the Rossi/IH motorcade still waits to crash in front of a judge. As you say, you are not a lawyer - but the law is an Ass. It has been known to kick bystanders for what seem to be reasonable statements. Even website publishers.
Quote from IH Fanboy: “Quote from stephenrenzz: “but again you are completely wrong that it is illegal to file a patent for a device that does not end up working as claimed.”
But that is not what I stated now, is it?”
Then what exactly ARE you stating if not that?
It is in the thread above and stated quite clearly.
It is in the thread above and stated quite clearly.
Then why not link to it and stop farting about?
Quote from "theFudWeaver"IH actually had a customer for the 1MW unit lined up in Raleigh
Brilliant FUD! Now we have a REAL fake customer ... Finally!
Eric
So we in the peanut gallery have no specific knowledge at this point that the ERV blocked IH's expert from accessing the customer area. Instead we learn via Rossi that the ERV agreed with Rossi that it wasn't important to know where the water came from and where it was used (i.e., to see the customer area).
Why is it important to know this, surely it is important only to know the quantity, flow rate and temperature in and out? what it is used for is irrelevant, don't you think.
Best regards
Frank
