IH preventing Rossi from publishing ERV, according to Dewey Weaver


  • In theory you might be right (although I think you have to add pressure to your list). But in practice it would be important too see the customer side to make sure there was no trickery or invalid measurements.


    I think it is strange to defend a set-up where IH's is supposed to pay 89 million without being allowed to see the customer side.


  • No need to defend anyone. IH contractually agreed to those conditions. I suppose they are big boys and knew what they were doing.


    To me it sound like franktwu defend the idea that IH's expert was not allowed to see the customer side. And I still think that is a strange thing to defend.

  • I think it is strange to defend a set-up where IH's is supposed to pay 89 million without being allowed to see the customer side.


    What would have been important is to ensure both Rossi and IH were never in a position to interfere with the customers stuff. It would therefore only be necessary for the ERV to know and have access as he would be the only one that could be 'trusted' contractually.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Patent basics


    Extract from USPTO


    The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.


    http://www.uspto.gov/patents-g…cerning-patents#heading-5


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Alan


    I agree, but this is what the 'patent' court in Florida will be using as a 'test' if the patents, IP, or the ERV report are challenged. But of course they may not be challenged by IH et al since that would be 'expensive'; who knows.


    Maybe one of Rossi's reactors could be used as a door stop. Rossi is home and dry then.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Quote from DNI: “I think it is strange to defend a set-up where IH's is supposed to pay 89 million without being allowed to see the customer side.”


    What would have been important is to ensure both Rossi and IH were never in a position to interfere…


    No matter what's in the contract (wich don't mention the customer). If Rossi have good intentions in his cooperation with IH he would have arranged for IH to see the customer side. For me this is so obvious I have a hard time taking someone arguing against it seriously.

  • What would have been important is to ensure both Rossi and IH were never in a position to interfere with the customers stuff. It would therefore only be necessary for the ERV to know and have access as he would be the only one that could be 'trusted' contractually.


    We can be reasonably sure that Rossi had access to the customer side.

  • To me it sound like franktwu defend the idea that IH's expert was not allowed to see the customer side. And I still think that is a strange thing to defend.


    I've stated before that the "fake" customer is Rossi's weakest point at this time. But what is more strange to me is that IH apparently agreed not to look at the customer side. That is very strange.

  • As far as the identity or purpose of the "customer" is concerned, all that should matter is an accurate measurement of the input water and output steam with verification of whether it was wet or dry steam.


    Shouldn't matter if there was nothing in the secret room, a heater, a factory, Dewey Weaver steam cleaning his money. Or does it?

  • As far as the identity or purpose of the "customer" is concerned, all that should matter is an accurate measurement of the input water and output steam with verification of whether it was wet or dry steam.


    Shouldn't matter if there was nothing in the secret room, a heater, a factory, Dewey Weaver steam cleaning his money. Or does it?


    I think it does matter because it would provide corroboration, or not. If the "fake" customer turns out to be real, and they come out and say we saved a bunch of money on our endothermic chemical process, then that would matter and would provide another piece of the larger puzzle. If, on the other hand, there is no larger going concern behind the shell company, then Rossi looks less credible. It is an accumulation of evidence that will matter in the end--not one single report, not one single witness' testimony, etc.

  • As far as the identity or purpose of the "customer" is concerned, all that should matter is an accurate measurement of the input water and output steam with verification of whether it was wet or dry steam.


    Shouldn't matter if there was nothing in the…


    I agree. But since Rossi don't have a history of accurate measurements. A real customer might have been important.


    And the fact that it could be possible to prove performance without visiting the customer doesn't make it reasonable that IH wasn't allowed. They where to pay 89 million. Why on earth would Rossi not arrange this if the customer was real. It doesn't make sense to me.

  • Quote from DNI: “Why on earth would Rossi not arrange this if the customer was real. It doesn't make sense to me.…


    (1) As I understand it, there may have been an agreement with the customer not to allow access


    (2) It doesn't matter whether or not there is a real customer if the ERV report is accurate


    While not allowing IH to visit the customer site is a "red flag", as many have pointed out IH's behavior also includes many "red flags" . So, we wait for the ERV report.

  • (1) As I understand it, there may have been an agreement with the customer not to allow access


    (2) It doesn't matter whether or not there is a real customer if the ERV report is accurate


    While not allowing IH to visit the customer site is a "red flag", as many have pointed out IH's behavior also includes many "red flags" . So, we wait for the ERV report.


    (1) Well it doesn't make sense to me too have a customer that wouldn't let IH access.


    (2) As I written before this is correct if the ERV report is accurate and indisputable. But even if this is the cases it still doesn't make sense to me not to give IH access.


    I agree we have to wait for more info.

  • 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.

    So I file a bogus patent. How does it get litigated? Think, IHFB. If I attempt to assert the patent that doesn't work against someone, when I knew the patent didn't work, I'm injuring them, perhaps. Or If I use a bogus patent to raise money, there can be a problem. Again, this would be misrepresentation of the significance of the patent to an investor, say. But simply that there is something wrong with the patent -- and even if I knew it -- no. What I'm seeing are vague allegations abased on unclear thinking. Instead doing some actual research, IHFB is asking others to do it. I call that lazy.


    However, IHFB's laziness does not have to excuse mine.


    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009…arks-and-patents/id=1495/ Look at the title. The penalty for fraud in an application? The patent can be invalid.


    Quote

    If the obligation of honesty and fair dealing is breached then any patent that issues would be unenforceable due to what the law calls inequitable conduct. What this means is that there would be no exclusive rights and no ability to prevent others from infringing because it would be as if no patent ever existed.

    This is what we are saying. Yes, there is a duty, but the only penalty for lack of performance on the duty is that the patent might not be enforceable. It is not "illegal."


    When I saw the Rossi claims in his Complaint, this is what I saw immediately. Rossi was not harmed by the issuance of those patents. If they were improper, they would be unenforceable. That's all.

  • I've stated before that the "fake" customer is Rossi's weakest point at this time. But what is more strange to me is that IH apparently agreed not to look at the customer side. That is very strange.

    How do you know that they "agreed." My general hypothesis has become that the whole affair had become a farce, and that IH basically decided that if they were not satisfied, they would not pay the $89 million. Let Rossi sue them if he dares. I don't find this difficult to understand! So what were they going to do, break into the customer side? Sue for access?


    What they did was efficient (by that time). I would guess that they objected, but Rossi said no, so, they bided their time. Time was on their side. Nice place to be, actually.

  • stephenrenzz wrote:
    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?

    It is, close enough. I observed this when I first started engaging in on-line "conferencing,' It was called. (W.E.L.L., 1980s). Even though there was a complete record of the full "conversation," people behaved as if it did not exist. Mostly, they would not look back, trusting their own memories. Arguments would arise over what was said. I found that if I looked back and reported what actually had been said, I was treated as an enemy by one side of an argument. But it was open and shut. What had been said was what had been said.


    I did substantial work with recording discussions and transcribing them, and I knew, from that, that my own memories were not to be trusted. Rarely do we clearly remember what actually happened, but we remember what we made it mean. And this applies to our own comments, we may not remember what we actually wrote, but often some variety of "I was right." And then we fill in the details, trusting ourselves where we might actually be quite unreliable. This can be true for all of us, though, I'm sure, some have better memories than others.


    So when I saw this question, I thought, well, what did he actually say? This appears to be it:

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    The invention disclosed in a patent may be a complete fantasy or deliberate fraud. It is not illegal.


    This is not correct.

    A response came back that what I wrote was correct, and IHFM argued strenuously against this. I had said that the action was not illegal, and IHFM wrote "that is not correct," and with such a simple statement, that is equivalent to saying "It is illegal." And it is not. It can invalidate the patent, but isn't that obvious? Is it illegal to file an invalid patent? People do it all the time. No, it is not. Natural consequences only you waste your own money, if your goal was to create an enforceable patent. But if your goal was to confuse competition, say, not a problem.