Since IH signed away their motion to dismiss grounds, what now for IH?

Quote from Walker

Start date is moot, that is what the clause of extension is for, only that the date from required test commencement to finish of test is within the extended period is relevant.

This is not what the clause in the Agreement is about. It is about a test that has begun already being extended by consent of IH. Now, it's true. If IH agreed to extend the test to, say, March 2016, the start date would be not so relevant. What would that mean? That 350 days of operation would be enough for a test lasting almost three years? I don't think so, so start date is also relevant.

That consent, to be relied upon, would have to be in writing. The Complaint does not allege that this writing exists. What is alleged is the 2nd amendment, which explicitly requires the signature of all parties. It is enough if one copy has the signature of all parties. Does that copy exist? It was not so alleged in the Complaint. And so the defect stands unless it is repaired. This was a mind-boggling defect, and it is simply no surprise that IH attorneys pointed it out.

And it stands no matter how many dance and shout on the internet that IH is Wrong. Rossi, now, needs serious legal help, not fluff on the internet. Anyone want to start a Rossi Defense Fund? He went up against people with, shall we say, ample resources. So if people really believe that Rossi is for real and is being unfairly cheated, to the detriment of the Energy Future of Humanity, how about putting your money where your mouth is?

I think it would be great if Rossi is skillfully and effectively represented. Just because his attorney, so far, appears to be a dolt, doesn't mean that Rossi is wrong, just that he is eccentric and reactive, which makes him a sitting duck. IH massively called his bluff, we could say. In the end, we will all benefit from this, I suspect, however it turns out.

In my view, the field was not ready for venture capital. Basic scientific research was needed and is still needed. That is much less expensive than development efforts, and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured, already, into LENR from that point of view, which has failed. The basic science is solid and needs better exploration of the parameter space, starting with what is known. If that is done privately, it is far less powerful and efficent than it being done publically. We need nonprofit support of the field, from government, from charities and corporate charitable giving, or from the public directly.

However, this sense of "not ready" wasn't so clear because of all the Rossi claims. So it was necessary to address that, and the only way to do it just might have been what IH did. Cooperate with Rossi, throw some money at him. Then see what happens. When we are talking about a trillion dollars a year in lost opportunity cost, $11.5 million is not even pocket change.

Quote from LENR Calender

So Ampernago didn't sign the amendment. Are they upset that the test got moved? Or maybe IH thought the test would never happen because Ampernago didn't sign?

IH didn't seem to have any issue starting the test even though they didn't get Ampernago's signature.

My prediction is that this won't be the "gotcha" that the IH lawyers think it is.

Display More

Rossi is insisting on strict performance, so ... IH insists on strict performance. The fact is that Rossi failed to get the Ampenergo (get the name straight, eh?) signatures on the document. Even though the signature of all parties was required. I have written that Rossi might be able to recover. As seems to be common on Planet Rossi, LENR Calender seems to believe he can read the minds of legal experts. This much I know about lawyers at this level. They don't GAF. They just do their job. They don't think at all like LC imagines. If they did, they would suck in court. Attachment shows, people can read it. Want to see Rossi take a complete nose-dive? Convince him to fire his attorney and represent himself in court. Inventors have done that, the stories are famous. They do not do well.

Ampenergo is an independent company. But Rossi also failed to sign for Lenonardo. It was really sloppy.

IH would not have known that Rossi didn't have the document signed until Rossi filed it with the Complaint. How could they possibly know? It was in Rossi's possession, I assume.

This is not the only defect. Rossi also did not allege a document signed by the parties setting the date for the GPT. That was necessary according to the amendment. This one, IH may have known about. "So he wants to do this stupid test. Okay, let him. If it works and we are satisfied, fine. If not ... we don't have to pay. Look, I've dealt with a hostile opposing party who was ripping my wife off. But they made a mistake in a calculation that effectively refunded some of it. Did I point out that mistake? What do you think? Years later, they figured it out and asked her for the money. But the agreement they had forced on her, threatening to tie up her money for years, provided that it was a final settlement, as stated. No corrections, no more claims, end of story.

So, end of story! Not my job to protect someone who is not dealing fairly.

Quote from frankwtu

ADB

Since you persist in mispelling my name, after two corrections, I will now call you Fankr. Go ahead:

Quote

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
So, end of story! Not my job to protect someone who is not dealing fairly.

Taken out of context. The context was a case where I was supporting my wife against an attempt to rip her off. They made a mistake. I did not point it out, and allowed them to make a "final settlement" based on the error. It still was not yet fair, but better than without that mistake. Fankr then tries to apply this to something quite different. The analogy here was actually that Rossi may have made a mistake and IH did not point it out to him. The mistake would have been not getting written approval of the GPT test date. The signature error was lesser.

Quote

So, by inference it is your job to protect someone who is dealing fairly, would that be IH et al?

My behavior in a narrow circumstance cannot be used to predict general behavior. I do tend to argue for fairness. However, I'm not protecting them here. They are not at risk here. Get that. IH IS NOT AT RISK HERE. Nothing we write here can harm them. Nothing Planet Rossi says here can harm them. My comments are, as always, aimed toward a level, detached, observation of what's happening, to the extent I can manage it. I do also get involved from time to time, like anyone. But my stand and what I return to is detachment.

Quote

Is that a formal arrangement?

I have never spoken to any representative of IH, to my knowledge. I have never been paid to do any work with cold fusion. I have received donations of general support, from time to time, i.e, toward expenses. None of this has been connected to IH in any way. I might end up working with IH in some way, because I am working with the field, but no. I have no arrangement at all with IH, much less a formal one. They have, so far, never contributed to my work. Nor have I ever asked them to do so. It appears that I met Dewey Weaver at ICCF-18. I have no recollection of what we discussed. There has been public discussion here with and some private discussion on a mailing list, but nothing about supporting me or my work, and no agreement from me that I will "defend" them.

They seem to be well represented in court. What do they need me for? My work is with the science, and if they decide to support the science, i.e., public science, we might have something to talk about. So far all their efforts have been with private development, something that I approve of, but not what I see as needed right now. Very risky.

Quote from frankwtu

Don't forget, Rossi et al has his case judged before a jury who will not be expert in contract law, so while they will be influenced by instructions given by the judge, they will make their own decision, there will be a natural bias towheads David and against Goliath.

David and Goliath were not judged by a jury, and the process between them was not mediated by a court. Who has expertise in influencing juries here? I can say how Rossi looks and will look to a general audience. He's not going to look like David. He's going to look like a lunatic. His attorney will keep him out of sight. However, it is quite questionable if this case will get that far. If the Motion is entirely sustained, it is over unless it is sustained without prejudice, in which case it might be refiled with a better complaint.

If the Motion is partially sustained, what may survive would be Count I. The idea that the jury will naturally favor Rossi is Planet Rossi thinking, not sober, not sane, really. If Rossi is skillfully represented, he'd have a chance of winning, but, remember, we have not seen the evidence yet. I do not see Planet Rossi considering the equities.