Legally, not clear. That is a matter that must be determined in court, as IH has legally moved to have Rossi's claims dismissed and the contract recognized as valid yet unfulfilled by Rossi.
You post a lot of these types of comments that really don't contribute much to the community's understanding. They are baiting comments, in the guise of questions but clearly designed to be statements that will generate much of the divisive debate that has swamped these boards.
Can we all just stop playing armchair lawyer, wait for the issue to be settled in court, and move on to other conversations that might be useful?
Beautifully stated Guest! This is Walker's specialty.
Legally, not clear. That is a matter that must be determined in court, as IH has legally moved to have Rossi's claims dismissed and the contract recognized as valid yet unfulfilled by Rossi.
You post a lot of these types of comments that really don't contribute much to the community's understanding. They are baiting comments, in the guise of questions but clearly designed to be statements that will generate much of the divisive debate that has swamped these boards.
Can we all just stop playing armchair lawyer, wait for the issue to be settled in court, and move on to other conversations that might be useful?
IH have predicted that IH would sue Rossi for IP rights in another case initiated by IH independent of the Rossi suit. I beleive that in Rossi's case, the IP can be deemed as non functional and in the IH case, the IP can be deemed as valuable. The IH case would also be a means to starve Rossi as I have produced in other posts.
This situation is a valuable learning tool for the understanding of legal methods from the top legal minds on the planet.
Legally, not clear. That is a matter that must be determined in court, as IH has legally moved to have Rossi's claims dismissed and the contract recognized as valid yet unfulfilled by Rossi.
You post a lot of these types of comments that really don't contribute much to the community's understanding. They are baiting comments, in the guise of questions but clearly designed to be statements that will generate much of the divisive debate that has swamped these boards.
Can we all just stop playing armchair lawyer, wait for the issue to be settled in court, and move on to other conversations that might be useful?
Hi all
In reply to er... someone... err I do not know who, the guest ID could be anyone one minute and some one else another minute... So if your not the same guest who wrote this post, not my fault.
I will be honest I prefer to speak to those who do not post from behind a mask. 
But in answer to your points I will take each in turn:
Point 1 where you state:
Quote"Legally, not clear. That is a matter that must be determined in court, as IH has legally moved to have Rossi's claims dismissed and the contract recognized as valid yet unfulfilled by Rossi."
I agree the question of whether IH allowed their-E-Cat License to lapse by inaction? Is one that should be decided in court hence Rossi started the court case so Rossi also agrees with you. See you are a Rossi fan! 
It seems IH do not apparently agree and want the case to go away and sit like a child with their eyes closed thinking that thus their obligations under the contract will disappear. Sorry but they are in black and white and the judge can read. And Darden signed away the grounds of their motion to dismiss in the addendum under section 5 of the contract, sorry no backsies.
Point 2 where you state:
Quote"You post a lot of these types of comments that really don't contribute much to the community's understanding. They are baiting comments, in the guise of questions but clearly designed to be statements that will generate much of the divisive debate that has swamped these boards."
Yes I post questions, because if you understood how a forum works and the purpose of it, since it was invented by the Greeks over 2000 years ago, you would know that a question and its answers are the very root of the forum.
The formulation of a statement as a question is a formal method of debate used to ensure that reader recognises that this a DEBATING FORUM for the discussion of subjects. The Question encourages debate and is not proscriptive. It does so by dividing the subject and so is inherently divisive. It is Dialectic in nature.
A person sets the question of the thread and from it springs the Thesis which is challenged by the Antithesis which debate the subject, leading to the Synthesis where the members of the forum after listening to the debate come to their own opinion of the subject and thus the thread of debate and the forum full fill their role in society.
Point 3 where you state:
Quote"Can we all just stop playing armchair lawyer, wait for the issue to be settled in court, and move on to other conversations that might be useful?"
No.
It is a multi-threaded forum, people like me, as programmers, designed it that way to allow multiple threads on many subjects to be considered at once, by a range of people. So your claim of
Quote...move on to other conversations that might be useful
is simply answered by the fact that as many subjects as can be discussed are allowed inherently in a forum and if you do not want to read a subject, then ignore it and move on. What you consider useful or useless, is your opinion and you are entitled to it but don't go expecting to silence everyone else, because you do not like what they say. So once again No.
Will the case be settled in Court? Yes, eventually; in the mean time Rossi will go on with manufacturing and selling E-Cats in the US and the other former IH license regions, as he has stated and IH cannot prevent him. To do so they have to admit his work is of value and that they will loose out if he does, and by doing so they admit that they owe him the $89 million and tried to prevent the contract from succeeding; where upon we get into a whole other scale of a mess of worms for IH.
While the court cases continue for decades to come and Darden and Vaughn gain more grey hairs and wrinkles wondering in and out of courts; we can sit in the back row, throwing peanuts and couch seat quarterbacking, all we want. 
Hey look FREE CIRCUS!
Debate is what drives a forum, what brings in the customers and gets the page impressions for those adverts that pay Alain for this forum, look at what happened at the E-Catnews site where Cude, Mary Yugo and their ilk destroyed debate, as a result it no longer exists. That is their Modus Operandi.
Kind Regards walker
Dearest Walker - you seem to have had an excess anxiety epitoad. You need to get hold of yourself boy.
You're a mess. Stuff like "In plane English for the illiterate you can only have one, so choose" just makes you look and sound like, I don't know, say.......ROSSI !!!!!!
Now let's regroup, back up, take a deep breath and think about this a little bit. You seem to have forgotten about the possibility that Rossi did not TRANSFER HIS IP TO IH....
And one more thing. IH PAID 10 MILLION DOLLARS for Rossi IP. PAID UP. IN THE BANK. DONE. but one minor problem. GOT NOTHING BUT THE ROSSI RUNAROUND IN RETURN. Now that little detail is going to have to be addressed one way or the other. That is the choice that you have in mind. So Rossi gets to choose, not IH.
Now don't bring that mess round here any more until you get yo'self settled down and thinking in a twisted worm kind of way about your next propagandized topic....... because you cannot handle the truth.
The comments by Walker here display a total ignorance of the Agreement between IH and Rossi, provisions and conditions are being invented that are not part of that Agreement. There is no time limit set in the Agreement for performance on manufacture. The Agreement granted a license to IH, immediately upon the payment of $10 million, that does not expire until applicable patents expire, or for other IP, that does not expire at all. So from the date of payment of the $10 million, IH was the licensee (for the territory). It cannot be revoked by unilateral declaration of Rossi. My opinion is that it cannot be revoked for nonpayment of the $89 million; that is an unsecured debt. No provision was made in the agreement for the loss of the IP by IH for nonperformance. They paid for it, they got it, they own it. Further, Rossi has not refunded the $10 million.
(It might not seem fair about the $89 million, but if IH is making money with the IP, they will be good for the money. However, it doesn't look like this is going to happen, unless Rossi pulls a rabbit out of the hat. Quark-X maybe. And then IH would make money by going after Rossi for violation of the Agreement.
There is not the slightest indication in the Agreement that it could lapse for lack of IH action.
The claim is made that, somehow, ownership depends on freedom from intellectual contradiction. I.e., they can't claim it is worthless and that they own it. Only on the internet would someone make a claim like this.
They certainly can. I can own something that is worthless. Whether or not I will spend money to maintain it, that's another issue.
The basic situation has not been understood. IH is not claiming that the IP is worthless. They are claiming that Rossi did not transfer it to them -- or that it is worthless. What they really know (according to what is being claimed by IH) is that they could not get the devices to work.
Further, the new device (Quark-X)appears to me to be similar enough to a Hot Cat to be an extension of the "E-Cat IP," so Rossi is obligated, by the agreement, to disclose that to IH, and a license to it is included in the Agreement.
Walker claimed that IH had failed to "put forward a proper defense of their license."
They have years to defend the license. Rossi's noises are meaningless.
I'm not a lawyer, so I won't say how many, but .... years!
As to the Complaint, the ball is at this point in Rossi's court. A response to the Motion to Dismiss is due Monday, June 20, two days. If Rossi has not filed a response by then, I don't know the specific procedure, but that could be it. Case thrown out, Agreement stands. $89 million might still be due,a dismissal would not necessarily be resolving that issue.
My position has become that IH would be crazy to pay the $89 million if they have not been able to make working devices, as they claim, no matter what happened in the Guaranteed Performance Test. If necessary, I assume that the claim would be substantiated in court though testimony under oath. It is up to IH if they want to go after Rossi for fraud.
However, if Rossi starts selling working devices in the U.S., IH would then have a reason to spend money suing Rossi for specific performance. That might arise if he sells devices elsewhere.
It's IH's $10 million, and that bought them some flexibility here. For the future, Rossi might consider consulting lawyers before signing a $100 million contract. IH knew what they were doing, they knew that the real risk was of the $10 million (plus the $1.5 million for the 1 MW plant), not $100.5 million. If Rossi delivered on the IP, it would be worth $100 million or more. Maybe a lot more. On the other side, Rossi seems to think that he can snap his fingers, and cancel a license thatIH paid $10 million for, and at the same time demand $89 million for that same license. Talk about having his cake and eating it too....
It's not going to fly.
Brilliantly stated Abd and absolutely spot on!
Thank you!
I've just read Peter Gluck's Rossi apocalypse blog post along with the cut and paste comment that appears to be from JNOP. Peter needs a new term: Rossiapocollapse. Rossi has thrown Mats off or under the bus and it's looking like more sad endings ahead for the remnants who have bet their page views on Rossi.
Dear Weaver,
Thanks for writing about my apocalypse editorial.
Nothing copy-paste it is a direct message of Rossi
who thinks the apocalypse is coming for IH, and
I have to agree with this - strategic blunders are very costly.
Peter
Walker
Looks like the D'eaver and his pals are having a bit of a tantrum after your post! must have hit a nerve.
Best regards
Frank
Dear Dewey,
Because it is a proper moment for a serious discussion with you, I will ask you- actually what do you want, what is your aim? What I see is that you are shooting from all positions, with all your mental munitions in anything Rossi or pro-Rossi- why? What do you hope? Everybody wil hate Rossi and adore IH?
The masses will revolt and demonstrate before the Court when the Trial takes place"IH right, Rossi wrong"
For three long years including one year of Test Rossi and IH were partners (angels are not allowed to do busineess with devils!"
Ok, if you have time and literary talent to waste- but please let us know- WHAT DO YOU WISH< DE FACTO?
I see you are two cclasses better than Jed in disputes, I admire your spontaneity reaction speed- but your strategy is a puzzle
You do not seem a simple sadistic bully enjoying scandal a soccere team supporter.
PLEASE EXPLAIN, I AM TRYING TO LEARN and cannot do all the stupid things by myself.
Grateful in advance,
Peter
Peter
When the D'eaver uses arguments like:
Dearest Walker - you seem to have had an excess anxiety epitoad. You need to get hold of yourself boy.
You're a mess.
clearly an 'ad hom' which indicates, to me anyway, that he feels his arguments may lack 'objective persuasion' so much so that much of what we hear is what might be described as 'psychological warfare', Why? not sure either, maybe its part of a 'Pons Fleishmann' type discreditation campaign, where contributors see this rhetoric here and decide either to go elsewhere or dissolve into the background in fear of the reputation trap.
Best regards
Frank
Peter - thank you for the opportunity to engage. I will do so with the understanding that you will not publish our exchange on your blog.
Deal?
- Dewey
Little Frankiewtu - Walker is a lead-off bomb thrower and you continue to demonstrate why you should be sitting on the bench. Or maybe you're the waterdog.....I mean boy. Do they have farm leagues on P.R.?
Whatever the problem, the bench is getting thin on Team Rossi for all the right reasons.
@ the D'eaver
I know something you don't!!!
This is Playground stuff Dewey, you are in the wrong place.
Get your Mom to read item 18 in the court docket to you, RESPONSE in Opposition re17 MOTION TO DISMISS1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Replies due by 6/27/2016. (Annesser, John)
I think that will cheer you up a bit.
Best regards
Frank
LittleFrankieWTU - This sandbox is too big for you. Your new name is nanoFrankieWTF. The yips are now nanobarks - barely audible. Your posts are now nano-nips. All nanobark and zero bite. Keep it up - pico is just around the next fire hydrant.
Regarding Rossi's MTD response, they've thrown a lot in the blender. Working my way thru it. Not very inspiring so far but he might be able to put some points on the board once all the case law is sorted thru.
Deal.
I am really curious nd eager to understand motivations, tactics, strategies.
It will be a pleasure to discuss humanly, nobody will know what you say- I am not asking for mutuality.
My address is <[email protected]>
peter
@ D'eaver
LittleFrankieWTU - This sandbox is too big for you. Your new name is nanoFrankieWTF. The yips are now nanobarks - barely audible. Your posts are now nano-nips. All nanobark and zero bite. Keep it up - pico is just around the next fire hydrant.
Regarding Rossi's MTD response, they've thrown a lot in the blender. Working my way thru it. Not very inspiring so far but he might be able to put some points on the board once all the case law is sorted thru.
I have to give it to you Dewey, you certainly are a legend in your own mind.
Regarding Rossi's MTD response, they've thrown a lot in the blender. Working my way thru it. Not very inspiring so far but he might be able to put some points on the board once all the case law is sorted thru.
Yes, I thought that too, isn't that amazing, we appear to be agreeing on something....... I feel ill.
Best regards
Frank
