Have IH let their E-Cat License lapse by inaction?

(continued)

Quote

2- the story about IH seeing zero results but wanting to [give] all chances to Rossi despite the theoretically valid contract for 94 milions $ [sic, actually $100.5 million total, $89 million remaining to be paid]- more than risky!

That, is more or less, one of my alternative stories, and has been generally confirmed by Dewey. IH decided, in 2012, to investigate the Rossi claims, to see them to the end, as far as was possible, in spite of what was easily visible then: no independent confirmation. I can explain this choice, and have, and it was sensible, overall, but was taking an $11.5 million risk. Just not a $100.5 million risk. They believed that the higher risk was avoidable by legal realities, that if the substance of the contract (which required IP transfer so that IH could manufacture working devices) was not fulfilled, they would not be legally compelled to make that later payment, they had recourse. And my impression, so far, is that, legally, they were correct. The current Motion to Dismiss may be partially effective, I have not fully studied it, but this is only a preliminary skirmish, that does not at all address the factual issues. If what Dewey has been claiming is true, and is established in court (which should be possible, unlike much of what Rossi claims even if it is true) IH will not be required to pay the $89 million and, by default, IH still has a licence that they paid for. Whether it is worth anything or not is a separate question, and, following their apparent original plan, they may wish to keep options open. To those who think in black and white terms, this seems contradictory. It is not. It's actually sanity, given uncertainties.

Quote

3- IH using the plant as bait for investors,

To establish this as fact would require knowing what was disclosed to those investors, which Rossi would generally not know. If what Dewey has stated is correct, Woodford, at least, was informed of the shakiness of the Rossi claims, and that IH was not taken in by the fluff might actually militate toward confidence in them.

If IH did represent to Woodford that the Rossi devices was working as claimed, they would already be in very hot legal water. Because these are world-class fund managers, I very much doubt that they misled Woodford, and the idea that they used the Rossi demo to prove to Woodford is a Rossi speculation that is totally consistent with how he views life. Unfair! The snakes!

By the time of the Woodford visit, 2015, IH would already know that the instructions for making devices given to them by Rossi were not working. No, my sense is that IH was seeking additional investment (or allowing it) based on other avenues being pursued, plus the long shot of Rossi pulling a rabbit out of the hat. I would be nearly certain that the full situation was disclosed to Woodford. And in any case, it's totally irrelevant to the Rossi case. That this is alleged is fluff, legally. The one with the right to object to such representations would be the investor, not Rossi. There remains the possibility that a the time of the investor visits, IH was still confident that Rossi would deliver. I consider that quite unlikely. That would, in my opinion, show incompetence.

Quote

4- the IH patent based on Rossi's technology'

Idiots who know nothing about patent law are interested in this. It''s legally meaningless, and only shows that they were covering the bases.

Quote

5- the slander coming from Rossi that IH has borrowed know how elements from his IP to competitors

Again, speculation. However, Peter, pay attention! IH has claimed that they could disclose any of Rossi's revealed "secrets" to anyone they chose, and I agree with that reading of the Agreement. As well, once one is dealing with patents, this is public information. If Rossi had trade secrets, then he failed to protect them in the Agreement. This is all part of the IH Motion to Dismiss. (I have not yet studied the Rossi Memorandum on this point). people who would think this "unfair" have not thought it all the way through. If Rossi IP is incorporated in a product, and it was patented, companies producing that product must pay royalties. To whom? That would depend on where the product was sold. Rossi is saying what he believes, I'm sure. It is actionable ("slander" if verbal or "libel" is written) only if it harms IH, and most of this is complete fluff. I have mentioned that Rossi accomplishes nothing legally by what he is writing on the blog, and that he could be causing himself harm; I'm pretty sure his attorney would agree. But does he ask his attorney?

Quote

6_ how have we to interpret "our LENR portfolio was never stronger from IH's March 10, 2016 Statemnent?

Here is the statement: https://animpossibleinvention.…-heat-makes-announcement/
I find it plausible. My that time, they knew that the Rossi technology was not transferred to them with, then, a high probability that it was bogus. Peter, you are interpreting that statement to refer to Rossi's work. But it did not. There were rumors as a result of that statement that IH and Rossi had a falling out. Rossi dismissed them as the work of stupid rumor-mongers, or something like that. However, the one being deceptive here could be Rossi. I think he must have known, and he almost certainly started to prepare his lawsuit, which he filed April 5.

This may be difficult to understand. IH needed to engage with Rossi to confirm or disconfirm that he had real technology, because of the effect that his claims was having on the field. Knowing, with reasonable certainty, that the claims were false inproved the position of their other investments. The conspiracy theorists claim that IH was motivated to protect other investments, but that theory requires that they (1) know that the Rossi Effect is real, (2) know that it is transferable (i.e., they tested it and it worked), and (3) they be willing to pass up a good trillion dollars of value to protect speculative and uncertain assets.

The quick summary is that as long as Rossi's bogus or unsubstantiated claims were standing, investment in any other LENR technology was very risky. After all, if they are working on watts and Rossi is working on kilowatts.... IH, by taking an aggressive and risky stand, drove a stake through the heart of that vampire. Now, if Rossi has something real, he could easily recover, by doing what he could have done in 2011. Will he? I'm not holding my breath. He would probably prefer to go to jail, believing that the world is against him.

Quote

In order to paint a criminal portrait of Rossi (useful where, how, when- you have o explasin these facts factoids -awat- with arguments.

No, he need do nothing, because the truth will out, almost certainly, with Dewey doing nothing. Meanwhile, he's having fun with flame wars and the rest. Mostly, what you have asked, Peter, is obvious to those who study this situation without colored glasses.

Quote

BTW will you [testify] in the Florida Court, with your right hand on the Bible, that Rossi never was able to generate excess heat for IH?

How could he? Peter, you consistently don't understand the situation enough to write accurately. And then you think people are insulting you. (If the Rossi attorney asked him that question, and this is ridiculously unlikely, the IH attorney would object, as it is a leading question, asking the witness to form a conclusion not based on personal experience. (And this is not the IH claim!)

Court process is fascinating, compared to the disorganized mess that passes for thinking on these fora and blogs.

Quote

Please let's limit the discussion to the core- outcome of the Conflict

I apologize for the delay in answering had medical problems- rheumatism. (painful)

I'm sorry. Please take care of your body and your mental state. Remember to relax and trust reality. That can help with rheumatic disorders.

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
It is not the IH claim that "Rossi was never able to generate excess heat for IH."

You are incorrect. I.H. also claimed the reactors (plural) are inoperable. Meaning they do not produce heat. That includes the 1-MW reactor that Rossi made and tested. I.H. does not think it worked. I know why they don't, and I agree 100%.

Jed, my sense is that you are translating what they said. This is easily resolvable. Point to where they said what you are claiming. Notice that "they don't think the 1 MW reactor "worked" is not a claim that there was no heat. The statement I was questioning was strong. "Never." I am suggesting looking at what they actually said, something which I find many surprisingly unwilling to do. IH appears to me to be extremely careful about what they officially say, and what they did not say is not to be implied from it as "what they claimed."

Quote

I think you made this claim before, and I corrected you then.

You pointed to the IH statement?

Quote

Please stop doing that. Ask I.H. or Dewey if you don't believe me, but please stop ignoring what I tell you.

Jed, provide the evidence, that's the easy way here.

Quote

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

That is incorrect. As I said, there was a test conducted in the U.S. when he was in Italy. The instruments belonged to the people who did the test. Unfortunately they do not want me to publish any details. I cannot explain what happened or whether it actually worked. I have only a little information. It looks like it worked, but I can't be sure.

What I wrote was a general statement, and it is obviously possible that there is an unpublished counterexample. What came of it? Jed, I'm writing about what evidence we have, not whatever factoid might exist in the mind of someone, somewhere. You are expecting me to conclude that I'm "wrong" based on what you cannot substantiate? You have every right to assert what you know, as you did. But not to demand that others not state what is obvious about what is public record, because you "corrected them."

Quote from "the Weaver"

To answer that question, I'd be happy to take an oath over the Bible and give sworn testimony. Truth is our friend.

Still dodging are we Dewey? May I remind you that the question was NOT about whether you were happy to take an oath over the bible or not (even if you pretend that right now) So lets repeat the question again shall we...

Quote from "Peter Gluck"

BTW will you tetify in the Florida Court, with your right hand on the Bible that Rossi never was able to generate excess heat for IH?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

POST REMOVED DUE TO UNWARRANTED MENTIONS OF MENTAL ILLNESS. I DID SAY THERE WERE LIMITS. AND THERE ARE OTHER MODERATORS.

Dewey Weaver did not write that. It appears that Alan Smith did.

Dewey is his own person and I am not necessarily approving of his posting behavior, which sometimes is almost pure ad hominem, but ... this is a personal fact. Administrators can get me to go away from a site where I have no major personal investment just by asking me to leave. Short of that, if my material is deleted without some kind of due process, and an opportunity to retrieve it, with an explanation of "just because I can," as Alan Smith wrote for an otherwise unexplained deletion of a post of mine, is probably the fastest way to induce me to contribute elsewhere. It's not like I don't have choices. Half the time I'm already wondering why the hell I bother with these sites, because they rarely make a difference, compared to other possibilities.

Dewey Weaver is the only IH insider posting anywhere, to my knowledge. It is acceptable to ask him to tighten up his language, to improve his civility, but .... there is plenty that passes without action, and, again, is he being treated with respect?

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Jed, my sense is that you are translating what they said.

Great. Something to chew on. Now, when I see something like this, and I already know what is in the Motion, because I have studied it in detail and have written about it extensively, I do not rely on my memory, because memory is fallible. Very fallible, actually, many of us fail to realize this and trust our memories as if they were what happened. The statement is a footnote in the Motion, dicta.

https://animpossibleinvention.…/ih-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

Quote

Because Defendants are not permitted to introduce facts outside the Complaint and its Exhibits, this motion does not address, for example, the numerous errors in Plaintiffs’ purported “Guaranteed Performance Test” that the Complaint purposely ignores (such as departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices).

So what they claim is not that "the reactors are inoperable," which would imply all, but that Rossi 'ignored inoperable reactors," which is a far more specific statement that does not imply the general.

Jed, the fact you cite does not support what you claimed about it.

Quote

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

And I am writing about a 10-page report I have sitting on the desk in front of me. Not a factoid and not my imagination. Not someone somewhere: me, right here. Do you have a problem with that? Are you accusing me of making this up?

My, my, touchy, aren't we? I have not accused you of making anything up. I have pointed out that your memory on a point was inaccurate, and on another point that you were claiming something unverifiable as if it were adequate fact to refute a generalization about public knowledge.

Quote

If you are, I suggest you go to hell. You don't need to believe me, but I resent being told this is a "factoid."

Take it or leave it, but my training would suggest to me that if I resent something, I sit down and gather my wits before I proceed to publicly react.

The "factoid" was your brief mention of that test (which you have mentioned a number of times). That is hearsay at best, you know that, right? You did not witness the test, you have a report from it of some kind, which you say you cannot publish.

I would not dream of accusing you of "making up" something like that. I trust you have a report.

You also may have what was told to you about the test, but I have to notice this: your memory about the IH claim about "inoperable reactors" was defective. Your memory about what you were told may also be defective. That is a possibility, not a fact and not a claim as to anything other than a general possibility. And this is why we want, when possible, to see verifiable information.

This does not mean that unverifiable information is bad or wrong, and in a forum like this, certainly you can write from your experience. But ... I request that you keep it in perspective.

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There are some problems with this scenario, because Rossi's behavior "doesn't make sense" if he is a fraud.

I disagree. It does "make sense." He has managed to get $11.5 million from I.H. Even minus expenses I suppose he has a lot of money left over. Assuming he is a fraud and he is only in this for the money, his methods have worked splendidly. Perhaps he is only pretending to be paranoid because that helped get the money.

Perhaps his only major mistake was to overreach and try to get the $89 million. On the other hand, if he wins that lawsuit or settles out of court for some amount, that too will be a smart move in retrospect.

Jed, I think I've seen this problem many times. Mats Lewan, on his blog:

Quote

Furthermore, in the lawsuit, Leonardo demands a trial by jury. Everything out in the light.
This doesn’t fit well with the hypothesis that Rossi is a fraudster and that IH knew this and therefore tried to get away from him. Not a bit.

I do not recall any case where a fraud sued those he defrauded for fraud, in a suit where it would all come out. Much more commonly, the fraud will attempt to keep the marks on the hoot. Sorry about no jam today, but jam tomorrow.

Mat's comment is "ordinary thinking." What Mats said is believed by many, and I've been hearing this argument since 2011. He couldn't be a fraud because he would get caught, go to jail, etc. It was a bogus argument then, probably, because he was just putting on demonstrations and these can be completely fake with no legal consequences, and I'm pretty sure I wrote back then that if there were fake demonstrations, he would disclose them under NDA to investors. Magicians can "fool" viewers all the time, it's not illegal. They can even charge admission. But if a magician sells shares in a business selling pet rabbits that he pulls from a hat ... based on the low rabbit acquisition cost ... he could certainly be in legal hot water! (Unless the truth is disclosed to the investors!)

Yes. pretend paranoia could be a device in a sophisticated fraud. However, once IH was clearly suspicious and no longer accepting the "trick," for Rossi to file the lawsuit invites all kinds of dangerous attention. I will be utterly unsurprised to see a prosecution for fraud appear. Planet Rossi seems to think that comments like this are "threats." No. Not in the least. I'm not calling the FBI. But someone might, and for years, Rossi has done things that obviously raised suspicion of fraud. Sometimes those chickens come home to roost.

No, if Rossi is a fraud, he is insane. a kind of insanity that is not terribly uncommon among criminals, but the Rossi case would still be quite unusual. And if he is not a fraud, he is still psychologically impaired and badly needs friends and counsel he can trust, and that he chooses to trust. I wrote this in another post that was collapsed because of votes from Planet Rossi. They apparently think that everything Rossi does is just fine, and that warning him would be preposterous, he needs people cheering him on. And then if he is prosecuted, they could tsk tsk and say what a shame it is that such a hero is persecuted, and they could go on believing this for years. If he's is a hero, they are participating in nailing him to a cross.