[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/06/industrial-heat-responds-to-rossis-complaints/']As expected, Industrial Heat has responded to the complaints Andrea Rossi has made in the lawsuit. Here’s a link to the main document, there are other files for various exhibits which will be added later. http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-c…ads/2016/08/IH-Answer.pdf document. There is lots of reading to do and I am sure there will be lots to analyze and […][/feedquote]
Industrial Heat Responds to Rossi’s Complaints
- News-Feed
- Closed
-
Just a small tit bit:
"Furthermore, the E-Cat IP was disclosed to Industrial Heat and IPH pursuant to the License Agreement without any restriction on Industrial Heat or IPH’s further disclosure of such. In fact, the License Agreement permitted Industrial Heat and IPH to sublicense the E-Cat IP to anyone they wanted on any terms they desired, without any confidentiality restrictions. See License Agreement §§ 1 & 16.4."
While IH are denying most of the complaints but not all, they are claiming they had no restriction on further disclosure of Rossi's IP. So while almost everything else they say seems to point to Rossi's invention not working, they appear to be quite protective of their ownership and use of his IP. Interesting to say the least. (Ref page 16 & 17)
Also this:
"Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy. This led Counter-Plaintiffs to realize that there were only three possible conclusions: 1) Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results, including the purported results from the Validation, were fabricated; 2) Leonardo and Rossi did not provide all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs as was required under the License Agreement in exchange for the $10 million payment; or 3) both". (Ref Page 26)
So which is it? Fabrication by Rossi and Penon or Rossi not providing IP? But how could it be both? If it was a fabrication there would be no IP.
This is cherry picking I know and I suggest this document be read and digested along with the original complaint for cross reference.
Best regards
Frank -
That is a creative jab by Jones Day.
It shows possible damage to IH while opening the door to discuss the real value of the IP. -
I added some comments and most of the exhibits
-
I added some comments and most of the exhibits
sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/darde…nd-penon-in-counterclaim/
Less than half of the exhibits are there. Of course, if you are eager to read Sifferkoll's rants -- he wrote that before he'd seen most of the exhibits -- you are welcome. All the Rossi v. Darden case files other than subpoenas and waivesr of subpoenas, I think, are in the newvortex file space, and have been for some time. Others, including Sifferkoll, are getting the files from there, as to anything recent, AFAIK.
-
It appears Sifferkoll was quite selective in his posting of exhibits among his barely coherent slanted analysis. Something tells me Sifferkoll and company are NOT happy campers today on Planet Rossi. No smores around the campfire tonight on that cold cold planet without a E-Cat to warm them.
-
Thanks to LuFong who has put all the IH exhibits in one handy format on google drive. https://drive.google.com/drive…ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8
