Rossi v. Darden developments - Part 1

yes, it does seem like Rossi is greedy and wants money no matter how much it costs the field

Quote from Rends

Read the links above and tell me if what was investigated there is 1. wrong and 2. corresponds to what you expect from a trustworthy business partner?The big picture that comes to my mind when reading, is that of a greedy pack which by all means try to get LENR technology under its control, no matter what it costs.

I'm very willing to accept what you say - some of the material I have already read on Sifferkoll's old site and it represents a very compelling picture if you suspend disbelief. You probably know that anybody's actions, carefully selected and presented with speculative context, can look damning.

I'm offering to provide my own interpretation of any of IH's actions. To my knowledge none of them look bad, when considered in a different context. I might however have missed some irredeemably bad action. All I ask is that you base this on factual evidence rather than reports from a potentially biassed blog.

I don't have a fixed view about IH. I generally take people at their word until this no longer works, with a bit of pragmatism (ie everyone tends to present what they do in the best light, and companies should do this, within bounds). In the IH case they claim to be investors in LENR and to be doing this both with the hope of making money (which would obviously happen if their technology ever worked) and of wanting to solve the world's energy problems. I don't see these two aims as being contradictory - though I think that whether IH can fulfill them is questionable.

Regards, THH

EDIT: PS my "take people at their word" policy became impossible, in the case of Rossi, a very long time ago. Now I look for a kernel of truth in anything he says, but expect his statements mostly to be misleading.

Quote from THHuxley

(2) State that they have been unable to measure excess heat from Rossi devices, but leave open the possibility that Rossi technology might still have some merit, or contains aspects which have merit. In which case they will obviously patent things (which costs almost nothing) on the off chance that some aspect of the patent has value.

This is the correct formulation. This is how a professional academic, scientist or engineer talks. A person who would call these "weasel words" does not understand how professionals express themselves. They qualify assertions to show there is legitimate doubt and a margin of error. An amateur might call that equivocation, but a professional would consider it irresponsible not to talk that way.

Many other professionals do this. A doctor does not tell a gravely ill patient "you have six months to live." That only happens in television dramas. She says something like: "most patients in your condition live for about six months to a year. While there are exceptions, you need to think about end-of-life considerations." (This is a morbid subject, but doctors do make firm short term predictions of mortality. On four occasions they told me the patient would die in a few days, and they were right. I can make similar unequivocal statements about some -- but not all -- of Rossi's tests. The 1-year test is dead as a doornail.)

Quote from THHuxley

In the IH case they claim to be investors in LENR and to be doing this both with the hope of making money (which would obviously happen if their technology ever worked) and of wanting to solve the world's energy problems. I don't see these two aims as being contradictory - though I think that whether IH can fulfill them is questionable.

I.H. agrees it is questionable. They probably would not use the word "questionable" but rather "high risk" or "speculative." That's how venture capitalists talk. It sounds better. It means more or less the same as "questionable."

It wouldn't be a venture if it were a sure thing. A business venture is questionable -- . . . I mean risky! -- by definition.

There are lots of reasons (especially with the current US administration) to incorporate outside of the US.
For example, Woodford is a UK entity.
There are Tax benefits.
Some of your primary investors may be from the Netherlands, which may well be the case.
Many rich people diversify both in industry and currencies. They also set up trust funds for their children
outside their primary residencies in case of wars.
The EU patent system is different.
and so on.

You talk like someone who has zero to little large business experience and do not understand the
common words used within that sector.

@Rends,

I'll let others better qualified than me answer the "why have entities incorporated in other countries". I would just add - have you looked at the mess of Rossi-related companies? including some that seem only to exist to pay Levi, or Fabiani and are incorporated outside Italy? I'm not saying these are bad, just that by your logic they would look bad.

As for the patent plagiarising Lugano. What do you mean? Lugano was a test of Rossi technology. IH have rights under the agreement with Rossi to patent any possibly valuable e-cat technology. If they are uncertain as to its merit (which they were for some time with Lugano, it seems) they must proceed to protect IP in case its useful. Woodford and other investors would require this.

Remember that the Lugano COP measurements were very inaccurate. No-one can rule out the possibility of that device delivering some not expected from nuclear physics excess heat, and those in the LENR field expect such things in experiments with hydrogenated metals. Therefore patenting it to death is an insurance policy. IH did not do the Lugano test, and Levi continued to maintain that it showed indisputable COP of at least 2 (to Mats and presumably IH), well after the Rossi legal attack. How, in that case, could IH risk not patenting it when they owned the technology and were allowed to do this?

Quote from oldguy

You talk like someone who has zero to little large business experience and do not understand the
common words used within that sector.

@OG: Thank's for the clarification: Most people call this legalized fraud or unethical tax avoidance.

In my country tax avoidance is a common free masons business, in others its simply the mafia or even worse in Russia/China etc. the state power itself...
But here the conclusion: The people are always of the same type! They avoid "real" labour, use troops (lawyers, ..), reinvest the hunted money, greedy avoid spending it for the rest of the world, unless the large profit of publicity gain is preponderate.

It seems clear that Rossi has used such methods- multiple layers of companies, merging, dissolving, ......
and has tried to avoid paying taxes. Notice that IH realize that he often had tax problems
and wrote a clause in the agreement just so they would not be responsible for Rossi's failure to file taxes on
their payments.

Quote

Possible, but in case of Industrial Heat LLC nothing fits! The business area is US, Investors are mainly from US, the Patent Application is US, Delaware is the US tax paradise where even companies from Europe are incorporated for tax reasons, there are no plausible reasons to incorporated in NL, or UK!

That is not correct. IH's largest investor by far is Woodford, a UK based company. In any case that is just what we know; how can you be sure from where the maverick IH investors come?

In any case you probably know that international companies incorporate wherever they can to reduce taxes. legally.

Personally I'd like every country in the world to cooperate in establishing watertight similar tax laws to prevent this. I'm not holding my breath thinking that is going to happen, and I'm not going to blame companies for minimising tax. Would you want to invest in a company that told you they were going to maximise your US taxes for the global good?

Rends,
I think you will find that they did the NL move due to a major investor and then move to the UK at some major expense
due to Woodford's request since they are UK based.

I think it is an error to assume that IH only had the US as its only targeted area. Limiting to the US would
only need to be required if you make the incorrect assumption that Rossi's technology was the only thing
they were/are looking at. We know that they have other researchers elsewhere.

Rends-big assumption.
If Rossi's patent failed to work in the hands of someone skilled in the art then the patent would not be granted.
If Barker made an improvement (allowed by the agreement) that would make some excess heat - even
if not at the commercial level- then the patent application was required by agreement to include Rossi.
It just take one claim to require the addition of a co-inventor.

You cannot rule out that Rossi's system did not work as described in his original filing but with some modification does
give some minor heat.

If Rossi's original patent fully disclosed the "best embodiment known by the inventor" then we would be see corporations
making systems. There are plenty of no signatory countries where you can file separately and do not honor US patents.

In all likelihood, Rossi's patent disclosure failed to meet the legal requirements to allow others skilled in the art to see large COP's as
he claimed. Again he was required by patent laws to full disclose his best embodiment.

Quote from oldguy

If Rossi's patent failed to work in the hands of someone skilled in the art then the patent would not be granted.

It might be granted, but later ruled invalid.

Suppose it failed to work in the hands of one person skilled in the art (PHOSITA). It might be challenged. However, if other skilled people later replicate it, the challenge would be moot.

Quote from THHuxley

IH weasel words here do not require them to have commercial LENR, or even for them to have something that will result in commercial LENR. They only require them to have something that they hope might one day result in commercial LENR.

Credit to you for acknowledging the weasel words. I agree that there are multiple possibilities for such weasel words. I think you are being generous to me to list only two. I'll actually broaden this a bit, which actually works against my own position on the matter. Some might be:

1) They have their own commercially viable LENR, which is not IP directly received from Rossi (IH's term)--we can refer to this as the IH-cat possibility, or in other words, an IH-improved version of the e-Cat, which works with high COP.
2) They are close to achieving 1), but are having some trouble with achieving consistent results. They continue their testing on this front using their own engineers and facilities.
3) They have something that they hope might one day result in commercial LENR.
4) They have something along the lines of Parkhomov / Tom Conover type results, which indicate a clear over-unity signal, but not something that is commercially viable.
5) They have something along the lines of traditional non-commercially viable LENR (e.g., palladium/deuterium/electrolysis)

There might be even be others. But this is my sense: the evidence we are privy to so far seems to favor 1).

Rend-
I don't think I understand what you mean by "owned by Cherokee" , They may have an investment
in IH but the major investor seems to be Woodford.
IH only received something like 12M on the initial US SEC filing so even if that was all from Cherokee (very doubtful)
It is not as large as the holding by Woodford. That is estimated at 50M.
It is a publicly traded company in the UK -Woodford Patient Capital Trust (UK Stock symbol WPTC)
Even you could invest in it.