Rossi v. Darden developments - Part 1

Rends - wrong Deep River. Almost everything that Sifferkoll posted was fabricated and is useless for you as a frame of reference.
More of the same - LF mods contributing to the spread of mis-information (a generous description).

Alan - Fulvio has a fraud problem hanging over his head - possibly with treble damages. The boy needs to find a way off Planet Rossi soon.

Johnson is an attorney with much to lose including his law license. Not looking good for him either.

Cheers!

And furthermore - Rossi's ridiculous excuse to the court that Murray could not be admitted into the 1MW test is a total and complete fabrication accompanied by the usual complete lack of evidence. Only those under Planet Rossi mind-control can even begin to buy into that one.

Previously, with the IH document, we had seen only one side. It is unusual for views after that to stay the same after reading both sides.

Here they do.

Quote from Bob

For those that are interested in obtaining a better understanding of the Rossi vs IH lawsuit, Abd has made available a point by point listing of the IH counter claim and the Rossi answer. I.E. Every IH claim is listed with the Rossi answer immediately…

thank you for the link. I find Exhibit 21 very interesting. "Despite repeated reminders, however, USQL and Fabiani have refused to provide either the report or the raw data to Industrial Heat. See, e.g., Ex. 21. "

Perhaps the reason that IH has not presented the report and data is that theyn ever got it, at least then the suit was filed.
If that is the case, at it seems from the emails as late as March 16 n Joe was still asking for it.

Quote from Hermes

In the unlikely event that Murray was a spy it's entirely IH's responsability. So Rossi was not authorized and had no incentive to exclude him if he (Rossi) were acting honestly. I leave it to intelligent readers to work it out for themselves why Rossi wanted to exclude Murray.

So you think that even if I suspect that a man could damage my work revealing secrets to others, I have to let him do what he wants if I could say "someone else has the responsability for what happened"!
Sorry, but I believe that everyone wants to protect himself. As far as I know, the chief engineer in IH was Thomas Baker Dameron, whereas Murray was employed after the beginning of the test. Why they didn't send Dameron to Doral? Why Rossi should have let a stranger enter the Plant instead of the one he used to know?
Maybe Murray is an expert, but his specialist subject is "system architecture development, digital signal and image processing, software development, systems engineering, acquisition planning and program management" as you can read from this link:http://ultra-3pi.com/about-us/joseph-murray/
Maybe Rossi wanted to exclude him because he found the whole story a little bit too strange.......

Quote from oldguy

Perhaps the reason that IH has not presented the report and data is that theyn ever got it, at least then the suit was filed.

IH accepted the first three reports of the ERV during the 10 months of test from Feb 2015 to Dec 2016, and have paid the ERV for the same reports. If they considered them just garbage, they should have complained before the last report.
Fabiani worked for IH and he send them his data. They say that he didn't send his data only the last time they asked for them, but what about the other times? They did not say a word about his work, all was good for them before the suit.

Quote from Bob

Then the question will be if IH pursues the counter claim of fraud. I expect they will. They have shown evidence of fraud (no customer, no production, presented sale of heat subverted to the GPT, etc. ) and probably have not revealed a fraction of what they may have.

If IH did not consider the test the real GPT and did not take money from Bass, I can understand why now they say that they have not to pay for that (even if I don't believe them). But why the counter-suit? In which way have they been cheated? On the other hand, if they think the test was the GPT, they could say that Rossi did not respect the established procedure and therefore a counter-suit become a logical move. But they have to admit this was the GPT.....

Quote

IH accepted the first three reports of the ERV during the 10 months of test from Feb 2015 to Dec 2016, and have paid the ERV for the same reports. If they considered them just garbage, they should have complained before the last report. Fabiani worked for IH and he send them his data. They say that he didn't send his data only the last time they asked for them, but what about the other times? They did not say a word about his work, all was good for them before the suit.

This Planet Rossiesque logic is obviously popular on some blogs, but it does not wash.

This is all speculation (including what I'll suggest) and so "should have complained" is a bit much.Without full information we cannot be sure what a proper response would be, and this implies that we know and they are remiss.

But, for a guessing game:

throughout this test IH would have had two (proper) aims:

(1) Don't rock the boat, and keep to the letter and spirit of their contract, just in case Rossi actually came good on his promises, or their internal tests showed the elusive Swedish academic endorsed Lugano-type performance. In either case their duty to their shareholders then would be to pay the $100M and grab a revolutionary working technology.

(2) Don't do anything to endorse a probably corrupt and deeply unhelpful large-scale demo, and keep their noses clean in case of future legal argument from a Rossi with no working technology who is a strong fantasist.

It is clear that from their POV until they had internal tests showing Rossi's stuff working a one-year GPT would be useless. See the difference. Rossi promotes the test in terms of its PR value. IH see the test in terms of does it help their validation and development of the Rossi technology. The two viewpoints are quite different.

From public info I can't easily say how well IH achieved these two aims, but they don't seem to have done badly, and I certainly can't say what else they "should have done". Maybe I'm just less sure of things here than the all-seeing inhabitants of Planet Rossi?

Quote

Quote: “IH accepted the first three reports of the ERV during the 10 months of test from Feb 2015 to Dec 2016, and have paid the ERV for the same reports. If they considered them just garbage, they should have complained before the last report. Fabiani…

Why do you think that IH "accepted" the reports - whatever that means? And when do you think the reports were submitted? Perhaps they had the first two before they complained but it seems like if they sent someone down there to check and verify.

From the info supplied by IH they never considered the work in FL the QPT and where never given notice that Rossi was going to claim it to be the QPT until late in the game. If they accept the work as the QPT or even notified of Rossi's intent then why would they need to "complain".

If you were told that something was just a test of power supplied to a customer of your licensed technology and were given reports as such, why would you have reason to complain? You would only complain when you were told later that you consider it something else.

Quote from SSC

So you think that even if I suspect that a man could damage my work revealing secrets to others, I have to let him do what he wants if I could say "someone else has the responsability for what happened"!

No I don't think that at all. If you sell the exclusive rights then the recipient of those rights can dispose of them as they wish and you have no further right to interfere. You cannot tranfer exclusive IP rights, accept payment, and also maintain undiclosed secrets.

denying IH employee entry-

I am not sure, but I was thinking that the shipping container, the contents and all the IP there where owned by IH.

Quote from oldguy

all the IP there where owned by IH.

It was IH's plant. But IH has never owned the IP. They were granted certain territorial rights in a license.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Quote from oldguy: “all the IP there where owned by IH.”

It was IH's plant. But IH has never owned the IP. They were granted certain territorial rights in a license.

You might want to look up "shop rights". I don't think that IH has played that card yet, but it would be possible.

The shop right is a common law doctrine founded in equitable principles that allows an employer to use the employee’s invention without payment to the employee if that invention was made using the employer’s time, materials, facilities, or equipment. Lariscey v. United States,[1] 949 F.2d 1137 (Fed Cir. 1991).

Although I will admit that it is a little confusing if Rossi would be considered an employee or not and if shop rights cover anyone using materials, facilities or equipment. I think that is within state laws and I am no lawyer. I think there are cases where a "non-employee" acting as a consultant had to give writes to the company paying him if they used the company's owned materials.

The point being that anything Rossi developed while using IH equipment may be owned by IH.

found more on shop rights from NOLO: "Shop rights are not necessarily limited to the employer-employee relationship. Where an independent contractor uses a company's resources, the company may also have shop rights to the invention."

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency…ts-employer-inventor.html

Shane D.,

Not sure why you are so hot. It seems uncharacteristic of you. Having a bad day?

I am actually downright right. There is a significant difference between a license (what the Rossi/IH license agreement grants) and an outright transfer of ownership in the IP. Leonardo has always maintained ownership of the IP, and has licensees besides IH.