An Open Conversation With RANDOMBIT0: Constructive Comments Appreciated -- Cynical Remarks Frowned Upon

  • Jed claimed that the USPTO told him that the patent would be invalid. That is what I'm saying is incorrect.


    Okay, so you know the Patent Office rules better than the Patent Office knows them, and you know that the instructions on the form did not mean what they said. Got it. You must be an expert!

  • Okay, so you know the Patent Office rules better than the Patent Office knows them


    You clearly do not know or understand the rules. You also claimed that the USPTO "told" you. Then you attack me for pointing out your falsities. Just admit when you are wrong and move on.



    , and you know that the instructions on the form did not mean what they said.


    You mean they "told" you by providing you with a form. Okay, fair enough. But if you look at the form, you will notice that they never "told" you that the patent would be otherwise invalid if you were not named as an inventor. Did they?


    Edit: fixed the quote mis-attribution.

  • Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: “Okay, so you know the Patent Office rules better than the Patent Office knows them”


    You clearly do not know or understand the rules. You also claimed that the USPTO "told" you. Then you attack me for pointing out…


    IHFB, I hope you find this comment constructive:
    1) You mis-attributed your quote - Jed, not Abd (how does one even do that)? Can you correct it to reduce confusion? [EDIT: Now fixed by IHFB. Thanks!]
    2) Your comment seems so irrelevant and cynical. Pot -> Kettle?
    3) Is there some experience that you have filing patents that is relevant to the discussion that you'd like to share?

  • @sigmoidal


    As I see you are new here, it might be beneficial to bring you up to date on some of the baggage between Jed and me. Jed often exaggerates or states things that are not correct. I often point these out to him. He doesn't take it well. Maybe I could be more tactful in the way I try to assist him in seeing the flaws in his thinking and words, but nevertheless, if you look at the history of my discussions with Jed, you will see where my challenging him has resulted in an all-out assault from him directed toward me. Fundamentally, we think very differently, while sharing a common interest in LENR. You may not find my insights helpful, but based on my up-vote record, I think it is apparent that many here do.

  • <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/2076-sigmoidal/">@sigmoidal</a>


    As I see you are new here, it might be beneficial to bring you up to date on some of the baggage between Jed and me. Jed often exaggerates or states things that are not correct. I often point these out to him. He doesn't take it well. …


    Got it.
    I guess that partially answers my question #2. Regarding #1, thanks for fixing the attribution. Regarding #3, maybe there is nothing more to add.


    Regarding patents, my understanding is that unless and until IH actually receives a patent, Rossi has no basis for a complaint. IIRC, this is actually established case law. And further, given the terms of their contract, it is doubtful that Rossi has a basis for complaint even if they were to receive a patent. But (perhaps ironically) the one basis that Rossi might have some leverage with would be the USPTO rules regarding co-inventorship, assuming Rossi was a legitimate co-inventor not named in an IH patent application. The co-inventor requirement is a point Jed made, I posted a link to, and Abd helpfully corrected to the post-2012 version (which as it turns out was identical or virtually identical to the pre-2012 version as to the issue of co-inventors).


    Is that your understanding? (Again, trying to achieve clarity, identify areas of agreement, and generally make constructive comments).


    [Edited to acknowledge IHFB attribution corrections.]

  • @sigmoidal


    The question goes to whether Rossi assigned ownership rights to IH, or whether he just licensed his tech to IH. There is no valid assignment clause in the contract. The contract both expressly and implicitly indicates a license, not an assignment of ownership. IH has pointed to a clumsily drafted section of the contract as evidence of an outright assignment of ownership. That is what IH would have to hang their hat on. But I doubt that clause will ever hold any water, as it is not a present assignment, as is required by patent assignment language.


    IH can file a patent application naming Rossi as a co-inventor, and naming one of their own as a co-inventor, based on an improvement of the technology. And that is what they did. For the patent to eventually be granted, they would either need Rossi to sign an inventor declaration, or they would have to file a substitute declaration. In order to file a substitute declaration, the language of the contract will need to be grappled with, which is why I bring that point up first above.


    I agree with those who suggest that the IH/Rossi dispute was guaranteed to happen based on poor contract draftsmanship, and especially given the high dollar amounts at stake. The contract is lopsided in favor of IH. If IH wanted to avoid disputes such as these, they should have never pursued such an unevenly balanced contract with Rossi. A good solid agreement--and one with low litigation risk--is a fair agreement.

  • Quote from Alain

    This is a general problem for example with Occam razor .What is the simplest ? If you ask to a lasy guy, to a granny, or to a method engineer, you don't have the same answer to "how to screw a bolt".I failed on such estimation for Rossi, and Defkalion, estimating "they could not be that stupid", and "it would be suicidal".


    I can only agree with Schiller (himself quoted by Asimov in one of his best SF novels):


  • Quote from IHFB

    If IH wanted to avoid disputes such as these, they should have never pursued such an unevenly balanced contract with Rossi. A good solid agreement--and one with low litigation risk--is a fair agreement.


    As was pointed out long ago by Dewey (or somebody) the Rossi contract is never one a VC would want, because it has a very large upfront payment and gives the inventor no further interest in the profitability of his invention. Such a large payment is unheard of, and the conflict created by this is bad.


    People here will have to decide whether this weird and badly worded contract is more likely to have been insisted on by Rossi (it was claimed he had been hawking the same round other VCs who sensibly had turned him down) or IH.


    Sounds like Rossi to me! And Abd's argument even goes to why in spite of this stupidity IH had no option but to call Rossi's bluff here.

  • <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/2076-sigmoidal/">@sigmoidal</a>


    The question goes to whether Rossi assigned ownership rights to IH, or whether he just licensed his tech to IH. There is no valid assignment clause in the contract. The contract both expressly and implicitly indicates a license, not an assignment…


    Ok, thanks for clarifying, I didn't realize that Rossi was named in the IH patent application.
    In any case, it seems premature for Rossi (really his lawyers assuming they are giving him council) to try to bring suit against IH in court about patent applications before any has been granted. I would think they could anticipate that the judge would simply dismiss this claim until (and if) an application is actually granted, no? Again, I'm pretty sure there is case law applicable to this situation. Obviously the 89M is the main point. Maybe they're just throwing everything out there to see what sticks. I'm not sure that's the best recipe for success, however.

  • In any case, it seems premature for Rossi (really his lawyers assuming they are giving him council) to try to bring suit against IH in court about patent applications before any has been granted.


    It is more a title dispute, in my mind, which is why I think Rossi's lawyers brought it up now.




    I would think they could anticipate that the judge would simply dismiss this claim until (and if) an application is actually granted, no?


    That is what this judge did. Not sure if it was the right call though, given my sentence above in this comment.

  • Quote from sigmoidal: “In any case, it seems premature for Rossi (really his lawyers assuming they are giving him council) to try to bring suit against IH in court about patent applications before any has been granted.”


    It is more a title dispute,…


    OK, I didn't realize the judge already tossed that. Again, thanks for clarifying.
    That being the case, it seems that for me the most interesting issue is whether there is any validity to the the customer utilizing an alleged 1MW, or whether it really was a remarkably elaborate scam (aka masterpiece).
    With the information we have right now, it seems 20 to 1 scam (or higher). I hope I'm wrong.
    Time will hopefully tell.

  • As was pointed out long ago by Dewey (or somebody) the Rossi contract is never one a VC would want, because it has a very large upfront payment and gives the inventor no further interest in the profitability of his invention. Such a large payment is unheard of, and the conflict created by this is bad.


    I agree that the conflict is bad, but not necessarily for the reason you point out. The problem is that IH had no inducement to make the final (large) installment. They had the information they wanted, and whether they were able to build a device based on Rossi's, or derived from Rossi's, or not, they still would not have had any inducement to pay the last installment. Many other clauses also favor IH. For example, nothing prevented IH from developing their own improvements and filing their own patents, to Rossi's detriment.




    People here will have to decide whether this weird and badly worded contract is more likely to have been insisted on by Rossi (it was claimed he had been hawking the same round other VCs who sensibly had turned him down) or IH.


    I think both parties probably pressed for it, with stars in their eyes. Unfortunately, for one of the biggest apparent innovations of our time, it just wasn't going to hack it.

  • That being the case, it seems that for me the most interesting issue is whether there is any validity to the the customer utilizing an alleged 1MW, or whether it really was a remarkably elaborate scam (aka masterpiece).


    Whether or not a legit company is behind the JMP front company will be a central issue to the case. To that extent, I agree.

  • But (perhaps ironically) the one basis that Rossi might have some leverage with would be the USPTO rules regarding co-inventorship, assuming Rossi was a legitimate co-inventor not named in an IH patent application.


    Rossi was named in the application in question. He complained about the co-inventor named, as if that were some violation of the Agreement, which it was not. Rossi also complained that a Darden statement claimed to "own" the IP. That is a matter of the interpretation of speech, and was not a tort. This whole line was monstrous silliness, and an indication to me that his attorney really did not pay much attention, Rossi was in a big rush to file, so the Complaint was slapped together with very little attention to detail, to satisfy the client. As near as I can tell, that particular patent was itself filed in a rush by IH, because the Lugano report was about to come out, and that report would have placed any new technology revealed there into the public domain. The action, if anything, protected Rossi's IP rights, and did not harm them.


    One more example of Rossi biting the hand that was feeding him. People who are paranoid not infrequently do that.

  • /* ...not oil corps, not nuke industry, not industry, not militaries... Is it James Randi's forum? */


    This is well known fact: the breakthrough findings are suppressed everywhere across scientific community - not just for cold fusion. For example overunity, scalar wave physics, room temperature superconductivity, antigravity or water cluster research are ignored in the same way, like the cold fusion. But why fossil fuel lobby should want to boycott the antigravity or superconductor research? It just gives no meaning.


    It's evident, the problem is completely somewhere else: right inside the community of scientists itself. For example the first cold fusion work of Paneth and Petters from 1926 has been retracted after direct intervention of Ernst Rutherford (who also destroyed the professional carrier of another physicists, who were dealing with fusion and transmutations)