Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Sometimes it's not just what people say, but what they don't say which counts.

"To be clear, Defendants knew, or should have known, that there is no factual basis to
support Defendants’ claim that Plaintiffs have failed to report and/or pay any appropriate taxes. This naked allegation is without factual or evidentiary support and is alleged for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating the Plaintiffs."

Note that Rossi et al. merely claim the the counter plaintiffs have no evidence. And Rossi provides no evidence to counter the claim. But perhaps someone can tell us how much the Condos cost and whether any cash was left over to pay taxes.

"Moreover, even if such allegations were true, which they are not, such allegations would not give rise to a material breach of the License Agreement which could excuse their performance under such Agreement". If Rossi sincerely thought that the tax requirement was immaterial, why did he sign the contract including such a requirement? One can only conclude that Rossi never had any intention of respecting the contract.

Rossi seems to be using the public court documents (in some cases) as an informal forum to publicly espouse his side of the story. Info that would not normally appear in the public documents can be aired this way if crafted just-so.
Not a bad idea.
I have worked for companies that do this with stock exchange interim reports and engineering reports, where new "good stuff" is casually inserted into the report that might not be public for another 2 or 3 years otherwise.

Quote from Shane D.

And just because Dameron "found out late in the game" $100 million was on the line, and West thought it was the GPT all along, does not a GPT make. Both could have come to hear what they did, or come to believe what they did, from workplace rumors purposely started by Rossi, Penon, Bass, Johnson to establish an estoppel case in advance.

Yes, it seems like it would be hard to show estoppel for the GPT and that the actions were not just a preliminary trial to getting ready for a GPT or just a trial test of generating heat for a supposed customer since there does not seem to be any document supporting claiming GPT. Those wishing to claim estoppel would need to show that the actions were only propelled by acceptance of the GPT and not by any other outcome. It would also seem that they would need to show that Rossi's actions were constant with him assuming it was the GPT. That he would need to be shown to do things that would not be done by anyother scenario other than GPT. For example, why did he not mention GPT until very late into the testing? The lack of that action could be interpreted as he did NOT assume it to be the GPT. All his actions up to the end of last year could be construed as other kinds of tests.

Producing a possible short term COP of 1.3 is no where near the requirements of the GPT. 1.3 is typical of most active electrochemical LENR systems. Short time heat storage can do that. At COP 4 it should be able to turn some electric generating systems for net electrical output power. That is likely why IH required that of the GPT.

Only the NI Week demo (2013) seems to have a self sustaining character but that was down in the sub-watt regions.
There have been runaways that would likely have high COP but they are all off short duration.

Rossi seems to think that IH did own the IP in February 2015...
Cook's report was a"patrimony of your IP"

From Document 108: "On February 5, 2015, Rossi emailed Defendants Darden, Vaughn,
and other IH and/or IPH representatives informing them that Professor Cook wanted to publish a
report on the theoretical underpinnings of the E-Cat, and that the paper would form part of
Defendants’ intellectual property"

Quote from oldguy

. It would also seem that they would need to show that Rossi's actions were constant with him assuming it was the GPT. That he would need to be shown to do things that would not be done by anyother scenario other than GPT. For example, why did he not mention GPT until very late into the testing? The lack of that action could be interpreted as he did NOT assume it to be the GPT. All his actions up to the end of last year could be construed as other kinds of tests.

The e-mail below has Rossi telling IH about the ERV installing his instrumentation before the start of the 1 year run. Why would the ERV make measurements if not for the GPT? Does Rossi need to say the magic letters GPT? Maybe we'll see that come up in another e-mail.

It's possible that IH didn't agree to a start date, but it's unlikely that they didn't know that Rossi was considering that he was about to get the GPT started.

Edit to add: just the use of the word ERV [Expert Responsible for Validation] implies he is talking about the GPT.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Rossi seems to be using the public court documents (in some cases) as an informal forum to publicly espouse his side of the story. Info that would not normally appear in the public documents can be aired this way if crafted just-so.
Not a bad idea.
I…

While I agree, is that not what IH is doing also? I mean, this fight is playing out on multiple fronts. In the court room, among the LENR community, and eventually (probably) in the MSM.

Dewey doing some damage control now asserting that a COP of 1.3 is in the "noise floor." IH's lead engineer stating that "1.3 might be an answer" for the COP they achieved. This all seems a little wishy washy to me. Most here are assuming that IH hasn't seen anything above 1.3. That seems to be what IH is trying to project right now.

What happens if further evidence comes out showing that IH has achieved levels above 1.3? What then? Are you all going to stand by your IH men and continue to hold them as the outstanding citizen boy scouts of the business and investment world that you have made them out to be?

Rossi is no saint. But I've had a sense for quite some time that neither are IH.

Has Doc 110 from the court docket been posted anywhere yet? Interested in reading that one.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Rossi seems to think that IH did own the IP in February 2015...

Cook's report was a"patrimony of your IP"

And conversely, IH seemed to think the IP was his, by making him change the attribution from Industrial Heat back to Leonardo. The irony runs thick.

Quote from Guest

Has Doc 110 from the court docket been posted anywhere yet? Interested in reading that one.

Done. (Docs 110, 111 and 112 now on the docket.)

@IH Fanboy,
The 'attribution' on the Cook & Rossi paper is only for Rossi's affliiation, and has no reference (in the paper) to ownership of the IP.
Rossi, on the other hand, did attribute the IP to IH in his comments.
Perhaps this change was a signal that Rossi was no longer to be Chief Scientist of IH.

Quote from LENR Calender

Why would the ERV make measurements if not for the GPT? Does Rossi need to say the magic letters GPT?

Penon was the ERV on tests other than the GPT. Just saying ERV does not require the acceptance of a GPT much less a start date for that test.
For example, IH might consider him just verifying the heat supplied to the "customer". Or perhaps for him to set things up for a trial run in
preparation for some future GPT. You cannot assume that every time ERV is mentioned it must be a GPT. Obviously it was not so in prior tests. Why assume it here but not in other cases.. That is not consistent.

IHFB - Damage?

Planet Rossi continues taking heat rounds and these are not flesh wounds. The Rule 11 ruling may be a new world record - that attempt didn't survive for even 24 hours. R's positioning strategy and attempt to land a punch backfired faster than a quantum polarspincycle.

@Dewey

IH's own guys are undermining IH's carefully crafted narrative. You have been signaling for some time now that this was an open and shut case. Now look what is happening. As they say, it ain't over 'till it's over.

Wondering out loud... why Joani Towe (yet another realtor?) was sent copies of Rossi's emails from his Lawyer in November, 2015.

Quote

I can't say that we never had a result that was -- let's see if I can say this right -- we probably had results greater than one, 1.3 might be an answer. I think that reliably, repeatedly, replicating those results has not happened. So at some point in time there could have been a result of 1.3 that we thought was good.

That could properly be a true report of a sequence of results that are null. It is as commonly done, and commonly not understood. A result of 1.3 means 1.3 +/- all errors and artifacts. If those are not quantified you don't know whether this is null. Even if they are quantified (as in Lugano) there may be some not realised error. So it is entirely reasonable - in fact certain - that in IH testing they get some marginal positive results as this, which mean nothing. You can however see that in a Court an engineer will not find it easy to convey all this stuff about unquantified error bars.

Also remember they will have been following the Lugano methodology and repeating the large error there. Even though they has suspicions about that methodology, they did not have the better analysis that would show them why 3 / 3.6 both turned into something close to 1 with no acceleration. Without that better analysis those results could be read as positive but not definite (because of the complexity of the analysis and other things that did not make sense around it).

I've no idea how this all will be processed by the Court. I'd hope with the help of expert witnesses they will get to a true understanding which is profoundly negative for Rossi. His "IH stole my IP and screwed me" message is contradicted by the evidence so far in many ways and will not stand up. From evidence to emerge IH had no motive for this and every motive and ability to pay Rossi, if his stuff worked.

Assuming the Court come to this common sense conclusion that Rossi's stuff does not work, however, as I think is very likely, it is still not crystal clear to me which way the legal arguments go, even though I think IH has the upper hand.

EDIT (just for IHFB) Evidence to emerge -> evidence that has been signaled in these docs, will emerge no doubt in Court

Quote from THHuxley

From evidence to emerge IH had no motive for this and every motive and ability to pay Rossi, if his stuff worked.

What evidence is to emerge? How are you privy to it?

Quote from THHuxley

I can't say that we never had a result that was -- let's see if I can say this right -- we probably had results greater than one, 1.3 might be an answer. I think that reliably, repeatedly, replicating those results has not happened. So at some point in time there could have been a result of 1.3 that we thought was good.

If you build up your defense and counter-complaint on the COP = 1 fundament and later witness - under certain pressure - that you even only might have lied, then your ship is grounded on sand. Any judge will question everything you said again and ask further questions, which will cost IH an other .5 Million...

Quote from THHuxley

I've no idea how this all will be processed by the Court. I'd hope with the help of expert witnesses they will get to a true understanding which is profoundly negative for Rossi.

I guess that some expert told IH that the COP must have been =1. I hope he will not get sued too...

Wyttie - you once again prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. The experts in this case haven't spoken yet and will have their official say. Planet Rossi is not going to like it. Very much looking forward to seeing who Rossi designates as his experts if he makes it that far.
Cheers