Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote

Rossi has not offered to buy the IH license back but is welcome to do so at full price including $1.5M for the 1MW container and all legal expenses incurred by IH to date.

OK, but do you have some source for it? The question also is, if IH owns the license before paying full price of it and successful ending of Guaranteed Performance Test.

Otherwise the Guaranteed Performance Test would have no meaning - but the answering of this question would require the deeper experience in law, which I haven't.

Zeph - we're all trying to be patient with your lack of understanding of the facts and / or willingness to continually misconstrue and twist facts to fit your narrative. IH has a paid up perpetual license to Ecat IP, including derivatives and there is no alt

legal interpretation available to you that says otherwise. The language is clear. The GPT that never happened has no bearing on the fact that $10M was paid for an IP license that Rossi never fulfilled. This is a clear as it can possibly be unless you reside on Planet Rossi.

Quote

IH has a paid up perpetual license to Ecat IP, including derivatives and there is no alt

If he paid up, why Andrea Rossi filed his lawsuit against IH due to lack of payment? And why IH says, he won't paid for license, because the test failed if he has paid up for it already? My understanding of your "facts" is very shallow here..

Quote from Zephir_AWT

If he paid up, why Andrea Rossi filed his lawsuit against IH due to lack of payment? And why IH says, he won't paid for license, because the test failed if he has paid up for it already? My understanding of your "facts" is very shallow here..

Zeph -

IH say (and I have no evidence to the contrary) that the IP depended only on the previous 10M payment. Therefore they have a perpetual license. The 89M is then a bonus payment on certain conditions being met. Maybe IH freedom to sell units (as distinct from use IP) also depends on this payment? I'm unclear. And I'm also unclear whether not fulfilling the 89M payment, were it due, would invalidate the previous IP assignment. I guess it would, but I doubt this will ever be tested, see below.

Anyway, you can see the LT test is a separate matter from the IP assignment. Also, if you have paid attention to what IH say here they argue (with evidence):

• that the test Rossi conducted is not the contractual bonus payment test anyway.
• that if it is, then it does not in fact meet the required conditions

As for Rossi's motivation. That is speculation not fact. I'd guess he wanted the $89M and thought IH would settle and give him some of it rather than fight. That would be money + a PR victory.

Quote

IH say (and I have no evidence to the contrary) that the IP depended only on the previous 10M payment. Therefore they have a perpetual license. The 89M is then a bonus payment on certain conditions being met.

Which ones? The regular reports from vacation of A. Rossi at Bali-Bali...? This is the most funny interpretation of IH-Ampenergo agreement, I ever read.

Quote

I'd guess he wanted the $89M

You guess? The $89M clause in agreement is just good will of IH - not condition for obtaining the license? Maybe it's just a gift from IH promised for good behavior?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

If he paid up, why Andrea Rossi filed his lawsuit against IH due to lack of payment? And why IH says, he won't paid for license, because the test failed if he has paid up for it already? My understanding of your "facts" is very shallow here..

very strange and twisted interpretation. IH already paid for the license for the IP and rights to use and develop it. Why should they pay for what they already owned. Although Rossi never seemed to transfer the enabling IP as he promised.

The GPT (which never was actually agreed to in writing) was not for the license but for a commercial viable a system that was quickly ready for the market (hence the initial early start date). The 10M payment was for the license and IP. The 89M was for a ready to use commercial embodiment of that system.

Zeph - you ask a good question - why did Rossi file this litigation against IH?

Only mission control on Planet Rossi can answer that question for sure - it certainly doesn't seem like that was a very good decision on his part.

Rossi started the fight and IH will finish it.

10M vs. 89M - there is a BIG difference in the worth of a license to use and develop something so you MAY be able to engineer it to s commercially viable system based on new and unproven technology, and a system that is CAN be made. vetted and delivered within 120 Day at a useful level. The 89 M is for the later, the 10 M is for the former.

New documents on the docket:

Quote from Alan Smith

126 is nifty footwork I thought.

I tend to agree. I guess we will see what the Court thinks about this soon enough.

Quote from Eric Walker

New documents on the docket:

These two new filings pretty much speak for themselves. The quick summary:

125 - The court orders that any party objecting to IH's motion to allow Amendment 4 do so no later than today. (In amendment 4, IH adds a few new allegations and evidence against Third Parties Johnson, Fabiani and Bass)

126 - Fabiani [via his lawyer] responds with numerous objections to allowing IH to file Amendment 4. IH must reply to those objections by noon tomorrow (January 31).

Dear Eric,

can you please tell what are the 2 Exhibits at Document 128?

Thanks,

Peter

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The question also is, if IH owns the license before paying full price of it and successful ending of Guaranteed Performance Test.

Otherwise the Guaranteed Performance Test would have no meaning - but the answering of this question would require the deeper experience in law, which I haven't.

Another questions:

If IH owns the licence, then which for invention?

Is it for E-cat described in their patent?

Is this licence for "non function" E-Cat tested in GPT?

In case Rossi will develop new plant for instance with "Mercury-Cat(M-Cat)", can IH say "licence for M-Cat belongs to us" ?

How IH will distinguish which for Rossi's next inventions is "their licence"?

This judge means business and is determined to stay on the schedule she has established. I was impressed that FF's attorney was able to respond so quickly. Apparently the attorneys for Rossi and Johnson got responses in overnight as well. We'll see how today goes.

Regarding the license - Planet Rossi remains dumbfounded that Rossi asked for and accepted $10M for ALL Ecat IP past present and future for use in the agreed upon territories. This was his deal and he took the money. He did not deliver on the license terms and then he somehow thought it was a good idea to sue his customer. Why is this is so difficult for those breathing the P.R ether to understand?

Quote

very strange and twisted interpretation. IH already paid for the license for the IP and rights to use and develop it.

IH paid only $10 million and $1 million for testing unit, not the remaining $89 millions for license. Is it really so difficult to read the contract?

IH didn't pay the remaining $89 millions for license in five business days after test - so he got sued with Rossi and he doesn't own license.

Everything is clear and simple.

Zeph - perhaps the best place for you is a weekly in the Planet Rossi funny pages. The IH Ecat license is paid up and Rossi has not delivered on transferring anything that works. You can keep writing the words

over and over again but that will not change the crystal clear language and contract terms around the license fee along Rossi obligations for accepting that fee.

I repeat......The IH Ecat license is paid up and Rossi has not delivered on transferring anything that works. You can keep writing the words

over and over again but that will not change the crystal clear language and contract terms around the license fee along Rossi obligations for accepting that fee. Rp

Once again.......The IH Ecat license is paid up and Rossi has not delivered on transferring anything that works. You can keep writing the words

over and over again but that will not change the crystal clear language and contract terms around the license fee along Rossi obligations for accepting that fee.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

IH paid only $10 million and $1 million for testing unit, not the remaining $89 millions for license. Is it really so difficult to read the contract?

IH didn't pay the remaining $89 millions for license in five business days after test - so he got sued with Rossi and he doesn't own license.

Everything is clear and simple.

Zeph: I agree that Dewey is possibly not addressing your point, but you are definitely not addressing what has been said.

The license agreement governs the license to sell stuff, and also certain conditions that must be met by either party. So, I agree, if the test is the GPT, if it is properly conducted, if it has met the performance requirements, IH has voided the license to sell. Those ifs are big ones you seem to ignore.

However the IP transfer is not the license, it is a requirement Rossi must meet. Rossi agrees to transfer IP in return for IH paying 10.5M. IH did pay, therefore Rossi is contractualy obliged to transfer IP. Not being a lawyer I'm not entirely certain whether if IH does not pay the bonus payment when it is required to do so Rossi is still obligated to do the license tranfer but I'd expect he is. Why? Because that is linked to a previous part of the license and money previously paid. I am pretty certain that if the bonus payment is not paid because the conditions for it are not met, Rossi still owes IH the IP from the 10.5M payment.

The Rossi did transfer the IP to the escrow agent, otherwise IH wouldn't pay him even these $10 millions.