Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • At that point, Rossi will be able to sue I.H. for any amount of money, with 100% assurance he will win. In a patent lawsuit, nobody cares what you say or claim. They only look at the facts. These are not trials by jury. The judge decides, and the judge is an expert in patents.


    Jed, you clearly know nothing about which you speak. I suggest you stick with something that you are more familiar with, such as Japanese.

  • I have a hypothetical question:

    Let's say that Rossi wins the lawsuit and the approx 300 millions.
    That would obviously be a big blow to TD et'al. If they then decide to foreclose IH, does that mean that all technology and IP in their portfolio becomes Rossi's?

    What I am trying to get at is, could there be others researchers IP, for example Cravens, that then might be transferred to Rossi as part of settling the debt?
    Is it hypothetically possible that Rossi sweeps the CF table?

  • There have been cases recently in the UK where smart meters were indicating ridiculously high amounts of power used. It turned out that a software update had screwed with the display. The figure reported back to the power company was actually correct, (and very much lower!)

  • I do not know much about this, but I have consulted with experts who do. This is what they tell me. Your assertion that I am wrong is -- as always! -- your opinion alone, not backed up by any facts.


    Here, let me google that for you. But, wait, it IS google that lost a patent jury trial.


    Jury hits Google with $20 million verdict in patent infringement case targeting Chrome web browser

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017…me-web-browsers/id=78319/

  • It's not my intention to trigger people, kudos to the person who can actually lay out hypothetical scenarios. Are all the acquisitions separated and secured for such eventualities or could Rossi / Leonardo Corp hypothetically sweep the table and acquire competitors IP?

  • The accuracy of flow or measure of usage has nothing to do with a meter being smart or not. The smart functionality refers to the operator or utility being able to read the meter from a distance. The old method was to have a guy drive in car and check in on the meter to see what the usage has been over a period of time, while the smart meter records the usage more often and then transfers that data, typically once a day to the utility.

    This is how we know that smart functionality have very little to say about how accurate a measurement is - when we actually do the reading. If you read your meter one time a year obviously you are going to over-bill because your usage and billing is estimated, or worse, you might get a huge invoice because you have been paying too little over a long period of time.

    In general one would think smart meters are more accurate because it's more modern technology and thus less probable a meter has clogged up or worn out etc.
    Also a digital meter does not have to be smart, it's two separate things.

  • Oldguy,


    This may be totally false. I could be mistaken. If so, I apologize ahead of time. But didn't Barry West (or someone else working at the Doral site) claim under deposition that it was his understanding that the results of the test could yield a payment from IH?

    Not sure about that. The question would then be where or from whom Barry hear it.

  • It makes no difference what they do, or what they claim. They can "claim" this or that until the cows come home. It will not help them. If the technology works, it will become generally known that Rossi invented it. There is a paper trail proving this. At that point, Rossi will be able to sue I.H. for any amount of money, with 100% assurance he will win. In a patent lawsuit, nobody cares what you say or claim. They only look at the facts. These are not trials by jury. The judge decides, and the judge is an expert in patents.


    There is no strategy I.H. could employ, and nothing that I.H. could do to win, if Rossi's technology really does work.

    Poppycock, and that's the nice way to say it.

  • No, they did not agree to initiate research. They agreed they would like to. But they did not get funded, and no research has been initiated. Perhaps it may be in the future, and perhaps this meeting helped, but so far there is no research.


    As I said, if there were any research, I would know about it, and I would tell you. I am not trying to keep people from finding out about research. Why would I do that?

    To prove your point. It's apparent that you can't stand being wrong about anything.

  • As I said, if there were any research, I would know about it, and I would tell you. I am not trying to keep people from finding out about research. Why would I do that?


    To prove your point.

    This makes zero sense to 5 significant decimal places. If there is research in India, you & others will surely learn about it, and that will show that I am wrong. There is no way I can hide this information to "prove my point." Any project of this nature would be discussed at an ICCF conference by someone from India. What do you envision I might do to prevent that? Rush up to the speaker and gag him?

  • I should start a new thread but . . .


    Regarding NEDO, the grants are for 1 or 2 years, and there are 15 categories. The amount of the grant is either 100 million yen, or 20 million yen, depending. ($1 million or $200,000.) This is explained in section III in the main page:


    http://www.nedo.go.jp/koubo/CA1_100134.html


    III. 研究開発テーマの規模・NEDO負担率

    1億円程度以内/(年・件) (委託:NEDO負担率100%)

    (注)大学・公的研究機関のみによる実施の場合は、規模は2,000万円を上限とする。


    Google translate with comments added by me:


    III. Scale of R & D theme · NEDO burden ratio
    About 100 million yen / (year · [per] matter [meaning subject; project]) (consigned: NEDO burden ratio 100%)
    (Note) In the case of implementation only by universities / [or] public [government owned] research institutions, the scale is limited to 20 million yen.


    In other words, when the project is conducted only at a university or national lab, the maximum budget is 20 million yen. The project in question has corporate participants so I guess it is slated for $1 million.


    Participants are: Technova Inc., Nissan Automobile, Kyushu Nat. University, Tohoku Nat. University.


    http://www.nedo.go.jp/library/…01607/20160000000621.html


    You can do a search for information on this project, limiting the search to NEDO pages, with the following Google search term:


    site:http://www.nedo.go.jp 金属水素


    This works better than the longer search term I listed before.

  • Re Doc. 170, looks like Rossi gets access to IH/Deep River Ventures communications, and IH gets access to Leonardo's tax returns. Seems like a fair swap.


    If Rossi's taxes are still fair game, I would think that Rossi has far more to lose here don't you think? A condition of the license agreement was that Rossi was paid up with his taxes and that he would report and pay all taxes derived from the license agreement. Failure to pay not only would invalidate the license agreement but probably be a federal crime as well. Both sides no doubt are looking for dirt but I think Rossi stands to lose more if any is found on his side.

  • @Peter


    I think in the exact opposite fashion. ;)


    Rossi has already stated in court filings that the appropriate taxes were paid. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have stated that there if it wasn't the case.


    My guess is IH is going to fight tooth and nail not to allow Rossi to see Dewey's communications with IH. I bet they appeal the order.



  • The judge left that open. I'm sure they will appeal as that seems to be the standard operating principle here.


    So you believe everything Rossi says? This whole case is about fraud. Adding taxes into the mix would not be surprising. I would think that the federal crime element regarding taxes would be enough to deter Rossi but who knows. It's unbelievable what has transpired as it is.

  • So you believe everything Rossi says?


    No, of course not. But on the whole, I have found Rossi's statements to be more consistent than what is made out here. When a public tit for tat dispute has arisen in times past between Rossi and Dewey, Rossi has eventually proved to be right (e.g., temperature data). Still waiting on who is right about the make-up of the main body of the reactor, another little niggly public disagreement between Rossi and Dewey. My guess is on that one: Rossi will be right again (he already has a major university backing him up on that point). On the taxes, given that he made some statements in the pleadings, I think it will turn out once again that Rossi is right, i.e., that he did pay the appropriate amounts due.


    What is funny about IH and IH supporters here, is that they hang their hat on an unsigned mysterious Exhibit 5, and hold it up as if it were the gold standard of truth. And when it gets picked apart, they go into denial mode.