Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • I would not be surprised at all if the QuarkX technology, if it turns out to be a thing, is considered sufficiently derivative to be included. In that case if IH hold onto their license of Rossi's IP, the QuarkX IP would presumably be theirs to make use of as well.

    Probably yes.

    But IH never prepared any Industrial Plan to exploit the technology.

    Don't you have to really exploit an industrially develop a technology to maintain the IP ?

    In many agreements that is true.

  • Well ... Rossi did have the Mafia in Italy and Vulture Capitalists [ =8-( ] in the US.

    Are you sure it was the Mafia, which interfered with Petrol Dragon's business, or could it have been new Italian legislation?

    From page67…siers/legalstudy_full.pdf

    • Another key factor here is that waste producers may be liable for damage even if it results from the activities of an independent disposal operator to whom they transferred their wastes legitimately. This has been the rule ever since a 1982 law on waste (Presidential Decree 915 of 10 September 1982), which makes waste producers responsible for the costs of final disposal of their wastes, as well as for checking the suitability of any disposal companies they use. In a high-profile case in Milan, municipal and regional authorities (Lacchiarella and Lombardy) have been suing nearly 300 waste generators for clean-up of widespread damage caused by a company called Petrol Dragon which claimed to have invented a process for producing petrol from waste. Petrol Dragon is subject to criminal proceedings for the harm it caused, but has no funds for the clean-up. Some relief for future defendants may be available under the Ronchi Decree, however, which provides that legal transfer can be a defence against liability in such cases, at least from the entry date of the decree.
  • Maybe you are right, but Darden will have to explain his email to Ampenergo where he seems to attempt to influence their decision whether to sign.

    Why should he explain?

    Rossi does not explain his attempts to get IH to accept a customer.

    It seems that Ampenergo did not agree to the GPT.

    If that is true then the events in Fl were not the GPT.

    Rossi did not have a separate agreement with just IH for the GPT.

    Furthermore it seems that IH nor Ampenergo did not accept Penon, and

    Rossi didn't even go on record as accepting Penon even when asked.

  • I've come to believe that Rossi's volatility is simply a tool he uses to intimidate and control people. It seemed very effective with Darden and IH, and I believe it is something he can turn on and off at will. In the depositions he seemed in complete control of himself and came across as honest and sincere. He was challenged many times and seemed to remain calm and collected through it all. My guess is that he will do the same when he testifies in court. At risk of being banned from the forum again I'm not going to get involved with with the details of the depositions are filings. I don't have the time or the inclination to do that. Instead I will only express my over all impressions from having read most of them and IMHO that is exactly what the Jury will do with all the testimony.

    It's worth repeating; if Rossi had COP greater than 6, steam or no steam, whether 1MW or only a fraction of that, which I believe is easily demonstrated, and if the Jury decides that the test was actually the GPT, which I think they will, then it is game over for IH. As far as lying or dishonesty its my impression that everyone involved is equally guilty, and that whole issue will probably be canceled out by the Jury as a fact of big business. Of course this is just a game for us, but for the principals of the suit it is way more important. Also, unless the Jury is sequestered and deprived of smart phones, tablets or computers, each and every one of them will spend time on the internet researching LENR or Cold Fusion. As a result many of the will wind up here and on ECW.

    If I were a Juror reading the voluminous detailed and technical posts here from the likes of Jed, Sigmoidal, THHuxley, Paradigmnoia and others I think they would come across as boring, self rightious, opinionated nerds who were writing simply for the purpose of seeming intelligent and above it all, sort of like one speaks so as to be impressed with the sound of his own voice. On the other hand the posts of IHFanboy, El, We-Cat-Global, JoshG (and others) are for the most part succinct and to the point, which makes them come across sincere and honest. Again, this case will not be decided on voluminous boring technical facts, but on whether the testimony comes across as sincere.

  • This is again a classic RossiSays. All Rossi needs to have done is get a quote for 10kg Pt sponge. No deal. No evidence of anyone at Johnson Matthey wanting or being able to get a deal. And it can be twisted by him or you in this manner. Rossi is past master at creating semblance with no reality. I think in a Trial he will be held to account for the many claimed semblances that are provably not real: after a recital of these his latest efforts, like the 10kg Pt quote, are not likely to wash. They clearly work here with his fans: but would a randomly picked Jury be that?

    As an obviously intelligent person you must be aware of the problems with proving a negative. It's nearly an impossibility so the Jury will be left with making a judgement based the character and the believability of the witnesses.

  • And remember the verdict must be unanimous in the Fed court. Just one sane one who is not taken in by Rossi says.

    During Jury deliberation there is extreme pressure to come up with a unanimous verdict, so unless that one sane Rossi hater has an unusually assertive personality he or she will probably bow to pressure and cave.

  • would come across as boring, self rightious, opinionated nerds who were writing simply for the purpose of seeming intelligent and above it all

    We only sound like that because we are boring self righteous opinionated nerds... who like facts.;)

    It may very well be that the jury, like you, seems to have little patience for facts. You know, laws of physics, rules of jurisprudence, analysis of evidence, etc.

    But it turns out these things do have a way of influenceing decisions.

    And you can be sure that the lawyers from both sides have been trained on how to communicate persuasively. They're paid professionals trained to do just that.

    BTW, do you have any predictions regarding th outcomes of the various Motions slated for May 23?

  • This is nonsense. First, the deposition says they are being paid. The amounts are listed. So there is never any question they are being paid, and it is never a secret. Second, if a licensed professional lies about a technical issue, he will be committing perjury and his license will be revoked.

    Samuel Florman described cases in which licensed engineers knowingly signed off on false reports, evaluations and testimony, and had their licenses revoked because of this. It hardly ever happens because they lose their livelihood and a lifetime of high earnings.

    You are convinced of this based on absolutely no evidence whatever, with no personal experience visiting them, looking at the tests, or reviewing the data. You are convinced of this despite the fact that if they had replicated, they would have been happy to pay and they would presently be spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing the technology. Instead of firing their technical staff and closing down the R&D, as Murray testified. Frankly, you are deluded. I hope no one on the jury falls for this nonsense.

    @Jed I didn't mean to insinuate that anyone was hiding anything. Just saying that when someone is paid to say something, in court or otherwise, there is always the possibility (likelihood?) of bias. For the most part is merely the fact of expressing an opinion that leans toward the position of the party who is paying the fee. Using this fact alone a proficient attorney can almost always discredit an expert witness. In other words is the glass half empty or half full scenario. No license threatening lying or dishonesty is usually necessary to accomplish this, but in every case I was a party to the expert witness was usually of minimal value.

    You're right. I don't have any factual evidence that IH lied about the failure to replicate, simply that they reported they had succeeded and then later, after the fact, conveniently changed their position. While this does not prove that they were successful, or otherwise, it does cast reasonable doubt on the situation. The fact is that when a poor, hard working, abused individual inventor is forced into combat against a large multi-billionaire corporation, most ordinary people (typical Juror) will side with the individual. My best example of that is the Preston Tucker Trial in the early 1950's. Personally I don't trust for a minute that IH would pay the 89 mil if they could find a way out of it. I think it is likely that they confirmed the technology and figured to push Rossi into settling for a much smaller amount, but he then surprised them with the lawsuit.

  • I think that the dry technical stuff has bearing mostly on the counter suits.

    My guess is that it will be fairly easy to have the jury count to 3. Where there 3 in agreement that it was the GPT and 3 in agreement that Penon was an acceptable independent ERV?

    Example: It is relatively easy to show to get an operation these days it takes you, your doctor, and the insurance company before you can get an elective operation. I treat this GPT agreement like that. Yes you and your doctor can agree to a procedure but until it is signed off on by all three you will be waiting. Without that doctors signature you will not get it, without the insurance agency agreeing, you will not get it.

    Even if they "do the operation", if your primary care doctor did not sign the paperwork, just try to get the money from the insurance agency. Doesn't matter if the operation was a success or if it was done properly.

    The agreement was not signed. Two of the three parties to the agreement did not agree to it in writing nor accept it while it was going on nor approve of Penon.

    I think that a jury can understand the agreement called for a signing by all three.

  • Staying with the theme a bit longer (for grins) - Rossi is getting the truth rammed up his snout along with his natively biased S.Ps and R'meister disciples who troll / moderate this joinck. The broader implications and prospects of trial testimony should have R's Euro-network more and more concerned. Oh yeah - and lastly, that gold trafficking / money laundering stash is suddenly not looking so secret / secure these days.

    You know Dewey, you should hope that none of the Jurors end up reading your posts on this forum. If they did your objectionable, snide and snarky way of expressing yourself could alone sway them in the direction of Rossi. Despite this I think you are an accomplished professional and, like Rossi, can probably turn this side of yourself on and off at will. But if I'm wrong and you carry this persona onto the witness stand you will probably effect the Jury in the same way. As such you will end up being Rossi's best hope for winning.

  • RiRi - for someone claiming to have civil court experience and a modicum of real estate acumen, you actually don't seem to have a clue about how much of anything works outside of Planet Rossi. There is a 100% chance that none of the jurors will have ever heard of Rossi, the ecat, IH and/or the LENR Forum. A 95% chance that none of them have ever heard of cold fusion and a 100% chance that any attempt to piecemeal Rossilies into a "truth" by the R'ster in front of judge / jury will be destroyed before his very eyes. The long hot summer has begun.

    1. Rossi knows his technology works and along the way found out that IH are a bunch of unreliable guys that wanted to ditch him sooner or later;
    2. He sued them to make sure all their future LENR plans were put on hold;
    3. Because of Rossi's big claim IH cannot sell any assets (fraudulent conveyance) and partners are not very excited to finance other IH entities before this court case is behind them;
    4. Rossi kept on working and improved the technology that will, in whatever shape or form, pursue the route of commercialization;
    5. If IH wins, Rossi will appeal immediately and IH will be stuck in the same situation, while Rossi continues to work on his Quark X ventures;
    6. If Rossi wins and IH files for bankruptcy, Rossi will be there to take possession of all assets that are present in IH;
    7. If Rossi wins and IH pays him he will pocket the money and continue his Quark X ventures, leaving behind a badly wounded competitor.

    1. RossiSays

    2. Rossi F*cks up future LENR investment

    3. Rossi F*cks up future LENR investment

    4. RossiSays

    5. Rossi F*cks up future LENR investment

    6. RossiSays and Rossi F*cks up future LENR investment

    7. RossiSays and Rossi F*cks up future LENR investment

    God, I love copy / paste.

    We-cat, any comeback ? thought not


Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.