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 http://www.asser.nl/upload/eel…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.

  • As an obviously intelligent person you must be aware of the problems with proving a negative.


    Rion,


    I am not that "intelligent person" to who you refer, but no argument from anyone here that: "proving a negative" is a big problem for IH. Rossi knows that very well, and he has positioned his defense with that in mind.

  • 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


    Pete

  • PIH - I couldn't resist. Renzee even blessed us with a the QXR'sez in the lower left corner. Imagine what that mug is going to look like with his Liberace hair piece.



    Again Dewey, personal attacks like this will not play well with the Jury. I also think you are failing to take into account the average persons (Jurors) access to the internet. Hardly anyone is isolated from this type of knowledge today and any admonishment by the court to avoid it will only make the Jurors more curious about it.

  • Again Dewey, personal attacks like this will not play well with the Jury. I also think you are failing to take into account the average persons (Jurors) access to the internet.

    Potential jurors are asked if they have any knowledge of the case. If they have knowledge, they are not allowed to serve. If they lie, and they have knowledge, they get in big trouble. After they are selected the judge orders them not to look up the case on the Internet. Again, they get in trouble if they disobey the judge's orders and the authorities find out, for example during discussions when other jurors report them.


    I served on juries before the Internet. Similar rules were in place. They have been updated.


    Bear in mind that most people have not heard of Rossi.

  • PIH - I couldn't resist. Renzee even blessed us with a the QXR'sez in the lower left corner. Imagine what that mug is going to look like with his Liberace hair piece.

    I personally, prevented the QEG team from crowdfunding (they still don't know BTW so Shhhhhh).

    I outed a 3d Printer (wasn't intended as a scam, but turned out to be one, based on company structure,

    and realistic goals) and assisted with materials to a foreign blog to stop a water bottle scam.


    I do this as a hobby.

    But, alas, I have nothing for a guy in a syrup !!! (see cockney rhyming slang).


    To have conned the likes of IH (and indirectly, Woodford), Uppsala,

    and the entire population of Italy is truly mind boggling and I thought, I got this.


    I thought this was easy. The thing about the steam escape was easy, I thought.

    0 bar (whether it be gauge or absolute - doesn't matter) cannot result in steam coming OUT of

    a system. Boy was I wrong. I forgot about paper tabs in gaskets etc. (thanks IHFB)


    Patents mean that a product ACTUALLY works, who would have thought.

    There are literally millions of working s&*t out there that even the inventors

    couldn't get working e.g. US8112992 gravity bouyant balls (thanks to ELE).


    That if VW sell me a car, deliver it to my driveway, give me ALL of the paperwork

    and bills, but no key, and I cannot get the bloody thing to turn on, then that is my fault.

    (Thanks AR - IP delivery for $10 million)


    This situation is where the word unprecedented comes from.

    Does anyone have another example of this ? SERIOUSLY


    I am now quite content to know that this will be decided properly in a federal court.


    But Dewey, you have zero evidence that the rodent infestation on his head is a wig.

    So retract NOW.


    Pete

  • Again Dewey, personal attacks like this will not play well with the Jury. I also think you are failing to take into account the average persons (Jurors) access to the internet. Hardly anyone is isolated from this type of knowledge today and any admonishment by the court to avoid it will only make the Jurors more curious about it.

    Rion,


    Having never been involved in a lawsuit / court action as you have

    (along with 99.99 pct of the planet I would imagine).


    Could you please give me an insight as to how an actively websurfing jury

    has reacted in the past to a picture of Mcaws mocking the plaintiff.

    Google is coming up empty on this one.


    Thx


    Pete

  • Indeed. For now this scenario is still very far fetched, but can you imagine how weird it would be for IH to claim Quark X rights? Remember this one? [re Luxenergy site ...] This was an IH only effort to kickstart the commercialisation of the Quark X (or a similar device). There is stuff we do not know yet.


    It might sound weird, but to my knowledge IH have not argued that the QuarkX doesn't work; they would be unable to do so, presumably, because they haven't been kept in the loop about it. That makes their position an easy one in a future lawsuit: "Rossi hasn't transferred any knowledge about the QuarkX, so that's the first thing we ask the court to help out with so that we can proceed with exploring commercialization of it as is our right with the IP we acquired."


    So I think arguments that assume that Rossi can cut ties with IH and press forward with commercialization of the QuarkX technology lose sight of this point. The ties to IH are strengthened if IH end up having to pay 89 million dollars, for such an outcome will surely be accompanied by their retaining their license.

  • 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 ?


    (1) It's not possible to develop a commercial plan if the technology hasn't been transferred. (2) It's a question of US law as to whether there's an obligation to develop a technology in order to retain your license to it; my own assumption would have been that there is no such obligation, but I could be wrong.

  • It might sound weird, but to my knowledge IH have not argued that the QuarkX doesn't work; they would be unable to do so, presumably, because they haven't been kept in the loop about it. That makes their position an easy one in a future lawsuit: "Rossi hasn't transferred any knowledge about the QuarkX, so that's the first thing we ask the court to help out with so that we can proceed with exploring commercialization of it as is our right with the IP we acquired."


    So I think arguments that assume that Rossi can cut ties with IH and press forward with commercialization of the QuarkX technology lose sight of this point. The ties to IH are strengthened if IH end up having to pay 89 million dollars, for such an outcome will surely be accompanied by their retaining their license.

    Eric ,


    They were at least aware up to a point where they felt it necessary to claim domain names and start building a website. JT Vaughn then screwed-up and their plans were made public by accident. At least that's how it felt back then. I am not sure about the timelines, but if i am not mistaken the screw-up was after Rossi dropped the bomb.


    In any case the whole "Luxenergy" episode is weird. IMHO you either believe in your technology investment (whether that is a 1 MW power plant or a light and heat emitting sapphire matchstick) or you don't. If you don't, you move on as efficiently as possible and if you do, you see things through until you reach a next phase. In IH's case it looks like they felt strong enough to continue on their own and pursue their LENR adventures without the guy that taught them everything. Enter karma.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • 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.


    Dewey Weaver ,


    You cannot take your foot of the "bald statements" pedal, can you? But do you also notice that you more than once have missed the intended exit?


    I can imagine that the pro-Rossi posts make your hands itch, but if you are so certain of your case all your posts are a waste of time, right? It seems so strange to me that every sensible pro-Rossi post (and there are quite a few obsolete ones, including most writings from my hand) needs to be buried under an avalanche of desperate anti-Rossi FUD. Nolens volens. I cannot see how this seemingly desperate posting is helping you.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • Rossi probably withheld the Quark X from IH, so on that possibility I agree with you. The question will boil down to who breached first. If Rossi can show that IH did, then he would be justified in withholding any future performance of his own.


    I doubt it's that simple. A breach of the contract is not an all or nothing thing once there's been an exchange of money. IH have already fully paid the 10.5 million that was required for the IP, for example (by my understanding). And if the 89 million are extracted from them via the court case, they will then be fully in compliance once more if the court finds that they had been in breach. So even if IH had breached first and then must pay damages, the court case will presumably be bring the situation back to the point where IH have the license and are in compliance. And then IH would have full rights to the QuarkX technology, which Rossi will have to divulge in good faith. And Rossi will not be able to simply cut ties and pursue its development while excluding IH.


    So unless the court voids the license, Rossi will not be escaping working with IH, even with the QuarkX technology, by this reading of things. I doubt the court will void the license if IH have to pay the 89 million dollars. I doubt the court will void the license unless Rossi pays IH the 10.5 million dollars back, as well as incidental costs from the Doral affair.


    Someone who knows something about contract law may be able to chime in here and elucidate the matter.


    (This argument goes beyond my assumptions in more than one way, but I'm just following a hypothetical.)