Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • 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.


    I don't think IH's position was ever that Rossi has nothing. It was that Rossi didn't transfer whatever it is that he has, and so (1) IH were unable to properly assess whether Rossi had anything, and (2) as IH tightened up its testing over time, they concluded that what technology was nominally transferred was a dud. In that sort of in-between area, I suppose it's possible to maintain hope that Rossi might have something if one is willing to look past a lot of sketchy behavior in making an assessment.

  • 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.

    I think today that is mostly wishful thinking. Its proven virtually impossible to deny knowledge in the age of the internet. I don't argue the point that a Juror might be slapped on the wrist are excused, maybe even fined (but not likely so) if he was stupid enough to admit to ignoring a Judges instruction, but remember, this is a civil action so sanctions would be pretty light in my opinion. I would also add that I have almost as little faith in American jurisprudence as I do in the honesty of big business, and were I chosen for the Jury neither hell nor high water would keep me from investigating further. Also, unless the Juror were stupid enough to brag about it, it would be almost impossible to find out one way or the other.


    I am old enough to remember the O. J. Simpson trial and due to the Real Estate recession at the time I sat at home and watched the entire trial on TV. It was the first ever, and also the last criminal murder trial to be fully televised live, in real time. We at home got to see virtually everything that went on in the court room, even when evidence was considered to prejudicial for the sequestered jury to see or hear. It was a real eye opener how arbitrarily the Jury was kept from seeing what in my opinion was extremely exculpatory evidence. My judgement is that had this evidence been allowed for the Jury he would have been even less likely to be convicted than eventually proved the case. It was similar in civil cases where I was involved.

  • He'll certainly be able to develop and promote the QuarkX outside of IH license territory. I also think there is a likely case to be made that the QuarkX is not a further development of the ECat technology.

  • He'll certainly be able to develop and promote the QuarkX outside of IH license territory. I also think there is a likely case to be made that the QuarkX is not a further development of the ECat technology.


    For the first point, perhaps. But (in our hypothetical scenario that the QuarkX is more than an LED) I don't think that precludes IH from asking Rossi to transfer the technology under the terms of the license so that it can commercialize it. (And from suing if this doesn't happen.)


    Please elaborate on why you think the QuarkX is likely not to be a further development of the E-Cat IP. The license agreement (doc. 001-02, sec. 13.4) is extremely broad in what it stipulates is covered under future improvements.

  • In fact that is fully true. He was cleared and refunded .

    Just ask the Italian Lawyer (another day another troll.... probably) to ask all the documents of the trials from Rossi's lawyers .

    The Version of Rossi can be found here:http://ingandrearossi.net/


    Insults are not welcome. Alan.


    Ele,


    I understand that RossiSays shows him to be innocent and have developed wonderful technology that just happened to fail commercially.


    I also understand that you accept this as true.


    Can you however also accept that other observers, noting the large number of highly misleading RossiSays now in the public domain, and the difference between statements on JONP and facts now known, will not believe Rossi's self-exculpation?


    Personally I would not hold a failed business venture against Rossi. But he has two such ventures (Petroldragon and the TEG affair), both of which failed with no independent evidence he ever substantiated his scientific claims. There is a pattern here consistent with the E-Cat saga.

  • 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.


    One of the fascinating elements of this saga is indeed the character of all participants. There is one negative that can be proven - the non-existence of any UK entity behind JMP. Rossi continued to pretend that JMP was separate from himself - clearly misleading IH. That is documented. Another negative: Rossi's Hydrofusion test which failed only because the independent testers refused to believe Rossi's (wrong) use of electrical measurement equipment. the same device measured correctly showed itself not working. Rossi then explained this to IH as purposely deceiving Hydrofusion to get out of his commitment to them.


    There is no Rossiesque twisting that can get out of those facts in the historical record, and they are damning for Rossi's integrity.


    More fascinating for me is how Rossi will behave under sustained hostile cross-examination. Will he behave as he has repeatedly with partners and blow his top claiming against hard evidence that white is black? Or was this reaction an act and he will behave in a Court of Law under control at all times such as to minimise the damage?


    IH will have the problem that they unwisely and enthusiatically backed Rossi as a one-off fast-track bet to LENR glory, and kept backing him after there was substantial new negative evidence. You can see for documents released how wrapped up they became in the Rossi story - just as did many other actors - some such as you remaining on the Rossi message. Such are human failings - I'm sure you have come across them many times in your career. If they are honest and contrite about this it will be believable, if they try to hide a severe (at least in retrospect) misjudgment maybe less so.

  • 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.


    Rossi's best get out here (if IH allow it) is to pay them as much as needed to settle and retain the Ecat IP. Then he can claim to everyone that he was punished by the US legal system but has emerged with honour and IP intact for his QuarkX conquering of the world. I'd guess this will not fly since IH will not want to see such a distraction and anyway it is not clear he will have enough money. But he can hope for a large-pocketed new QuarkX investor who will pay to bail him out. I can't believe that Rossi now will want to reinvent himself. LENR is too good an area for his PR talents.


    IH have one problem which lies at the heart of their stance - but luckily for them it is peripheral to this case. (It is not peripheral for the many web watchers, which is one of the reasons web comment is often so skewed). They are looking for LENR and cannot therefore be negative about their own prospects. But, when fighting with vapourware merchants like Rossi - OK - maybe there is no-one lese quite like Rossi - they would find it convenient to be more negative about LENR generally (aligning themselves with the rest of the world). I'm not sure in Court how they will play this. We have a few sentences in an MSJ with anti-LENR language, but that does not mean much.


    Would Darden (and Woodford) ever have been sniffing around LENR without the publicity and eye-catching claims of Rossi? I don't know. Again, they would not perhaps want to admit this is the case - though it might be. Equally it might not be - I don't see we have any information either way. Dewey etc is welcome to set me right. I'm not sure he will, were they inclined to be open the current Court proceedings must make that more difficult.


    I'm straying here into negative for IH and sort-of positive for Rossi comment. But, it is what it is, and I fully admit this post to be speculative as guessing other people's motivation way in the past always is.

  • And meanwhile, those poor deluded Professors in Upsalla carry on working with Rossi. Amazing is it not?


    Alan - your comment here is what I mean by snarky bias.


    You imply that the Lugano team's continued support for Rossi (sort of - they will not put their head above the parapet to defend the indefensible) is positive evidence for Rossi's device working.


    I think not. We now understand quite how much the Lugano report misrepresented the Lugano test. It was run by Rossi and Fabiani with flying visits from the Lugano team, but not presented like that. So they have made non-scientific as well as scientific misjudgements there. There is a human capacity to go on digging when in a hole, hoping to break through to Australia (or, if you live in the US, less happily, the Indian ocean).


    We cannot tell much about their stance because they stay (very sensibly) quiet. We can say that continued support from them is more bad judgement after known appalling judgement both scientifically (the experimental errors) and in terms of scientific ethics (the lack of correction, the overstatement of the experiment independence). They were, at best, highly naive and scientifically poor. They do not seem to have changed much.

  • For the first point, perhaps. But (in our hypothetical scenario that the QuarkX is more than an LED) I don't think that precludes IH from asking Rossi to transfer the technology under the terms of the license so that it can commercialize it. (And from suing if this doesn't happen.)


    Please elaborate on why you think the QuarkX is likely not to be a further development of the E-Cat IP. The license agreement (doc. 001-02, sec. 13.4) is extremely broad in what it stipulates is covered under future improvements.

    Yes it is broad and it is too soon to be sure, but at this stage the science behind the QuarkX seems to be totally different than the ECat, and also its application. At the very least I think it could probably be challenged on this point alone.

  • We cannot tell much about their stance because they stay (very sensibly) quiet. We can say that continued support from them is more bad judgement after known appalling judgement both scientifically (the experimental errors) and in terms of scientific ethics (the lack of correction, the overstatement of the experiment independence). They were, at best, highly naive and scientifically poor. They do not seem to have changed much.


    I'll let them know,they will be most interested in your opinion, meanwhile watch and wait. The continued interest of the Upsalla crew in Rossi Tech btw has nothing to do with bias. And my comments are way less snarky than yours.


    On-going work and co-operation between Upsalla University (definitely), Volvo Cars (probably) and Rossi over the last 2 years is simply a material fact. It tends to suggest (at the very least) that they are all stupid and possibly deluded, or perhaps building what they consider to be an un-rebuttable body of proof that Ni-H works. Which do you consider to be the most likely of these two scenarios?

  • Alan - your contributions here are generally biassed, as this one, because you do not respect context. Dare I say it, somewhat rossiesque of you.


    THH: As the timely replacement of ABD you are also supposed to comment IH-esque - arn't you biased too?




    I'll play, a little. Count 1 summary judgment will be allowed on some legal technical issure. Not sure which one but: standing of Leonardo, failure to get signatures to start GPT, failure to get all 3 parties to agree, failure to get a agreement by all 3 that the 1MW in Fl could be used instead of the 6 cylinder, failure to give access to IH as agreed to, ... something like that.


    @OG: If you ever did business, then you should know, that the majority of stakeholders always can overrule a small minority. But if there was a contract, the other party cannot be made liable. Thats all of it. ==> absolutely no signoff needed by all three for a GPT!


    Alan - your comment here is what I mean by snarky bias.


    You imply that the Lugano team's continued support for Rossi (sort of - they will not put their head above the parapet to defend the indefensible) is positive evidence for Rossi's device working.


    @THH(SNARK ?): Alan does not imply: He knows as many others know it too, except the completely biassed LENR blind minded conspiracy debunkers...


    Can you tell me why anybody of the Upsalla team should talk to you, a person who fights against the Optris manual? Did you ever hear a better joke?


    On-going work and co-operation between Upsalla University (definitely), Volvo Cars (probably) and Rossi over the last 2 years is simply a material fact. It tends to suggest (at the very least) that they are all stupid and possibly deluded, or perhaps building what they consider to be an un-rebuttable body of proof that Ni-H works. Which do you consider to be the most likely of these two scenarios?


    Once more for all: NiLiH-LENR is a hot topic. Not only of (private) interest for the US military, for the sake of the rest of the world too.

  • I'll let them know,they will be most interested in your opinion, meanwhile watch and wait. The continued interest of the Upsalla crew in Rossi Tech btw has nothing to do with bias. And my comments are way less snarky than yours.


    On-going work and co-operation between Upsalla University (definitely), Volvo Cars (probably) and Rossi over the last 2 years is simply a material fact. It tends to suggest (at the very least) that they are all stupid and possibly deluded, or perhaps building what they consider to be an un-rebuttable body of proof that Ni-H works. Which do you consider to be the most likely of these two scenarios?


    My comments are based on verifiable fact. Yours on unverifiable private information you claim to have. This is the year of the public outing of RossiSays. I'm not accusing you of lying, just that these hints, as so many in the past, have no utility unless they are concrete with the actors concerned fessing up.


    I don't doubt, based on your hints, that the Upsalla guys hope to make working LENR. I'd be surprised if they were not able to get somone somewhere to show an interest. I do however very strongly doubt their ability to correctly interpret the results of any experiments they have done, based on their previous poor judgement and current secrecy.


    So such information, distibuted in this partial form, is liable to mislead others. You may yourself have much more information that you cannot divulge and which convinces you. As with me356, hints in this area are not helpful.


  • THH: As the timely replacement of ABD you are also supposed to comment IH-esque - arn't you biased too?



    We all have our biasses. If I twist facts like Rossi you will no doubt call me on it.



    @OG: If you ever did business, then you should know, that the majority of stakeholders always can overrule a small minority. But if there was a contract, the other party cannot be made liable. Thats all of it. ==> absolutely no signoff needed by all three for a GPT!


    Your grasp here of contract law is shaky. A contract is not a company. Rossi has to claim that a new verbal contract was effectively made through IH acquiescing to the test.




    @THH(SNARK ?): Alan does not imply: He knows as many others know it too, except the completely biassed LENR blind minded conspiracy debunkers...


    On the contrary, if you look at #7982 you will see that he is implying, rather than making direct statements.


    Can you tell me why anybody of the Upsalla team should talk to you, a person who fights against the Optris manual? Did you ever hear a better joke?


    The technical argument here has been lost by you: MFMP tested this, as did GSVIT. If the Optris camera behaved as you claim it would mis-measure the temperature of grey bodies by a large amount. MFMP have not found it to do this. And I note that the Lugano Report does not determine temperature according to the characteristics you claim - so you are on your own here.


    Once more for all: NiLiH-LENR is a hot topic. Not only of (private) interest for the US military, for the sake of the rest of the world too.


    That is your bias. And whether it is true or no, you do no service to the cause by twisting things as here to support Rossi's unsustainable case.

  • (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.

    As an inventor with issued patents, I know that you are advised to have an anti-shelving clause in you assignments. Especially if they are exclusive assignments. There were non in Rossi's IP transfer. I think he was trying to do his own legal stuff. As they say, anyone who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.


    see: anti-shelving clause assignments https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/antishelving-clause/

  • Eric ,


    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.

    and remember that Rossi filed before the payment was due. That will likely come back to haunt him. (time from "ERV report submission to IH)

  • I also think there is a likely case to be made that the QuarkX is not a further development of the ECat technology.

    It amazes me that IHFB, Rinonrlty and a very few others even discuss the QuarkX as if it were real, much less of eCat technology. Of course it is of eCat technology, The exact same. Smoke and mirrors and is not real! It is more or Rossi's deceptive ways.


    In this thread it has been mentioned such as "Rossi could develop in non-IH territory" such as Europe. Nothing is stopping him now! Yet, he does not pursue the billions available for eCat plants in Europe, but instead, wastes his time on a lawsuit. Why? It is quite clear. He does not have a technology.


    If Rossi's tech worked, he could "crush" the lawsuit by having a reputable organization prove his "Big Frankie's work". He does not do this! Yet he pays lawyers to do legal arguments! Why? It is quite clear. His eCats do not work and he knows it.


    The eCat is ready for commercialization according to Rossi. Remember, he is suing for $89 million dollars because he states the plant ran for 350 days out of 400 with high COP. Yet, he drops the eCat completely for the low powered QuarkX! This is pure BS. He moved on to the QuarkX because he knows his eCat ruse has been exposed. No one will purchase it and he cannot show it works. Plain and simple. So he diverts to the "next greatest thing"! Yet remember.... he is suing for $89 million because the eCat ran for 350 days out of 400 with high COP! And some still believe in this tripe?


    IHFB has already alluded to the fact that the trial will not decide on whether the eCat works or not. Of course it will not. The believers are preparing themselves for the clear conclusion that Rossi will lose this case. So they are preparing themselves to continue to believe for "other reasons".


    The followers make up all kind of excuses and reasons for Rossi's own actions because Rossi himself, does not prove his technology works. Because he cannot! For some, Rossi is the rainbow. Tantalizing but always "just out of reach"! They will never see that eCat/QuarkX pot of gold because it simply does not exist.

  • Yes it is broad and it is too soon to be sure, but at this stage the science behind the QuarkX seems to be totally different than the ECat, and also its application. At the very least I think it could probably be challenged on this point alone.

    yes, but can you use it to heat water? That is what the IP was focused on.

  • And meanwhile, those poor deluded Professors in Upsalla carry on working with Rossi. Amazing is it not?

    Here we have the most intriguing question.


    Rossi is suing for $89 million dollars because he stated that his eCat worked for 350 days out of 400 with high COP.


    We have Alan stating (from what I assume is inside information) that the Lugano team (or at least some subset) is trying to replicate Rossi's tech.


    These two do not sync up in a logical manner. If the eCat worked for 350 days out of 400, the Lugano team, would have clearly and solidly demonstrated a replication in the 3 years since the Lugano report. They have not. Why? Is it because Rossi will not give them a reactor to test? Will Rossi not cooperate in anyway? Is this why they possibly hired Fabiani recently, to get inside information?


    If Rossi is not assisting them with a reactor or "secret sauce", why not? It would be tremendously helpful in his lawsuit perhaps. Yet he spends time with an undergrad on the new QuarkX?


    These in my mind are irreconcilable. I do not mean to say I do not believe Alan, I just cannot see the logic in this scenario. Rossi is stating $89 million dollars worth that his technology is so reliable and replicable that it ran for 350 days out of 400 at high COP. Yet the Lugano team cannot replicate in 3 years time? They have been "allies" of Rossi. Why would he not have given them some secret sauce, etc?

    Why has the Lugano team been completely silent. Not even a peep?


    This is a mystery that I do not see a logical reasoning too. ?(

  • So such information, distibuted in this partial form, is liable to mislead others. You may yourself have much more information that you cannot divulge and which convinces you. As with me356, hints in this area are not helpful.


    I have no technical information to impart, merely a confirmation that they are working on Ni-H with positive results, passed on in full. As I said that is a material fact, as is the presence of Rossi's colleague. I apologise if it doesn't accord with your weltschmertz, it is as they say 'an inconvenient truth'. I think more will be revealed by summer's end, in the meantime, they are locked down, no visitors no publications.


    ETA. No 'inside info' btw, I just emailed and asked

    I'm not accusing you of lying,


    Just as well.

  • As an inventor with issued patents, I know that you are advised to have an anti-shelving clause in you assignments.

    I have heard that when the patented technology is potentially important, the Patent Office itself enforces a kind of "anti-shelving" policy. They insist that the inventor or licensed parties manufacture the machine, or assign the patent to others who will manufacture it. Apparently, they have the power to do this. That's what I have heard, anyway.


    A patent does not give an inventor as much control as many inventors believe it does. It is not only for the benefit of the inventor, but also for society as a whole.

  • I think more will be revealed by summer's end, in the meantime, they are locked down, no visitors no publications.

    That is no way to do scientific research. They made that mistake during their long test at Lugano. They should have consulted with experts at every stage. Heck, they should have consulted with me -- a non-expert. I would have asked them "what color is the reactor incandescence?" I think it was orange, not white, which means their conclusions and their entire report are wrong, and they wasted months.


    I asked them that after the report was published. They never responded. They invited technical questions but I do not think they responded to any of them. That's is an outrageous violation of academic norms. People who do things like that are bound to make stupid mistakes.

  • They should have consulted with experts at every stage.


    Perhaps they are, we have no way of knowing, unless they chose experts we know too, and the chosen are happy to announce the fact.. On the other hand I do suspect that there might be a few people not well known to any of us as 'LENR friends' in Upsalla who know which end of a candle you are supposed to light.

  • I have no technical information to impart, merely a confirmation that they are working on Ni-H with positive results, passed on in full. As I said that is a material fact, as is the presence of Rossi's colleague. I apologise if it doesn't accord with your weltschmertz, it is as they say 'an inconvenient truth'. I think more will be revealed by summer's end, in the meantime, they are locked down, no visitors no publications.


    ETA. No 'inside info' btw, I just emailed and asked


    Just as well.


    It is my understanding that Fabiani was not working on the core ECAT technology, but designed the electronics for controlling the reaction.

    Uppsala hiring Fabiani might thus be an indication that they have indeed something which needs to be controlled.