Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from maryyugo

I am curious why Zeus is allowed the luxury to use [insults] here while others are banned or suspended for the same practice.

I assume for the same reason that people get away with calling Rossi a liar... It was a true and accurate description.

You have admitted being 'ill-informed' in the two quotes I posted above, as such, you are unable to say anything of value about the topic. The fact that you repeatedly do say things about said topic, makes you, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a 'windbag'.

...And the comparison of my evidence-based description ("ill-informed windbag"), with the unproven and childish personal abuse that got you temporarily banned ("idiot") suggests a certain degree of idiocy itself.

Quote from maryyugo

Try answering my questions. Of course, you can't

I could, but I choose not to - for the same reason I don't show my dog any card tricks.

Quote from maryyugo

As for my being "an ill informed gas bag"

^ More proof of your truly atrocious memory.

Hence why I don't feel the need to explain any reasons for LENR not being widely accepted. It would be lost on you, possibly in the present, but definitely in the near future.

Quote from maryyugo

No. It is transparently obvious that you do not answer my questions

I will not bother to answer your technical questions either, for the same reason. You have said, again and again, that you have no interest in reading the papers I recommend. You don't want to know anything about what you call "low powered" cold fusion.

(Your definition of "low power" might mystify readers. Let me explain how it works. You define "low power" as the highest power level you happen to know about. So if I inform you there is a result 50 W hotter, you will add 50 W to the definition of "low power" so that you can continue to dismiss all results.)

You said you have no interest in the literature and you will not read it. You said that here, explicitly, and you were quoted by Zeus46. That's okay. Neither he nor I care whether you read these things or not. It is a free country. HOWEVER, it is annoying when you demand that we tell you this or that detail, you arrogantly refuse to look at what we recommend, and then you kvetch that we don't bother to recommend anything.

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to dismiss the evidence without reading it, you cannot expect us to politely point you to it again and again. You are not the only one who does this, needless to say. The editors of the Scientific American and Nature have been doing it since 1989.

Darden and Vaughn were keen on pointing out in their testimony that they didn't want to set Rossi off, and so tried to play nicely. Why then did they do the one thing that would for sure set Rossi off: begin supporting Rossi's competitors and, in Rossi' mind, possibly sharing his know-how with them? Had IH not been like that, Rossi probably would have been entirely willing to help Murray get his modified reactor to work. Instead, Rossi had lost trust in IH, and said he had to focus on completing the 1 MW year long test. The writing was on the wall. The breakup was inevitable.

A little activity in the docket:

Quote

PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 6/13/2017. Total time in court: 5 hour(s). Attorney Appearance(s): Francisco J Leon de la Barra, Rodolfo Nunez, Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Christopher Martin Lomax, John William Annesser, II, Brian W. Chaiken, John Charles Lukacs, Court Reporter: Stephanie McCarn, 305-523-5518 / [email protected]. (cmz) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

Shane D.,

I actually agree. Even beyond the term sheet, the agreement was so lopsided in IH's favor when it came to what IH could do with the know-how, and what it had to keep confidential (basically nothing), that the deal was bound to fail from the start. Successful and fruitful deals require carefully balanced and fair agreements from the start, especially when there are large amounts of money on the line. Otherwise, both parties are asking for a dispute, and that is what they both got.

Lovely discourse in this thread. Makes me proud to spend time here. Are you guys 8 years old? put down the rock you will hurt yourself. Some here are continuing the conversation on R vs D.

Oh and mods, hmmm

Quote from IH Fanboy

Shane D.,

I actually agree. Even beyond the term sheet, the agreement was so lopsided in IH's favor when it came to what IH could do with the know-how, and what it had to keep confidential (basically nothing), that the deal was bound to fail from the start. Successful and fruitful deals require carefully balanced and fair agreements from the start, especially when there are large amounts of money on the line. Otherwise, both parties are asking for a dispute, and that is what they both got.

I agree about the agreement being bad. But it is not just bad in IH's favour. It gives Rossi a very large cash sum up-front based on a single test without very clear criteria for validation. Given Rossi's past behaviour with tests that is asking for trouble, but whoever signed it the reward up-front instead of being aligned with commercial development sets inventor and VC against each other and is contrary to VC 101.

So, which in your view is more likley? IH insisted on the up-front payment? Or Rossi insisted on the up-front payment and IH added enough conditions so that Rossi could not get it if he did not transfer IP? IH seems to have underestimated how much Rossi would be prepared to twist contracts, and also how unclear IP transfer could be. For example, if there had been a clear protocol in the agreement for what constitutes transferring the IP we would be in a better position.

But... Rossi is on record as resisting any independent testing of his devices. The few apparently independent tests we now know to be far from that. Do you think he would ever have been prepared to sign a version of this agreement that had precise and rigorous independent testing of his device as a precondition?

If, as many here think is overwhelmingly likely, Rossi has a non-working device, then this agreement is exactly what he would want, and strongly in his favour. Now IH could not know he had a working device till they had tested it themselves - though I think they unwisely half-believed some of Rossi's tests - so the badly validated up-front payment was bad for them.

I think their main problem was a lack of technical expertise. They believed the terms of the GPT were such that it would indeed constitute proper validation. It could never do this without much better technical oversight and independence from Rossi. They did not reckon Rossi's ability to sue regardless. He has the money to do this (they gave it to him) and he has shown himself non-rational when it comes to his claimed inventions.

A second IH problem was complacency. They reckoned, because the 1 year test so clearly did not comply with the legal terms of the GPT, and Rossi asked for it as a customer demo, not a GPT, they were in the clear. They could keep Rossi happy by letting him run it. If the device did work they had made sure (Casserino notes) they could pay whatever was needed to keep Rossi happy. If it did not who cares, Rossi is in no position to sue.

They found to their cost that was a miscalculation.

Quote from Rigel

Oh and mods, hmmm

One only has enough energy to tackle the really egregious cases, and only when things are starting to get out of hand.

Quote from THHuxleynew

A second IH problem was complacency. They reckoned, because the 1 year test so clearly did not comply with the legal terms of the GPT, and Rossi asked for it as a customer demo, not a GPT, they were in the clear.

This is not a matter of complacency. If things really were so, IH would be composed by incompetent people. You can not leave important things implied when talking about millions of dollars (among other things, money from others). IH knew from the start that Rossi considered Doral's test to be GPT but they overlooked it.

Quote from SSC

This is not a matter of complacency. If things really were so, IH would be composed by incompetent people. You can not leave important things implied when talking about millions of dollars (among other things, money from others). IH knew from the start that Rossi considered Doral's test to be GPT but they overlooked it.

SSC. That is a false statement directly contradicted by the license agreement which leaves many important things implied, specifically how to conduct the GPT. Go check it. And since it was signed by Rossi and IH they are both responsible.

As for whether IH are incompetent. They were surely technically naive. I'm not sure we have enough information to know otherwise, in their dealings with Rossi, they were incompetent. After all, the license agreement was rumoured to be (and given its VC-unfriendly terms is likely to be) what Rossi required to give access to his technology. If IH made a judgement call they had to have this, whatever the difficulty in dealing with Rossi, to settle the matter of whether his stuff works, it makes sense.

I certainly would not make your assumption here that everyone must be competent because of the money. For example, Rossi is known technically incompetent (read Mats' book which in spite of being written from a pro-Rossi slant has horror stories like the misuse of average V & A meters and continued claims this was correct. Or, more recently, Rossi's amazing claim that clamp orientation in a 3-phase power meter does not matter because AC is not polarised. These address directly a few of the more obvious ways that Rossi can show > 1 COP in his demos simply by misinterpreting measurements. IH have no technical background and are now known (Dameron) to have been technically incompetent to validate test protocols till they got in extra personnel. Convenient for Rossi.

I am a noob to this site (sort of). I spent the last month or so catching up to this point and still have another 12 or so pages to fully catch up. I have held off replying/commenting on posts so far because I thought it best to wait to see if comments I might respond to had already been addressed. But I have to respond to Mr. A. Smith's comment "Deeply untypical. And whatever happens it will be appealed by one side or the other. That's when I expect to see rebuttal evidence, not before."

No disrespect to Mr. Smith, but this is total nonsense. I am not a scientist nor an engineer. I am an attorney who has practiced for over 25 years, including opposing Jones Day (a/k/a Jones Day, Night & Weekends for the amount of billable hours expected of their associates and Jone, Day, Reavis, Pogue & Satan, also by their associates). I started with a "small" firm called O'Melveny & Myers and then spent time with Hughes Hubbard & Reed before going inhouse.

First, absent EXTRAORDINARY circumstances, new evidence is not admissible upon appeals. Examples of extraordinary circumstances: proof of actual innocence in a death penalty case, and many times not even then. Civil case like this, with plenty of time before trial - ain't gonna happen.

Second, I have read many comments by scientists, engineers, etc. on what will happen at trial, would the trial be dismissed, etc., but shockingly few comments by lawyers. IMHO, Rossi is fucked. Jones Day is going to destroy any and all credibility that he has and will force him to say, under oath, that the "customer" never really existed, that he controlled the customer, etc., etc. This is a civil trial and Jones Day can force him to take the stand. Yes, Rossi could plead the 5th Amendment, but this is a civil trial not a criminal trial. In a criminal trial, pleading the 5th or not taking the stand cannot be held against a defendant, but in a civil trial the rules are different. When a witness or a party pleads the 5th in a civil trial, the judge will instruct the jury that they are entitled to draw all the negative inferences they want from that and Jones Day will take full advantage of that. It is not certain, but the judge may also allow Jones Day to introduce evidence of Rossi's prior alleged fraudulent acts, not to show that he is fraudulent this time, but to address his credibility, or lack thereof. Jones Day is going to (rightfully) crucify Rossi on the stand over the false invoices, the fake company, his history, etc.

And no IHFB, lawyers and even laypeople in the real world understand the difference between a natural person and a legal entity such as an LLC, corp or partnership and no, what Rossi did re the fake company is pure unadulterated fraud AND JONES DAY IS GOING TO HAMMER HIM.

I have not read all of the motions in limine yet, but I suspect that if Penon is not present in court that Jones Day will attack any introduction of reports made by him as hearsay and therefore as inadmissible. Hearsay is an out of court statement being introduced to prove the truth thereof, which is what the reports would be used for, to prove that Rossi had satisfied his contractual obligations. But there is nothing preventing Penon from testifying in person, except that he doesn't want to, so his reports could be excluded as hearsay. Now, while there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, I don't see any that Jones Day couldn't beat.

As to the validity of the contract itself, I don't see any real chance of the court saying that no contract existed just because there may have been missing signatures. An agreement may be inferred by the conduct of the parties. However, what the terms of that agreement may still be subject to dispute, especially if the conduct of the parties differed substantially from the written agreement.

Last point for now, the dueling experts. Dueling experts may be discounted by juries to a degree, but jurors do listen to them. And in this case you don't have dueling experts. Read the court's order re: Wong's testimony (IIR his name correctly). He can testify, on direct by Rossi's lawyers, only that, if the equipment claimed by Rossi to be on the customer side was actually there (which equipment he didn't see any proof of), then something something. How, let's imagine the Jones Day cross-examination:

JD: Dr. Wong, do you any technical training in evaluating the operation of systems such as e-cat?

Wong: No.

JD: Dr. Wong, did you ever examine the e-cat in operation?

Wong: No.

JD: Dr. Wong, did you ever perform any analysis or examination of the technical workings of the e-cat or the customer side equipment (objection, compound question - rephrased as two separate questions)?

Wong: No.

JD: Dr. Wong, did you ever actually see the customer side equipment?

Wong: No.

JD: Dr. Wong, so would it be correct to say that, in rendering your opinion, you have relied entirely, completely and solely on the promise by Dr. Rossi that the customer side equipment was there? That you never verified it, that you never saw it, that you never spoke to anyone else who saw, etc., etc., etc.

Jones Day will make Wong's testimony look like dog crap. I would even consider not putting him on the stand if I were Rossi's counsel except for the fact that letting IH's expert testimony be unrebutted also kills Rossi.

Lastly, for real this time, Jones Day is going to have a field day with the Rossi witnesses. And no, I am not affiliated with any of the parties, their lawyers or anyone else in this fight, just a very amused observer.

I predict a bloodbath at trial.

Quote from woodworker

I am an attorney who has practiced for over 25 years, including opposing Jones Day

Wow. Thank you for your expert input. I cannot make head or tail of the legal issues, so I appreciate it.

Quote from woodworker

Lastly, for real this time, Jones Day is going to have a field day with the Rossi witnesses. And no, I am not affiliated with any of the parties, their lawyers or anyone else in this fight, just a very amused observer.

I predict a bloodbath at trial.

I hope you are right.

You should contact Abd. He plans to attend the trial. I am sure he would appreciate your expert info. See:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/

Well, as I am already in the water, let's continue:

People have commented on the inevitability of an appeal: Well guess what, if you lose and want to appeal, then Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 requires you to post a bond for the amount of the judgement, plus costs. Here is a good link to an article on appellate bonds, prepared by those nasty folks at Jones Day, of course.

Also, for those of you who want to know who I am, my name is Howard Michael Appel, California state bar no. 158674. I post on and am a member of the The Fogbow and Quatloos, as well as too many to count woodworking forums.

http://www.jonesday.com/files/…_2008_The_Appeal_Bond.pdf

woodworker,

I enjoyed your analysis. You may be right. But if so, LENR will march on, and probably Rossi too.

Quote from woodworker

IMHO, Rossi is fucked.

I concur. Jurors may hold "facts" however they wish. They can completely ignore them or base the entire case on a single fact. They are instructed to rely on their gut to evaluate the facts of the case (based on my personal experience on a jury). Rossi has no credibility given his JMC ruse and his long history of specious business practices. If Jones Day executes correctly they will annihilate Rossi's credibility. Add to that Rossi's revolutionary claims of commerical performance of a revolutionary new energy source--we'll it's just too much. Short of a miracle disclosure, like a QuarkX powered smart phone, Rossi does not have a chance.

Still strange things can happen in a jury trial. Rossi supposedly has binders and binders of data backing up his case--maybe we'll see something from them but so far we've seen only an amateur attempt to defraud.

As usual I want to add that I am not a lawyer and have no personal or financial interest in this trial. My original interest was in the E-Cat as a new source of energy and my interest now is in seeing that justice is served.