Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

So if Rossi were able to prove that he could get significant excess heat from the QuarkX it would be a game changer.

You are missing the point. It is too late. He would have to prove this before the trial, in time to upload the data to the case files. He would have to show that this is relevant to the contract and that he transferred the QuarkX IP to I.H. Rossi has not said he transferred this I.P. If he has not, it has nothing do to with the lawsuit and it would be dismissed.

It would be a game changer, but it would not change this particular game (the trial). Trials have to follow certain rules, and one of those rules is that you have to submit all evidence to the docket before the trial begins. You cannot introduce QuarkX test results out the blue after the trial begins.

In any case, I am confident that the QuarkX is a crude fraud. It does not exist at all. It is just a blurred photo of a blue LED. There are no test results from it, and there never will be.

So now we know why Rossi removed the piping right after the test was finished. That was spun to look like he was covering up an alleged scam.
But what's another lie in an ocean of disinformation?

Quote from Rends

... If Rossi's strategy with a fake costumer was legal? I don't k now ...

Interesting,,,you don't know if this was legal? I have a different perspective on this after following this open-minded forum (the one which is managing the LENR topic best in my opinion) and AR's claims for many years. Being initially interested in his technology and promises I gave up long ago on hoping that Rossi has a working technology that may be close to commercialization. Every seriuos person which objectively looks at this Doral installation and the results and "proof" provided by Ross must come to the conclusion that this was a complete fraud from the very beginning. IH might not have done their due diligence job best but this is no reason to declaire them as the evil on earth...(except Kim Young Un).

Quote from Rends

Using someones intellectual property without permission is illegal and a crime everywhere in the civilized world!

Well, to be exact, using someone else's intellectual property without permission illegally is illegal and a crime everywhere in the civilized world.

So again, please point out, from the Docket (or with other credible sources) where Darden et. al., used intellectual property illegally. This will be very helpful to Rossi's lawyers in demonstrating a pattern of Darden et. al.s criminal behavior, and so it may help him win the case. Also, local, state and US District/General Attorney's should be alerted to this illegal behavior - maybe Darden et. al. should have to pay fines or go to jail for the illegal behavior you have not yet shown us.

Quote from Shane D.

If you want some entertainment, read Rossi's depo (326), starting at page 168.

Here is a link to this document, p. 168:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…IH_witnesses.pdf#page=190

(Acrobat page 190.)

Quote from Rends

I have done this already!

If you are talking about your snarky hypothetical A/B trial example, that's a complete fail for several reasons, not the least of which is that the two documents you hypothetically postulated are NOT identical at all. To assert that is actually kind of slanderous.

So please alert us to the 'completely illegal' behavior you are talking about. This will help your credibility and maybe even help Rossi. What's holding you back?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

But the law works in strange ways sometimes, particularly if you are famous or high up in the government.

I do not think so, but in any case, that has no relevance to what you say. Neither Rossi nor I.H. are famous or high up in the government.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

My point of view is that a successful test of LENR would be important enough to change things.

No doubt that is true, but it would not change this particular thing -- the trial. As noted, if the QuarkX is shown to work, I.H. and Rossi might agree to stop the trial or moot the results, but showing that it works now, at this time, cannot affect the trial itself. It is too late. The evidence that it works would have to be uploaded already, and it isn't.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I know you don't think the QuarkX even exists but that is not the point.

If it does not work, you have no point at all.

As people speculate about the ramifications of this epic legal battle between the con man and the moron venture capitalists, it is remarkable that the straggler band of people who inexplicably still believe that Rossi actually has invented something real are the only people who don't understand that it would be worth billions if it actually worked. Squabbling over tens of millions of dollars only makes sense if this about a bogus device, which it most assuredly is.

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is a link to this document, p. 168:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…IH_witnesses.pdf#page=190

(Acrobat page 190.)

Interesting read. p171 he claims the gamma were thermalized. How in the world to you "thermalize" gammas. neutrons yes, but gamma. He is full of it.

And he sure seemed upset that they had pictures that his lawyers gave them. p175 Sure seems like he was hoping to hide things.

Quote from maryyugo

Does anyone know what the red and green highlighting means in the document Jed linked?

yes, and the stamped letters , like R and IMP, C . H

Quote from guest111

No evidence of the fathom behemoth pipe and plywood contraptionion being installed, having been installed, or having been removed...pictures, materials, data, sawdust, metal chips, witnesses, workers (Rossi must be a superman if he dragged all that pipe up to the un-airconditioned mezzanine, fitted all that pipe, plywood, and then removed it (invisible steel pipe also must have a density of zero, and anti-gravity properties)--all without a trace or witness---absolutely amazing!!). It was yet another invisible Rossi invention/claim, and yet another item that the Rossi Brethren insist must be proven using the Rossi antiScientific Method: "thou must prove the negative of every Rossi exhortation"--good luck with the jury/judge believing that.

There is not even evidence of its absence. And Rossi never said he had dismantled everything all alone. If he had told you the name and surname of the four or five Mexicans who probably gave him a hand, would you feel better? In return, however, we know that the photos do not show the room entirely and that there are signs of the presence of a bulky object on the floor. I do not think the jury will have so many doubts as you think .....

Quote from oldguy

You are wrong on several counts. In US patents the specs in a patents are not tested or ruled on by the PTO as being true or not. They do not have either the skill, expertise or resources to proof facts. They must take the information as given. The specs are to define terms and give an embodiment of the invention and show that it has some use. In this case, for example, in testing samples to see if they can produce excess. It does not say that the measurement taken are correct.

Specs are taken into account more than you think, especially if it's a Cold Fusion patent. For example, this is part of the explanation provided by an American Examiner who refused a patent to Piantelli:

Final rejection of Application/Control Number: 13/126,247

"Secondly, the applicant further asserts that the claimed method is not a fusion device but is rather an "exothermal reaction in a core of a transition metal in which hydrogen is loaded" or "an interaction of a transition metal and hydrogen in general, in its particular form of H- ion (filed specification, page 6)" but does not explain how this "reaction" differs from a fusion interaction. Since the specification does not explain this new interaction a person skilled in the art would not know how to make luse the claimed invention and therefore the specification is not enabled. While applicant's method may not be what is traditionally considered cold fusion, the method provides for the production of excess energy from the fusion of atoms and at present, and at the time of the invention, as stated below, this process in not more than a theory. Therefore the method is a kin to cold fusion as it refers to a theoretical process that is yet to be proven as effective and a person skilled in the art would not be able to use/make the claimed invention due to this.

Finally, applicant argues, using graphs from the specification, that the method claimed provides excess energy but does not provide evidence of any measurable energy production, energy input or net energy (difference in input vs. output) through this process by the claimed device and method. There is no reputable evidence that claims of "excess heat" are valid and reproducible, nor is there evidence that the invention is capable of operating as indicated or capable of providing a useful output.

The rejections are therefore maintained."

The words "excess heat" and "cold fusion" do not appear in the claims, yet the patent was rejected because the theory on which it is based (described in the specs) was not considered valid.