WW my guess is the J Day has covered all bases on the settlement. It is unlikely that IH would sit for another bad "contract"... settlement with the likes of JD in the works now.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
1. Mind blown
2. That page is missing now is it linked any other place with an anchor?
-
Oh, my confusion. So stephenrenzz gets the credit (he last posted here almost a year ago, before I started reading this forum).
Thanks for clearing that up.
(But Rends, you're still a cowboy to me).
-
But to specifically address materials that would be admissible evidence, I am certain that there is a great deal, probably on both sides, that was never included in any filing but that would have been included in discovery.
Ah. So I am wrong, and the trial might have brought to light even more outrageous nonsense. Oh well. We have enough already. I hope I never hear from Rossi again.
I doubt I.H. managed to claw back any of their money. Too bad.
-
Posted June 12th. What's the prize?
Hey Feb. buster #1614 (comment)
Option #1 Settlement (ref. POSTUS 25mill for T. University)
It's just a shame.
Alan you can have half my pickle. It's bittersweet.
-
Numerous people have asked about settlement? I can see why Rossi would want to settle, but why would IH. There are really only two possible reasons I see for IH to settle: First, Rossi gives them back their money along with more money for their legal fees or second, Rossi somehow comes up with proof, real proof verified by IH's experts, that his machines work.
Isn't that exactly what IH is asking for in the counter-claim. Give us back our 10.5 million? Great basis for a settlement, IH wins on all counts. Doesn't have to pay another 89.5 million and gets its original 10.5 back. But if Rossi wanted to do this he could have done it long ago and saved a lot of lawyers fees.
If during trial, unless it related to the issues on trial, it wouldn't be admitted as evidence. So QuarkX would not be admitted as it has nothing to do with whether or not Rossi satisfied the conditions precedent to IH's obligations in the time period required. Having said that, if he demonstrated and PROVED a working device, I would bet that Rossi and IH would come to a mutually beneficial settlement agreement and the trial would be mooted. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Settlement discussions are often not admissible at trial. But let's say Rossi gets in, what then when IH says fine - bring a cashier's check for the $11.5 million. Does Rossi have the cash or will that be another instance of Rossi coming up with an excuse? And, if Rossi and IH settled mid-trial on those terms, Rossi could arguable be worse off. With the trial, he stands some chance, however small, of winning on both the principal complaint and the counter-claim. If he settles and then doesn't pay, IH has a slam-dunk case against him for the $11.5 million. What would his defense to non-payment of that be - I didn't mean it or didn't understand it? And given that such a settlement gives IH everything they want originally, I suspect they would have accepted a genuine offer. Remember, if they win on the counter-claim, they will likely be deemed to have rescinded any claims they have to the IP (once they are fully paid). Based on the above, I don't find the alleged settlement offer credible. To plagiarize, "show me the money."
Rossi certainly did not give any money back to Darden et. al. -
Rossi certainly did not give any money back to Darden et. al.
Certainly? How do you know?!? Did Rossi tell you? I though the agreement was supposed to be confidential. Did you bug the courtroom.
You seem to have remarkable deep sources of information. Can you tell me what I had for breakfast this morning?
-
Lemons?
-
Posted June 12th. What's the prize?
Sorry Alan, I had missed that (earlier) comment from you speculating about settlement on the courthouse steps.
Although a bit vague, I admit that your comment was the most prescient made... ...and I am pleased to announce that you have won millyuns of Quatloos as the RvD Trial Bold Prediction Winner!
Well fortunately I am not averse to blowing my own trumpet... Feb 9th:...Now it's a standoff - whoever blinks first will have to make the most concessions in the settlement....
...If Rossi wanted to swap, say $5m for a confidentiality agreement, would this leave everyone happy(ish)? - I believe Dewey when he says they want the money back to spend on more promising projects, rather than vengefully spending/wasting $10m essentially publicly shaming Rossi... Which could just be a helpful stance for the purpose of extracting a more favourable settlement....
Hence why people like to settle out of court - it can be an expensive dice roll.
Best hurry up and settle then, eh?
So basically, I claim these damn Quatloos as rightfully mine. And if anyone has a problem with that, I suggest you sue me...
(No need to investigate my Feb 9th post too much Rigel...
)Looks like David French had this right from the beginning. He said 80% of these things settle before court
Oh, you read that too.
Zeus - we're not settling. We're going to finish this clown's ability to steal money in the name of false hope.
It was so obvious that IH would always be up for settling. I even congratulate everyone involved for taking the most sensible option... IH avoids risking more money, and Rossi emerges unblemished (in a de jure sense). Why waste money on lawyers when there's much better stuff to spend it on? Some parts of the IH investment will pay off sooner or later, and you'll have your bragging rights in due course.
IMO this is the most sensible comment I've read today: (With Axil being a close second)...
Quote from Beene, VortexMy take on the major factor which led to the withdrawal of claims is that Rossi's attorney finally realized that he could not ethically put Rossi on the stand and let Rossi testify to those details which were in the deposition but which were so obviously false - such as the imaginary heat exchanger, the imaginary customer with the imaginary product which used up so much imaginary heat, and the imaginary ERV report.
But what do I know?* ..
.Reading Abd's excellent write-up I get the impression that it was IH who blinked first.EDIT: Although Dewey seemed particularly chipper yesterday, so maybe my impression was wrong.
*Lots, obviously.
-
When you read Rends, ele, Zeus and several others. you can see the type of thinking that leads one to believe con men like Rossi, Sean McCarthy (Steorn), Defkalion's John Hadjichristos, etc, etc. Humans, sadly, are very prone to this. It's a long discussion but the evolutionary origin of faith is probably rooted in the need to react quickly to announced threats, for example, predators. In prehistory, if someone yells "Lion" and you ask "Oh yeah? How do you know? What color was it? How do you know it's not tame? etc." then you get eaten. If you take it on faith, you run and maybe survive. Taking things on faith once had a strong survival benefit. Nowadays, that same instinct feeds scammers. IMHO of course.
-
You obviously have very limited reading comprehension.
...If someone yells lion, I heat up my popcorn cannon.
You were asking recently why no-one paid you any attention... It's probably due to the way you choose to express yourself.
-
If apparently intelligent people can't understand Clarke's arguments against the Swedes, I figure the jury would have had little hope.
-
If there is a psychopath in the room it's definitely you maryyugo, you are allowed to throw out threats and attacks unlike anyone on this board,
when will the moderators put a stop to it?
you are a Genuine predator of the worst kind MaryYugo, what is in that sick mind of yours that you persist. There is no question in real life
that strange things happened to you to be so disturbed, Jesus seek help already? Rossi won get over it.
How in the world do you get Rossi won? He brought a $89M suit against IH. The settlement was to drop the suits. So IH would owe nothing (unless in the undisclosed settlement) which is the same results as if IH won the suit outright. The bottom line Rossi has not proven any wrong doing by IH and has given up or walked away from a possible $89.
-
Rossi is now calling his device the "E-Cat- QuarkX".
I speculate that Rossi wouldn't be linking the QuarkX to the E-cat unless the IH licence agreement had been cancelled as part of the agreement.
-
Interesting surprise from the Court.
What IH and Rossi don't say might be as interesting as what they do say, regarding each other, from now on.
Anyways, messed around using the MFMP Thermal Validation Re-visit (April 2017) RAVI file (thanks Alan) and measurement boxes to make a more visual approach to the emissivity comparison.
-
To me- clearly, very clearly Rossi won this case on this simple criteria -> that he gets to 'move on' to another day and so a hat tip to you sir. Good luck with your new investors. To summarize fake companies fake reports fake client and you get a draw? That sir is a clear win. And another feather to your counsel. Bravo!
-
How in the world do you get Rossi won? He brought a $89M suit against IH. The settlement was to drop the suits. So IH would owe nothing (unless in the undisclosed settlement) which is the same results as if IH won the suit outright. The bottom line Rossi has not proven any wrong doing by IH and has given up or walked away from a possible $89.
How do you know Rossi walked away from 89 million? As far as I know anything could be included in the undisclosed settlement.
-
In case Rossi walked indeed away with millions (I highly doubt) we can finally hope to see him now spending those into his Quark commercialization. Let' bet how fast this will happen...
I am sure we will wait as usually forever for this promises, independend tests, robotic factories and sales of plants and reactors. Interesting to see how patient his followers are who ordered in good faith in 2011 (!) their home E-Cats from Dottore Rossi and still have no problem waiting further...
-
That is for sure a victory for Rossi, but not a victory for LENR, because all the questions remain open!
I agree.
if Rossi have nothing you are right, he keep his 10.5 Mn$, and avoid perjury and ridicule at the bar. He avoid criminal consequece of the acts visible from the evidences.
If Rossi have something, he is the loser, but given he seems to have avoided any evidence of his device working, and keep a clear appearance to have tried to fool his partner above any sense of ridicule, it is a desired effect, and his decision.
-
LFH Sam - the SEC fine against CIP was the equivalent of a parking ticket. The expense entry accounting error that they did challenge after years of investigation and audit is corrected and the matter is closed.
In addition, the days of SEC shakedown racketeering under a certain administration of certain investor groups is also over. The swamp is being draining all around and those folks are looking for jobs. I'm sorry if that is disappointing to you. The entire CIP teardown charade is over here as well and accountability is up next.
