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.
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.)
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.
Re: Rossi aliases
Indeed - Rossi is so all-in on his blog, that in the heat of this AR vs IH case he seems not being able to manage all his "aliases" properly when talking to himself... 
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.
Display MoreI 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.)
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.
Para - you continue to amaze! Is there a date on Rossi's note-to-self from JONP?
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.
And meanwhile, those poor deluded Professors in Upsalla carry on working with Rossi. Amazing is it not?
