Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from [email protected]

Again, it's obvious you have dealt with the patent office from the perspective of a mature industry. USPTO admits to going out of their way to disallowing LENR patents.

The USPTO denies patents on wacko, unproven, fraudulent "perpetual motion" devices, as they should, since NO ONE has yet to provide any credible scientific evidence, over what are probably millions of "submissions" over the years. When/if someone actually scientifically proves (not via the "Rossi Scientific Method" (the basic premise of which is that one must prove things DON'T work)) a perpetual motion device, the patent office would certainly accept it. Rossi's "IP" is nothing but a design for for a hotdog heater --a vessel with resistance heaters, (a $10 hot-dog cooker from Walmart will actually work however).

Quote from [email protected]

Objection: Non responsive. I repeat the first question which you did not answer.

Let's say that you've got such a fancy-dancy lawnmower that you both hire an agreed third party person to write the report on whether the lawn was mowed. The 3rd party writes a favorable ERV report saying he thinks the lawn was mowed. How is the jury going to process that fact?

Does the 3rd party show up to authenticate and to support the report. A commenter above said that sometimes court will allow video testimony rather than requiring a witness to travel across the country. This is not the case with Penon - he has made himself unavailable, not just inconvenient to reach. Secondly, the report itself can be attacked. We agree to hire someone to evaluate if the lawn was mowed, but if I impeach the credibility of the 3rd party and I show that important aspects of his report re the lawn are false/faked, the report is doo-doo (a legal term for shit). For example, if I can prove that not only did the 3rd party not inspect the lawn, but that he was out of town or in a coma the entire time and that no one else took pictures of the lawn, his report is problematic.

What is the status of the IP? does IH have any claims to it? Does thee IP for the Quark reactor tech come into question? Rossi has built a barely functional lawnmower, but now he has improved it. Does IH have the right to use that product and to sell it? Since IH cannot get that product to work and they are claiming that the ip is not functional in court, and they claim in court that it never worked, can Rossi be forced to make the IP for the Quark function so that IH can sell it?

Quote from axil

What is the status of the IP? does IH have any claims to it? Does thee IP for the Quark reactor tech come into question? Rossi has built a barely functional lawnmower, but now he has improved it. Does IH have the right to use that product and to sell it? Since IH cannot get that product to work and they are claiming that the ip is not functional in court, and they claim in court that it never worked, can Rossi be forced to make the IP for the Quark function so that IH can sell it?

Don't worry Axil, no-one other than you and Rossi will think the quarkX works. So it will not be an issue. Anyway, as you know, even if it were an issue, The IH contract allows Rossi to do what he wants in 50% of the world. That is surely enough? After all, so far, in spite of claims on his blog, he has never sold anything except to IH. And see where that got him...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Don't worry Axil, no-one other than you and Rossi will think the quarkX works. So it will not be an issue. Anyway, as you know, even if it were an issue, The IH contract allows Rossi to do what he wants in 50% of the world. That is surely enough? After all, so far, in spite of claims on his blog, he has never sold anything except to IH. And see where that got him...

IH must have had some interest in Rossi's IP since that gave him, $10 Million for it, That is 10 million times more interest than I have.

IH must have had some interest in Rossi's IP.

True

Quote from axil

What is the status of the IP? does IH have any claims to it? Does thee IP for the Quark reactor tech come into question? Rossi has built a barely functional lawnmower, but now he has improved it. Does IH have the right to use that product and to sell it? Since IH cannot get that product to work and they are claiming that the ip is not functional in court, and they claim in court that it never worked, can Rossi be forced to make the IP for the Quark function so that IH can sell it?

yes, if Rossi sold the rights to IH for any improvements on the non-functional "lawn mower" then IH has the rights to the new and improved "lawnmower". Now forcing him to work on it is a different question. But when he starts to sale or patent the new improved "lawnmower" the IH is fully within their rights to profit from it being sold in the licensed territories and could sale their own copies of it using the patents or other information....... at least that is how I understand it. If you sale the rights for all improvements, it should mean something.

Quote from woodworker

This is not the case with Penon - he has made himself unavailable, not just inconvenient to reach.

Where did you read or deduce this? Penon is "expected to present" at the trial for both plaintiff and third party defendants.

[280]

Quote from [email protected]

You really do answer like a lawyer. If Penon doesn't show up then the big issue is why. If it's because he's dying of cancer like Focardi then it's understandable. If it's because he hasn't been paid by Rossi then Rossi is risking an $89M payout over a couple hundred thousand. If he refuses to back up the report that he ostensibly wrote and is being used in this contract dispute, then the judge should point that out during jury instructions and that pretty much makes the whole cause against Rossi right there.

On your second case, attacking the report is something that should have taken place in the bounds of the contract AT THE TIME. Each party in a legal dispute has the responsibility to mitigate losses. It appears not to be the case. It's like the lawnmower 3rd party having his report questioned 2 years afterwards rather than the week after the report was delivered, while all the equipment was still set up and the situation could have been mitigated. That bullshit has grown so old it has turned white.

lawnmower analogy.... IH did complain about the lawn mower to be used - like not using a reel lawnmower on the putting greens., and told them that he was late in mowing the greens the tournament was over, (and told him after he started claiming it was not the original selling heat but the GPT)

That is the complains were stated during the time not afterwards.

Quote from sigmoidal

Do you think the shareholders of IH/IPH and Cherokee are unhappy with the stonewalling? Because that is who Darden is accountable to, not Rossi, and certainly not us in the peanut gallery.

I think Brad Pitt wouldn't be too happy, because well, he's a cool guy.

Quote from [email protected]

It was a fancy-dancy lawnmower in the analogy. "Not using the real lawnmower" is adding bullshit to the analogy. Try to keep up.

So Rossi was late mowing the lawn, who cares? It makes no difference in the analogy.

"not the original selling heat" .... please write more clearly because it came out as gibberish.

If the complaints were offered during the time how come none of us heard about it?

Display More

Try to keep up. Rossi was (by agreement) to use the 6 cylinder device which never left North Carolina. He used something else in Fl. I think the Reel mower promise to cut a golf green is a fair analogy.

Rossi originally claimed that the work in Fl was to produce and sell heat for a "real" UK based company not owned by Rossi or Johnson. He did not say anything about the GPT or use that term until Aug many months after the start of the "test" and after IH cautioned him that the time for the GPT was passed.

If you read Dameron's depositions, you will find that IH did complain early about Rossi not using the instruments and plumbing that IH sent to Florida.

Quote from [email protected]

It was a fancy-dancy lawnmower in the analogy. "Not using the real lawnmower" is adding bullshit to the analogy. Try to keep up.

So Rossi was late mowing the lawn, who cares? It makes no difference in the analogy.

"not the original selling heat" .... please write more clearly because it came out as gibberish.

If the complaints were offered during the time how come none of us heard about it?

Display More

Oh yes, I think if you read through the documents you will find even the judge came out and asked if what was being in Fl was the 6 cylinder device specified by the agreement.

I still think that using the incorrect lawnmower when a reel mower is a good analogy. But I give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you don't know how golf courses are cut with a special reel mower instead of a rotary mower. It does make a big difference on a putting green.

USPTO NASA NRC and OSHA does not give a damn about the E-cat. There is zero discussion around the water cooler. Even the word bureaucracy is not accurate, but gets the point across since it (bureaucracy) involves states rights not the Feds. The above federal entities process requests -so they just follow the proper paperwork and they will look at your request regardless of content they are obligated to if the request is filled out properly. Someone may not like the response but it would get processed.

Now if I remember correctly someone who was concerned invoked the state bureaucracy earlier in this e-cat saga with their concern of radiation. So they (state not federal) were obligated to investigate and did---then left and wrote a report. There would be an FOIA report on this. Also BTW each agency maintains a whistleblower account. There is a big difference between going to work and doing the job you are paid to do and the "grand conspiracy" to kill the e-cat. Look I wanted that thing to work also. I will leave it at that.

Quote from [email protected]

This case is about a breachof contract. If the contract calls out for a 6 cylinder lawnmower then that's what Rossi should have used. If he used something else, he'll lose the case, most likely, unless he can prove there was an agreed change

There are several important discrepancies between what the original license agreement said and what went down in Florida apart from the failure to use the Six Cylinder Unit. All of these discrepancies seem killer if you were to just read the explicit wording of the contract. The question that we've all wondered about is whether the court will determine that IH's behavior implied that it understood and agreed with significant changes in those original terms (i.e., estoppel). If there is estoppel, it's hard to say what will happen. If there is no estoppel, Rossi's suit seems like a long shot.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I notice that the people here who argue that IH look like they must have a hidden agenda are forgetting about human frailty. People often get stuff wrong. Managers, in particular, often get tech stuff wrong.

Com'on! You keep on evaluate IH as very naive or inexperienced. It's obvious that we are talking about VCs and not scientists, but they are still VCs of remarkable experience. No one at that level would raise funds for a sector unknown to him without having first made a due diligence. If IH initially obtained positive results from its replications, it was not for an error of assessment, though it is now easy for them to tell this thing.