Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from THHuxleynew

You are misinformed. There is no such condition. Just think how much work validating that would be!

In reality there needs to be a statement in the patent from the inventor that the product works, or could work.

Quote from oldguy

No, not true. It does not have to be at industrial level or even something that is profitable. It just has to be useful for someone.

The patent laws require that an invention must be novel, non obvious and useful (if you are in the United States) or be susceptible of industrial application (if you are in Europe; industrial application means that the invention can be made or used in some kind of industry). As far as I know, IH tried to extend their US application even in Europe, where the requirement of industrial application is valid.

Quote from [email protected]

I don't understand all this discussion around Rossi as a "serious scientist ". He doesn't claim to be. In mercato veritas.

Kev, we were talking about the Swedes, not about Rossi.

Quote from oldguy

You cannot equate paying for reports with approval and agreement with a report. Nor can you equate continuing someone on a payroll with approval of their work. Often companies retain people even when their work efforts are not approved often in hopes that the work quality would improve.

It is not the same thing. IH now argues that Penon's fourth report contains errors and that for this reason has not been accepted. But the first three reports are basically identical to the fourth (AFAIK), so if IH had expected a second report just to see if it was better than the first (as you claim), they would not even pay the third and they would raise strong objections long before than they (conveniently) did.

Quote from oldguy

Or that Woodford was receiving information that Rossi was a total failure and that they wanted to see it first hand to evaluate IH in light of that information and if the other researcher's efforts might overcome general objections they might have with LENR>

Things have not gone this way. IH warned Woodford of the problems they were having with Rossi just the day before their public statement and it was then that Lamacraft expressed his disappointment by saying that Rossi was their core businness. I do not remember the date of the visit to Doral but it must have been before IH's statement. So when Woodford men visited Doral Plant they did not think Rossi was a total failure.

From 214- 35:

Mail from JT Vaughn to Paul Lamacraft, Neil Woodford and others.

"I wanted to let you guys know that we will be releasing a public statement tomorrow morning at approximately 10:30 AM ET concerning our position with regard to Rossi's technology. The statement will make it know that based on our experience, analysis and observations we are not in position to announce the successful testing of his technology now or at any previous time. The statement will go on to talk about our portfolio of leading LENR technologies (aside from Andrea Rossi's technology) and announce (for the first time publicly) our serious engineering efforts presently underway [...]"

Answer:

"This is clearly very disappointing given that Rossi's technology was a core element of the initial investment. Can you let me have sight of the statement please."

Quote from oldguy

Patents cover what are listed as claimed. You do not have a patent for what is not claimed. Read the claims.

I have several patents and I can assure you if you do not claim something then you have not patented it.

Certainly, patent covers what are listed as claimed, but that does not mean that what is disclosed in the patent text does not count. Otherwise, why should write the text? Would not it suffice to submit to the patent office only a list of claims? If you have to deal with a patent dispute, you realize how all that is written in a patent becomes important ...

Quote from maryyugo

Levi conducted his ecat tests which yielded spectacular results in 2011 ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece ) It's 2017 and he has never repeated or improved on this test despite being requested to do so by no less than Nobel laureate and LENR enthusiast Dr. Brian Josephson (personal communication)

Since you are so well informed about everything, you will certainly know how much (for example) the Uppsala University (and Volvo!) invests in the various fields of research and how little the University of Bologna devolves for research other than those related to their most Illustrious professor (Zichichi). Knowing this information, you can answer it yourself.

Quote from SSC

Certainly, patent covers what are listed as claimed, but that does not mean that what is disclosed in the patent text does not count. Otherwise, why should write the text? Would not it suffice to submit to the patent office only a list of claims? If you have to deal with a patent dispute, you realize how all that is written in a patent becomes important ...

The purpose of the text is to support and describe the claims so that the invention may be reduced to practice (not getting into the issue that the patent office does not REQUIRE actual reduction to practice). People can pack all manner of gibberish in the text unrelated to claims if they like, which will be ignored by the examiner (however, albeit at the risk of ticking off the examiner). So if Rossi divulged his "secrets" in the text, without claiming them, then it's publicly disclosed, and public information for anyone to use; why would he hint of and publicly disclose any of his "secrets"; aside from giving away his "secrets", he is and all his devotees claim that protecting his valuable "secrets" accounts for much of his dubious behavior; that is, unless his only "secret" is that he is perpetuating another fraud. The Rossi IP claimed remains and is a hotdog cooker.

Quote from [email protected]

If Rossi's IP is nothing but a hot dog cooker then why does IH want to hold onto it, even in the face of an offer of refund by Rossi?

Can you please stop claiming that a refund offer was made by Rossi. The only source for this information is Rossi himself. IH has said nothing in public about it. Dawey Weaver has denied it.

Basing a conclusion on this is pointless since it's just Rossi say.

DNI,

But "Rossi said" he offered a refund, don't you believe him?

Quote from Roseland67

DNI,

But "Rossi said" he offered a refund, don't you believe him?

He also said he had multiple buyers, a factory in Italy using it to heat their factory for 2 years, a robotic assembly line for ecats,.....

Do you believe him?

Quote from [email protected]

Since Rossi said it in public he can bring it up in trial. How do you think the judge or jury would respond to a refund offer?

If it is not in his sworn deposition (it is not to my knowledge) it is not likely to be argued in Court. If he says, anew, that he made such an offer and IH denies it, given his documented lies, no-one will believe him.

Quote from [email protected]

If he says it in court then the judge will want to know why the offer was declined, because then there's no need for an expensive trial.

Only if IH agree there was such an offer. And I can't see how it in any way affects the contract dispute.

I'm pretty sure Rossi would not make such an offer: he was desperate to get that $89M (from his deposition).

Quote from [email protected]

Since Rossi said it in public he can bring it up in trial. How do you think the judge or jury would respond to a refund offer?

I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't think the refund offer has happened. But that's only my personal guess. None of us know. That's why I think you should stop claiming this as a truth.

Quote from [email protected]

If he says it in court then the judge will want to know why the offer was declined, because then there's no need for an expensive trial

The timing of the offer would be important. When was the alleged offer made. And for how long was it valid?

Quote from [email protected]

If he says it in court then the judge will want to know why the offer was declined, because then there's no need for an expensive trial.

notice they did a mediation before the trial. If it was true then it would likely have been done there.

The judge would likely first want to see evidence that there was truly an offer. So far there is nothing in evidence that such an offer was made to IH and they have denied that one was made to them.

Quote from DNI

The timing of the offer would be important. When was the alleged offer made. And for how long was it valid?

and how much did Rossi offer? $1, 1M, 10M, 11M, 50M.....

Notice Rossi made IH prove they could reasonably produce 89M.

Would he offer proof that he had the money he offered or was it already spent on condos and Elvis toupees.

I sure seems more likely that it was just a figment of Rossi's warped mind that a offer was made.