Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from [email protected]

You're worried about copyright issues over a paper that YOU wrote? Submit it to Arxiv.org, they don't seem to have a problem with copyright issues.

As Jed noted, authors have to sign copyright agreements with journals. In my case, it is a non-standard one as I technically work for the government. The articles are printed in journals that sell subscriptions. My releasing a paper to a free distribution site such as Jed's seems to me to circumvent what the journal is trying to do. I do have some leeway in sending copies to individuals. I believe that is part of the 'fair use' idea.

Quote from AlainCo

Where came the fault, is when you don't correct, don't answer, don't even try.

Or when you misrepresent, and pass it off as definitive...

Quote from Dewey Weaver

There were many Boeing made reactors tested with R's fuel. We still have them. None of them worked.

Yeah, but you guys never provided Boeing with the right fuel mix. Brilliant. The engineer was almost begging for you to provide a reactor with the correct fuel mix. Why didn't you?

So now you claim that you took the Boeing-made reactor, put the correct fuel it in, then tested it yourself? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of involving Boeing? Didn't you want to verify your calorimetry methods using a third-party expert?

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not know, but as I said, lawyers tell me it is unlikely Rossi would have any basis to appeal. There would have to be a legal problem with the judgement, which is unlikely given the high quality of I.H.'s legal team.

You are talking to some pretty clueless lawyers then, or maybe you really aren't talking with lawyers. Either side can appeal as a matter of right, at least to a circuit court of appeals. An appeal to the Supreme Court is subject to a review and grant of certiorari.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Following the inevitable appeal after the Rossi vs Darden trial, it seems likely that Rossi will put on a public demonstration of the QuarkX.

Should that prove successful enough to surface in the main line media that will have a significant influence on the appeal.

Whatever happens Rossi is unlikely to make much money as IH will probably take Chapter 11 if they lose and he has large legal costs.

Whatever the outcome of this case, the QuarkX would have no bearing on any appeal. An appeal is based on the trial record.

Quote from WMartin

woodworker can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that appeals courts do not usually assess matters of fact but only matters of law. They will be only looking for errors in the trial that would result in a different outcome.

They could decide that the trial court reallllllllllllly screwed up an issue of fact, but generally they defer to the trial court on findings of fact, especially where it is a matter of credibility. After all, the witnesses appear before the trial court, be it a judge or jury. Witnesses don't testify before the appellate court. Additionally, the appeals court is limited to the trial record (with a few exceptions, which are not likely to be relevant here).

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

That is the legal situation, but should Rossi successfully demonstrate a high COP working device, possibly the most important invention of the century, I have no doubt the jury would take that into consideration.

There is no jury on an appeal.

Quote from JedRothwell

You are not allowed to demonstrate machines during a trial, in a courtroom. That never happens. If Rossi has any proof that the machine works, he would have to submit it in writing before the trial starts. It would have be included in the docket exhibits already, to give the defense time to prepare for it. You cannot submit new evidence after the trial starts.

Rossi has no such proof. The best he can offer is the Penon report, which proves the opposite of what he claims. It proves he is a fraud.

If he were to demonstrate the machine actually works after losing the trial, perhaps I.H. would deal with him. If I were them I would consider doing that.

Jed, this hurts, but I must disagree. Judges will sometimes allow a demonstration of something and, occassionally, newly discovered evidence may be admitted after the trial begins. However, you are correct that Rossi has not included that (it appears) as an exhibit and if he was only going to submit something he had before the trial started, it would not likely be considered newly discovered evidence and thus not admissible.

... "but I must disagree. Judges will sometimes allow a demonstration of something and, occa[s]sionally, newly discovered evidence may be admitted"...

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

He must know the test of the QuarkX needs to be bulletproof in order to be successful.

True - but you can bet that there won't be a bulletproof test of an e-cat (or QuarkX).

There wasn't one in the last 10 years, and there will not be one in the next 10 years. Guess why?!

However, for a couple of Rossi fans and conspiracy theorist, any lousy demonstration of a Quarky will be good enough to keep faith into their guru. - And maybe it will be even good enough to find another investor who has some money to waste... (but I think that this is very unlikely, because here shouldn't be so many "IHs" around)

Quote from Rends

https://animpossibleinvention.…08/us9115913b1.pdf#page=8

Look at the CLAIMS, nothing but a hotdog cooker; he can put whatever extraneous, unsubstantiated, red-herring, hand-waving in the body of the patent that he likes, it means nothing if not claimed. So, I suppose the Rossi Brethren are going to say that Rossi (who is so protective and paranoid of his "IP"), then put his "secret recipes", or hint's thereof, in the text of the patent but did not claim them as some sort of master-strategy, so now all the world is free to use them since they are publicly disclosed but not claimed...........?? Or, did he intentionally put erroneous information in the patent, to "distract" would-be copy-cats, in which case the patent would be invalidated...?

IHFB - so you're saying that R has a specific fuel that works? Who knew??? He should have considered making that available to IH when he had the chance. You get to remain ignorant on the number of iterations of fuels tested

in the Boeing / IH effort and one hint - your argument doesn't help Planet Rossi ---- but lets stay focused on that for the next several weeks anyway. That way you'll not notice the boomerang until you're out cold on the ground.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Yes, I realized that after I had written it and deleted the sentence that the jury were not lawyers. So it does weaken the argument but, I still think if Rossi demonstrated that he had conquered LENR it would have an effect. No one would want to cripple development of something that important would they?

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.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Yes, I realized that after I had written it and deleted the sentence that the jury were not lawyers. So it does weaken the argument but, I still think if Rossi demonstrated that he had conquered LENR it would have an effect. No one would want to cripple development of something that important would they?

Yes, and there's nothing that has, is or will stop Rossi from demonstrating that he has 'conquered LENR' other than Rossi himself, because all he has to do is demonstrate LENR in a convincing way, which he has always been free to do in Europe (and elsewhere outside of IH's licensed territory) without restriction. Then he can become a billionaire and pick up his Nobel prize while in Sweden setting up his robotic Beagle Bone factory for HydroFusion to manufacture all his Quarky, E-Catty, glorious LENR+ goodness, saving mankind from our Katistrophic (sic) energy crisis, and donating 50% to child cancer research, just like he's said he's gunna do.

So, since he said it, surely it's just a matter of time before all his secret military and non-military satisfied customers help him spread the Good News: Dottore Rossi has conquered LENR!

Or maybe, instead, he'll buy a bunch of Florida real estate, because he's actually completely full of ...

...

(tick)

...

(tock)

...

(tick)

...

Rends, what is your role here? The only conclusion I can draw based on your recent posts and comments is, that you - different to all other mods - seem to more or less believe the Rossisays story while putting IH as the defendant in this trial practically on the same (fraud) level as Rossi with his one-year fake Ecat heat sale to a fake customer...

Quote from Rends

What is your problem, I am a mod here, but also a user and I am using official court papers to describe how stupid Darden's et.al IP-strategy is. From my point of view has Rossi only anticipated this strategy of Darden et.al. and tried to defend his IP. If Rossi's strategy with a fake costumer was legal? I don't k now but for sure Darden's et.al strategy is and was always completely illegal and this applies everywhere on this planet (perhaps, apart from North Korea)

Wow, Rends, your assertion that Darden's strategy 'is and was always completely illegal' is very bold. I have studied the docket pretty thoroughly. I haven't seen anything illegal. So can you please enlighten us all where this 'completely illegal' behavior by Darden is?

Please, do it quickly, because from what I've seen Annesser and Chaiken need all the help they can get, and maybe you or someone else can forward that information to them to help them out while there's still time - hopefully this misstrial will give them the few extra days they need to get a US District Court Ruling about all Darden et. al.'s "completely illegal" behavior, and justice will be served.