Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    • Official Post
    Quote from woodworker

    My thoughts related to Johnson's testimony. Does he get on the stand and say he lied (which exposes him to professional jeopardy), say he didn't lie but based his statements on Rossi's assurances (throws Rossi under the bus), pleads the 5th (plays badly with jury) or asserts that someone told him but that statement is privileged (plays badly with jury). I don't see any good responses for him.


    WW,


    Well, Johnson is a "3rd Party" counter-defendant now, along with Fabiani and Bass. He has his own lawyer (Barra), so things are pretty complicated. That said, he is arguing in his defense that what he put in writing about JMP (UK formed, affiliated with JM, not associated in any way with he or Rossi), was superseded by the "Term Sheet" -as it was written later. The Term Sheet described the "chemical" company generically, and never mentioned JMP.

    "Whether or not the alleged settlement offer is credible is immaterial. By allowing it into the docket as evidence, the judge can use his authority to make it a credible offer."


    I don't know what planet you live on, but it is emphatically not the same one Federal judges inhabit. That is not their job, it is not their function, it is not within their purview and it would be grounds for an appeal, as well as a bitch-slapping by the appellate court. This is why I asked about your litigation/legal experience. THE JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO MAKE SOMETHING CREDIBLE.

    Quote from [email protected]
     

    If IH were to get that supposed offer of Rossi into the docket and tell the judge they want to accept it, the $89M thing goes away. And has been posted upthread, the most likely scenario is both sides pay their own legal costs.


    IH's lawyers should be all over this. But they aren't. The expression that comes to mind is a lawyer who bills his client twice when he sleeps with them.

     


    There appears to be a mismatch between the way the law works in Florida and the way the law works in your head.


    Seriously, I can't see how the supposed Rossi offer makes the breach of contract claim go away. Under any circumstances. Woodworker has explained some of this (inadmissibility of settlement negotiations; can't use future events to meet prior conditions, etc). And he's only covered a limited set of the reasons. (To give you another example, when an offer has no fixed time limit attached, courts will generally consider there to be an implied "within a reasonable time" limitation on when the offer can be accepted; whatever that limit might be here, it had definitely run out by the time the jury was sworn in.)


    In other words, there are reasons that the IH lawyers aren't all over your plan. They mostly involve being lawyers and knowing the law.

    He thought IH would settle early. But once you start an expensive litigation, it takes on a life of its own and, just as with a bad hand in poker, you often keep chasing trying to buy the pot. Once IH filed the counter-claim, Rossi could have proposed a settlement with mutual walk-aways, and maybe IH would have taken that. I am not privy to any inside information, but if I were IH's counsel and Rossi had made a serious (show me the money) offer to refund in exchange for the IP and then settle, hell yes, I would have recommended IH take that offer. After all, it is the equivalent of them winning outright on everything in this action and Rossi losing on everything. But Rossi losing on everything is why I don't believe there was ever a serious offer from Rossi.


    What scenarios are good for Rossi? Three: first, the jury splits the baby, I put close to even odds on that; second, hung jury, nobody can afford a retrial - essentially mutual walk-aways (also good odds on that); third, crazy jury that decides in Rossi's favor (IMHO, unlikely as hell) .

    • Official Post

    Rossi makes offer on Swedish factory building – plus more updates

    May 16, 2016UncategorizedE-Cat, energy, IH, Lawsuit, LENR


    Screen Shot 2016-05-16 at 15.04.35Last week, Andrea Rossi made a visit to Sweden, and apart from meeting with the team of professors in Uppsala, with me and other persons, he made a trip from Stockholm to the south of Sweden to have look at a 10,000 square meter factory building for sale. The day after, assisted by his Northern Europe partner and licensee Hydrofusion, Rossi made an offer on the building in the order of USD 3 to 5 million. Negotiations are now ongoing.


    Obviously, making an offer is not the same as buying, but Rossi made it clear to me that he intended to buy the factory building, aiming at starting manufacturing of the third generation E-Cat reactor, called the Quark X, hopefully this year, otherwise in 2017, with an estimated production volume of 500,000 items a year, using a robot line provided by ABB.

    Rossi said he had no other funding than the 11.5M he already received from his licensee Industrial Heat, according to their license agreement, which is now subject to a lawsuit. He said that he estimated the costs for the lawsuit to amount to 1M.


    Even buying a factory building is no proof that production will start. Critics, accusing Rossi for being a fraudster, will assume that it could be a way to attract investors, but I honestly wouldn’t expect a fraudster to make use of such expensive schemes. Especially not since it would be quite fine just getting away with 11.5M without further trouble.

    I would take this as a strong indication that the modular Quark X, supposedly big as a pen, producing heat, light and direct electricity at variable proportions at a total power of about 100W, based on the E-Cat LENR technology with hydrogen, lithium, aluminium and nickel in the fuel, is real. Rossi, however, said that there’s still R&D to be done to get the Quark X ready for production. He also said that the ‘X’ had no other meaning than being a substitute for a final name.


    After my meeting with Rossi (first time for me since September 2012), I have a few other updates.

    Claiming that everything he said could be proven with documents (or that he otherwise would be lying), Rossi told me regarding the one-year 1MW test that:

    • All the instruments for measurements were installed, under observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in copy.
    • The flow meter was mounted according to all standard requirements, for example at the lowest point in the system.
    • The MW plant was placed on blocks, 33 cm above the ground, to make sure that leaking water or any hidden connections would become visible.
    • The two IH representatives present at the test were Barry West and Fulvio Fabiani (who worked for Rossi from January 2012 until August 2013, when the MW plant was delivered to IH in North Carolina, after which he was paid by IH as an expert who would make the technology transition from Rossi to IH easier). West and Fabiani reported to JT Vaughn every day on the phone.
    • Three interim reports, about every three months, with basically the same results as in the final report, were provided by the ERV during the test.
    • During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
    • The unidentified customer (‘JM Products’) using the thermal energy from the MW plant, had its equipment at the official address—7861, 46th Street, Doral, Fl. The total surface of the premises was 1,000 square meters, of which the MW plant used 400 and the customer 600.
    • The equipment of the customer measured 20 x 3 x 3 meters, and the process was running 24/7.
    • The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof.
    Quote from [email protected]

    That makes no sense if they accept the supposed offer. Rossi claims he offered a refund in order to get his IP back. IH gets their money, Rossi gets his IP.


    But where it does make sense is if you're an IH lawyer and you see this

    supposedly bullshit claim by Rossi. If the judge knows about it, the legal proceedings end in 20 minutes and there goes your meal ticket.


    Jones Day had estimated revenues of just under $2 billion in 2015. Do they like the legal fees from this case, yes. Would it break them or the partner involved if it had settled? I don't think so. "With $1,941,000,000 in gross revenue in 2015, the firm placed 6th on The American Lawyer's 2016 Am Law 200 ranking. On the 2014 Global 100 survey, Jones Day ranked as the 10th highest grossing law firm in the world."

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Rossi usually twists the truth. If he offered a refund it would be 10% of money paid...


    If you don't think Rossi wanted the $89M why was he desperate (his word in the depo) to do the test?

    Where did I say "I don't think Rossi wanted the $89M"? Nowhere. Why do you so often resort to straw argumentation?

    Quote from Shane D.
    • During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
     


    There's some serious hearsay within hearsay within hearsay issues involved with this one.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I think the MFMP did (at least) an IR COP of 3 during their original Thermal Validation test of a Lugano-like device (unfuelled).

    Nobody ever did the math for emissive power calculations, but they had 1524 C (the maximum temperature the Optris will display is 1524.7 C, so it might even have been "hotter") by switching to 0.45 emissivity, a big jump from around 1000 C at 0.95. Power in of course was constant.

    "I think....." Wow !

    Without a complete calculus and a paper (or at least a web page written at that time ()) illustrating what they would done your affirmation is empty and without any value.

    We don't know even if it has any true foundation or not.

    I have followed the work of MFMP and never found such a positive COP without fuel !

    A google search confirms my ideas:

    https://www.google.nl/search?q=MFMP+COP+3


    Also your big jump is in fact not so big.

    First you have to write the temperatures in Kelvin so sum 273.16 to both

    Then ignoring the Boltzman constant that is present in both cases we have a ratio of emitted energy density 0.45*(1797.16)^4 / (0.95*(1273.16)^4) = 1,8

    So emitted energy is almost linear as function of emissivity. If following the ill based and invalid reasoning of the Lugano detractors divide the obtained 3.6 COP by 1.8 we obtain still a COP of 2.

    This means that even following the most ill based and critics ( MFMP was not using pure Allumina ! and the "spectral emissivity" argument is simply out of any reality ) the Lugano reactor was working !

    Quote from [email protected]

    If IH were to get that supposed offer of Rossi into the docket and tell the judge they want to accept it, the $89M thing goes away. And has been posted upthread, the most likely scenario is both sides pay their own legal costs.


    IH's lawyers should be all over this. But they aren't. The expression that comes to mind is a lawyer who bills his client twice when he sleeps with them.


    Maybe the reason they aren't "all over this" is because it was bullshit.


    As for payment of legal fees, that depends on the outcome of the case. Even if they split the baby, that doesn't mean there is no allocation of legal fees. Jones Day would assert that the majority of their fees related to defending the principal complaint, and they would show billings to support that. Assuming the agreement has a legal fees provision, that means that IH is entitled to making Rossi pay for that portion of the legal fees relating to the defense of the principal complaint, on which, if the jury splits the baby, IH prevailed. Any such amount would be offset by the amount that Rossi spent defending on the counter-claim, again which would have to be supported by the lawyers billing records (and believe me, all of the lawyers here are keeping detailed records, probably billing in increments of 1/4 hour or less) showing the amount of time spent on the cross-defense. Given that, IMHO, the majority of both sides' legal bills will relate to the principal complaint, IH could recover a significant portion of its legal fees. Also, as an FYI, this issue is not decided by the jury but by the judge.


    But I suppose we should all defer to your extensive legal expertise and experience.

    In the end, it’s probably not really that complicated to a jury, as common sense will probably prevail:

    a)if something is too good to be true, 99.9% of the time it is.

    b)a high percentage of the jurors have likely been duped into attending an Amway spiel at least once by a “friend” or acquaintance—they’ll recognize Rossi and his modus operandi (the other few percent who might BE Amway salespeople will be a much smaller percentage)

    c)they will recognize that IH was placing a very low odds bet/hedge on possible new technology, and the fact they are using OPM (other people’s money) who, in-writing signed off on the high probability of losing it on such bets, accounts for their, what might be considered negligent to normal people, "investment" in the E-Dog.

    d) the "prove every Rossi claim does NOT exist, or is NOT true" mantra will not work

    WW do I understand your "Assuming the agreement has a legal fees provision, that means that IH is entitled to making Rossi pay for that portion of the legal fees relating to the defense of the principal complaint, on which, if the jury splits the baby, IH prevailed."

    correctly?.... that is:if Rossi looses one the primary case that Rossi might have to pay IH some of its legal fees? ( I assume that Day is the more expensive law group)

    Quote from oldguy

    WW do I understand your "Assuming the agreement has a legal fees provision, that means that IH is entitled to making Rossi pay for that portion of the legal fees relating to the defense of the principal complaint, on which, if the jury splits the baby, IH prevailed."

    correctly?.... that is:if Rossi looses one the primary case that Rossi might have to pay IH some of its legal fees? ( I assume that Day is the more expensive law group)

    That is what I meant.


    ETA: Yes, JD is likely to be more expensive. However, judges don't always grant the billing rate actually used. They may reduce based upon what they believe is reasonable considering the geographic area of the litigation, the complexity, etc.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.