Just for fun: Let's bet, what we can expect from Rossi in February... anyone interested ?

BTW According to comment of Martin Tornberg from April 8, 2016 at 00:54 this portion of Licence Agreement could represent a legal problem for Rossi:

In my view, the License Agreement was flawed from the beginning by creating a conflict of interest between Rossi and IH. The main conflict arises from Section 13.4 (“After Acquired/Developed Assets, Intellectual Property Rights”), which stipulates, in the 1st half, that any refinements or upgrades that Rossi makes to the E-Cat are also covered under the agreement, and, in the 2nd half, that after the agreement, both parties can do their own research and “all inventions, discoveries, concepts, ideas, information and anything else that the Company [IH], its sublicensees, or any of their affiliates, makes or develops which relate to the E-Cat IP or are useful in the business….[etc etc]…shall remain the property of the Company (or such sublicensee or affiliate if so agreed by the Company)”.

Now it depends on very specific interpretation of law, whether A. Rossi was right, when he attacked the IH for issuing his own patent applications BEFORE paying the COMPLETE license fee or not. Try to imagine, you're in A. Rossi position, who just sold successfully his technology to first customer, who has been willing to pay for it under these circumstances. But subsequently you just found another modification of technology (Quark-X), which is clearly superior to former one and which would immediately make this older technology obsolete - so you would want to keep this new technology for yourself.

What will you do? First of all, you'll attempt for doubting the existing license transfer by first minute delay of payment, which your competitor (IH) will commit - willingly or by accident.

Yes, just as I thought, It is just another Rossi believer that says things like IH should have paid some $1000 a day that is "Clearly" in the agreement, But it is not there. If anything it would have been JMP paying IH. They are just spinning a story without even checking their facts. Of course Rossi has put forth little or nothing to support his claims other than his own words and only attacks others so there recourse is limited.

Quote

It is just another Rossi believer that says things like IH should have paid some $1000 a day that is "Clearly" in the agreement, But it is not there.

Alan is usually informed well. Maybe some additional ‘long test’ agreement exists, which is independent of Licence agreement.
It's just memo for me, I have to verify every information borrowed from discussions in primary sources.

At any case, I cannot and don't want to defend A. Rossi mistakes here, I just think, that ECat technology worked as Lugano test did show us.
So I wouldn't be happy, if this technology would get delayed or even buried by some legal issues between Rossi and IH.

a simple way is just say something like: I understand from Alan that......

From my perspective, it seemed that Rossi was trying to get IH to bill/ invoice JMP for the heat as a way to legitimize his claims of heat production but IH never took the bait (Bass pun intended). It is curious since it was Rossi that was apparently paying JMP's bills. I see no where (perhaps it is there but I don't see it) IH was to pay JMP for anything.

It certainly a mess.

Note: Notice that IH didn't even invoice at the beginning of the "testing". It seems appearent that they had doubts from the beginning OR that they were not completely aware of the heat production claims or they had questions until very late.

In order to stop more mis-information (nowadays called "alternative facts"), here the term sheet for the 1MW plant rental (Exhibit 17):
https://drive.google.com/file/…QafY4T3lPYnczcmlDN1E/view

And here the e-mails from JMP, requesting IH to invoice them (Exhibit 18):
https://drive.google.com/file/…QafY4djdCeE9VUjVxSVE/view

One might think it is strange that "the customer" (JMP) is asking IH to invoice them, and that "the customer" defines how much energy he received.
However, this is not so strange anymore when you know that Rossi considers payments from "the customer" as evidence for the proper performance of the 1MW plant:

Quote

Jack
February 26th, 2015 at 9:07 AM
Hello again Mr. Rossi,
one more question for you.

Assuming the best scenario for your 1MW plant, at the end of the tests and the R&D, do you think the Customer will come out of anonymity with a public statement?
Do you have any agreement with the Customer about this?

I ask this because having a big Customer supporting you and saying publicly that your 1MW plant actually saved them money would be a huge push for the adoption of your E-Cats.
Thank you again.

Andrea Rossi
February 26th, 2015 at 3:01 PM
Jack:
Here is the issues hierarchy:
1st: work
2nd: complete the work
3rd: make the plant confirm for at least 1 year that it works properly, reliably, continuously, without chattering too much, or, better, without chattering at all: our work needs working plants, not chatters.
LENR will not be launched by sterile chatters moreless theoretical: they will be launched exclusively by a commercial breakthrough. Without it every imbecile will continue to chatter for nothing and theorize about nothing and stupidities said by guys that have nothing better to do will fill up thousands of void theories and innuendos.
4th: ” assuming the best scenario”, at the end of this year during which I will have sustained work shifts of 16-20 hours per day, I will get rest.
5th: all the following operations cited by you are the turf of commercial guys, not of me. Obviously we cannot talk on behalf of the Customer and cannot know what he will do about the issue you raised. All I know for sure is :
a- if the plant will respect the guarantees, the Customer will pay all that is due
b- if the plant will not respect the guarantees, the Customer will not pay and the plant will be returned.
All the rest is TDA ( Tongue- Displaced- Air).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Display More

Rossi has been in the fake invoice business for decades. It might be what he does second best.

Notable, that Rossi wrote on JONP (see above)...

"Obviously we cannot talk on behalf of the Customer and cannot know what he will do about the issue you raised"

... but as we got to know now from this court document (118-01)...
https://drive.google.com/file/…19-wyS3p4NUVmRVU3NTA/view
... Rossi was able to do a lot of things on behalf of the Customer.

Quote from Alan Smith

Forty-Two. Your link leads to all the court documents....

Oh - Sorry.

Should be fixed now. Please try again.

Quote from Shane D.

I have been on this Rossi story a long time now, and know it well, including his history

Did you ? So why yo purposely ignore the crucial fact that he has been CLEARED by all charges in Italy and continue to repeat the old and dismissed accusations ?

Why you ignore that Rossi Oil technology is real and working ?

Why you ignore that there are a number of experimenters that have replicated successfrully the Rossi effect ?

Character Assassination should not be part of Science.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rossi has been in the fake invoice business for decades. It might be what he does second best.

Have you any real proof of what are you writing ?

On my opinion accusing someone to be in the "fake invoice business" is against law if you have no proofs.

Quote from Forty-Two

One might think it is strange that "the customer" (JMP) is asking IH to invoice them, and that "the customer" defines how much energy he received.

Nothing strange on my point of view. In any business relation if you are using a service you can ask for an invoice because of administrative reasons and who defines what depends on the contract they had.

I find quite natural that was the costumer to measure the effective energy he received.

Note that a biased mind can give bad reading of any facts.

Quote

There is no incompatibility and it is a classical agreement.

I don't think, that all licence agreements provide their owners the access to further developing of the licenced technology. In software industry which works with informational barrier of closed source it's rather exception than norm.

For example, you can use Windows, but you cannot develop your own version and improve them, even their reverse engineering is prohibited by licence.

Ele - The Fraudulent Bankruptcy conviction and long prison sentence has been on "appeal" for more than a decade which means that, by default, it stands. The years in prison as part of that sentence speaks to the severity of the financial crime. The fake invoice scheme was massive and netted plea bargains from multiple players who willingly went to prison as part of their settlements. Seems to be quite a trail of victims in the wake.

Zeph - the license language is very straight forward. Rossi has little chance of winning any legal argument on said subject unless he wants to start off by refunding the license & legal fees (including litigation) in total. The fraudulent inducement+ trail against him and his attorney is going to happen.

I don't expect Planet Rossi to stop in "their" attempts to spin in the present tense as well as continually try and re-write history using these blogs and the internet.

Quote

unless he wants to start off by refunding the license & legal fees (including litigation) in total

This is IMO just what Rossi wants. He doesn't want the money from IH, he wants his license back.

Quote

The Fraudulent Bankruptcy conviction, years in prison, fraudulent inducement trail, fake invoice scheme, Planet Rossi, re-write history..

IMO this post is prime candidate to the third (and very final) warning from the side of moderators. You cannot unlearn your silly fallacies and demagogy, huh?

Zeph continues with selective use of the facts. The Planet Rossi call for moderation when the narrative doesn't support their mantra wave

goes way back and usually surfaces when someone gets too close to the truth. I don't expect this forum to follow the pattern of weakness that has taken out the previous blogs. L-F has too much to gain as a new era begins to manifest.