Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • I don't see Darden as a bad guy here.


    Darden is not, as far as I can tell, a bad guy in the slightest. IH have been one of the few groups that have gone out and obtained funding for LENR researchers, and they have helped out several well-known ones you may have heard of. They have had an unlucky run-in with Rossi and have lost millions in what will history will no doubt judge to be an unjust settlement. Blame this on inadequate due diligence and not moving to cut ties with Rossi when they should have. Let us hope that others seeking to invest in the field benefit from IH's difficult lesson.

  • @IH Fanboy

    NO he did not. You just assumed he did, imagine yourself as Darden and you have a courtcase/lawsuit, you would probably do all the necessary things to win right? it's simply about competition. He was able to carry out his role despite of critics/critism. If only YOU knew. Cheers!


    @Eric Walker "They have had an unlucky run-in with Rossi and have lost millions in what will history will no doubt judge to be an unjust settlement,"


    sir if the technology is proven working, I may call it a tip in good faith. cut ties with IH? maybe yes, but Woodford is still Woodford. door might be closed, lot's of windows open, Fresh air coming in.

  • Darden is not, as far as I can tell, a bad guy in the slightest. IH have been one of the few groups that have gone out and obtained funding for LENR researchers, and they have helped out several well-known ones you may have heard of. They have had an unlucky run-in with Rossi and have lost millions in what will history will no doubt judge to be an unjust settlement. Blame this on inadequate due diligence and not moving to cut ties with Rossi when they should have. Let us hope that others seeking to invest in the field benefit from IH's difficult lesson.

    Unjust settlement? They made the settlement. (After Dewey repeatedly said that they would "crush" Rossi in the trial.) This was their choice. It was not imposed on them by a judge. How can a settlement they made of their own free will (in circumstances in which they claim to have the upper hand) be unjust? Also, to quote Jed how the hell can it be unjust, when all they lost (compared to the status before Rossi's lawsuit) is the IP that they already consider to be worthless? They had already paid Rossi $10.5 million based on their tests and this was not an issue in Rossi's suit. Perhaps you have some inside information from IH regarding the "unjustness" of a settlement they agreed to? How were they hurt by not paying Rossi $89 million for IP they claimed does not exist? Huh?

  • Also, to quote Jed how the hell can it be unjust, when all they lost (compared to the status before Rossi's lawsuit) is the IP that they already consider to be worthless?


    Surely you'll recall that more than the IP was lost; namely, many millions of dollars in addition. If I were a Rossi hopeful, and ignoring all other details in the case, I would find this detail by itself most unsettling.


    I have no inside information from IH whatsoever.

  • Darden is not, as far as I can tell, a bad guy in the slightest. IH have been one of the few groups that have gone out and obtained funding for LENR researchers, and they have helped out several well-known ones you may have heard of. They have had an unlucky run-in with Rossi and have lost millions in what will history will no doubt judge to be an unjust settlement. Blame this on inadequate due diligence and not moving to cut ties with Rossi when they should have. Let us hope that others seeking to invest in the field benefit from IH's difficult lesson.

    (1) Are there any strings associated with this funding? Do they have rights and/or use of the IP as in the case of Rossi? Have they filed patents behind the backs of these researchers as they did with Rossi? Have they put them under NDA? Are they just giving them money with no strings attached? I doubt it.


    (2) "have lost millions.." They are venture capitalists. That's what venture capitalists do. They take risks. It was their job to test before they gave the $10.5 million as agreed in the contract. Is this an IH forum where we spend all our time trying to sympathize with IH more than trying to support LENR? BTW, if something useful in the public domain comes out of their support for LENR (I doubt it) then great. If not, then they are just venture capitalist sharks who are trying to sew up the rights to LENR and control the technology. Why should I feel any sympathy for them when they had all of the opportunity in the world to do their due diligence, and then pissed off Rossi by filing patents behind his back and working with competitors. My interest is in seeing LENR technology develop freely and not under the control of a small group of "venture capitalists".


    (3) "a bad guy in the slightest." Do you know Darden? Have you met him? Are you familiar with their multiple bankruptcies, failed environmental remediations, and shell companies? Is this the sign of someone who is "not a bad guy in the slightest"? I have no idea if he is a "bad guy" (whatever that means) but I'm not impressed by any of these aspects of their behavior, or by a number of other aspects of their behavior which were revealed in trial depositions (and elsewhere). I'm also not impressed by their secretiveness, nor was I at all impressed by Darden's speech at ICCF19 (or was it 18)? I found his tone and manner rather strange, especially for someone who is supposedly very excited about LENR.

  • Surely you'll recall that more than the IP was lost; namely, many millions of dollars in addition. If I were a Rossi hopeful, and ignoring all other details in the case, I would find this detail by itself most unsettling.


    I have no inside information whatsoever.

    Eric,

    That's completely incorrect. They were not suing Rossi. Rossi was suing them. They had already "lost" the $10.5 million (but continued to claim rights to the IP and patents). The only thing they lost was the IP (and patents) that they said they don't believe in.

  • Ok, quizzical. It seems you have imbibed a rather imbalanced view of the matter. I don't want to prolong the discussion by rehashing specific points ad infinitum. Readers will be the judge of whether your argument, that it is not problematic that IH are now out of millions of dollars with no tangible benefit in return, is a persuasive one.

  • Ok, quizzical. It seems you have imbibed a rather imbalanced view of the matter. I don't want to prolong the discussion by rehashing specific points ad infinitum. Readers will be the judge of whether your argument, that it is not problematic that IH are now out of millions of dollars with no tangible benefit in return, is a persuasive one.

    I'm sorry. But this "millions of dollars" you keep talking about has nothing to do with the settlement. Rossi was suing IH for many more millions of dollars. He forwent the money and received the "worthless" IP instead (which was returned to him). The settlement is not unjust. It saved IH $89.5 million dollars! My view is not at all unbalanced. I'm simply describing what the lawsuit was about, and also reminding you that (a) IH made the settlement (it was not imposed on them) (b) this despite their claims that they claimed they would crush Rossi at trial and even claw back money in countersuits.


    So, again IH may have "suffered". But this has NOTHING do to with the settlement. The only thing they lost in the settlement was the "worthless" IP (and perhaps their reputation).

  • Quote

    They had already "lost" the $10.5 million (but continued to claim rights to the IP and patents).


    yeah, well there is no IP unless you count not-very-clever ways of spoofing results to be IP. And the patents are entirely worthless. IH did lose due to it's negligence and incompetence in vetting Rossi's claims. But it was neither IP nor patents that mattered. IH lost the $10+million they gave the crook and unknown more millions they had to pay Jones Day just to eke out a draw.


    Quote

    reminding you that (a) IH made the settlement (it was not imposed on them


    That they did but not because Rossi had a good case. The issue was complex and IH could not trust a lay jury to resolve it accurately and fairly. They were risking more than $300 million (even more if the jury saw fit) in punitive damages! It made far more sense to let Rossi have his "lousy" ten million and his worthless IP and patents back. It did not help that they failed to vet Rossi properly ahead of the contract and that the contract relied on a single person to certify the test and that IH did a horrible job of riding herd on Rossi and holding his feet to the fire for the year during which he ran his absurd and crooked test. All of that might have swayed the jury in Rossi's favor. Too big a risk when you can make Rossi and all the risk go away for $10M plus legal fees. I am sure that was how Darden and his legal team saw it.

  • Ok, quizzical. You are clearly free to persuade yourself that this kind of sophistry makes sense. We are each entitled to an opinion.

    OK Eric. First it was "unbalanced", then it was "sophistry". You might have noticed that I haven't used any similar adjectives to describe your "opinion". But you're right that this discussion is useless. I could certainly never compete with you in terms of number of postings or perhaps even debating style. I attempted to make a few points which I thought were obvious. But perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, we are each entitled to an opinion, and so I won't pursue this subject (e.g. the subject of IH's suffering) any further, especially since I would have to agree that it is not that interesting.

  • I don't begrudge you your opinion, although mine is obviously very different. You are good to mention specific points in response to earlier points I made. In different circumstances I would have liked to respond to them. At the moment I just don't want be the one to re-open discussion of things that have been gone over here many times before, such as the IP and the filing of the patent and so on. Many pages have been devoted to each point you raise. Let's acknowledge that we're starting from pretty different starting points. I'm hoping that despite this happening sometimes between different people here, everyone will still find some value in whatever is being discussed and will not take offense when there is disagreement, and even strong disagreement.

  • They were not suing Rossi. Rossi was suing them. They had already "lost" the $10.5 million (but continued to claim rights to the IP and patents). The only thing they lost was the IP (and patents) that they said they don't believe in.

    The issue was complex and IH could not trust a lay jury to resolve it accurately and fairly.


    2 views from opposite sides of the fence. quizzical 's point is fair, though he forgot to add IH's legal bill to the tally. MY's post is meaningless. The technical evidence was complex for both sides of the argument. Why would IH fear that as upright businessmen of spotless reputation they would not be able to impress the jury more than AR, a man with a colourful past ahead of him?

  • Since this is an 'aftermath discussion'. Rossi in a way is teaching people lessons in how to use or misuse equipment such as pumps, VOMs and scopes and how that can fool educated people, and also at the same time actually inventing a new form of math. On the plus side If researchers duplicate any of his results, we will now know what to look for. He is kinda like the 'Penn and Teller' of LENR. I am also learning here what to check. It in a way is educational. I am not being disingenuous here.


    As I look at the current state here in 'a bit of disbelief'. I am not sure why any replicator is still working on the dogbone, when Rossi himself has clearly moved on.

    E-cat scrapped then dogbone scrapped but now new device that has the same unbelievable metrics. If you use his system of checking measurements you are good to go.


    If may ask those that still believe in him one question. It would be what would it take at this point to doubt him?





    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnWCGwB7idc