Posts by Zuffhaus

Quote from IH Fanboy

@Jed:

I know we've gone 'round on this a few times. Based purely on the language of the contract, it would be lunacy for IH to pay the third installment. They (IH) are building a world-wide LENR strategy, which is very clear based on their IP angling. Once they had the information from Rossi, that is all they needed. And they got that after the second installment. They need nothing more from Rossi to execute their plan. The contract expressly allows them to make their own improvements and file their own patents. The third payment was never to be paid, and will never be paid. Rossi's mistake. Even if Rossi were to secure a treble damages judgment (which is quite difficult to do, and particularly here where the facts are not clear-cut), then no biggy. A $300 million judgment is inconsequential given that IH would be untied from Rossi and free to market their own wares to the world.

Just to add to this. There is a reason why anyone with actual understand of business and/or contracts would strongly advise again a payment plan that meams that 90 percent of purchase price is paid a year or more after delivery and in particular without any collateral securing the payment and especially not for a granted license that cannot be be revoced because of non-payment (or breach of contract in general). The reason is that such a contract is doomed to end up in litigation over the final payment. This is in particular true where the sum is so large that the litigation cost is easily set-off by even a very modest return interest of the withhold payment.

A patent application is automatically confidential (no need to request confidentially) for 18 months following the filing of the first application for the invention and will be publically available thereafter (no practical exceptions apply). I think that the genuine point that IH is trying to make is that a lot of intended applications that was licensed to them never were applied for (or possibly withdrawn prior to becomning publically avialable).

I think that a court would interpret the term "customer" to mean someone doing business on arms-lenghts distance from Rossi/Leonardo (and IH for that matter) and in that independent capacity actually consumes and pays for the heat, if not other reasons so because otherwise the "customer" requirement does not make any sense at all. A company directly or indirectly owned or controlled by Rossi/Leonardo is not a customer. To my understanding Rossi - correctly or not - asserts that the customer was a genuine customer in the sense just discussed.

So are we now in an agreement that 89 MUSD is not peanuts for IH even if the ecats - strictly hypothetical of course - works?

Are we also in an agreement that the fact that IH NOW categorically denies that the ecat work is vacuous because they are either incompetent/gullible or have problemtic motives that makes it impossible to say if they are forthcoming or not?

@THHuxley
IH say...
For reason explained "IH say" now is equivalent to "Rossi says". They are either "gullible" - as MY suggest - or not forthcoming. If credibillity is a concern to IH, they should file correspondence from 2013 or 2014 to Rossi that they were discontent with the technology because they could not make it work and request remedy. So far they have not.

Is 89 MUSD peanuts to IH?
No! No company is handing out 89 MUSD gifts. That is not how business is done.

While the technology for a working LENR device is worth much in a broad sense, that has not the same as 89 MUSD today on IH bank account is peanuts and could not be used in better way for shareholders.If you're reasoning does not acknowledge - which appearantly doesn't- the many different steps (and struggles) to move from the latter to the first you unable to come to a correct solution.

Disclaimer. This post doesn't promote the idea that the ecat works. The post promotes that IH:s current denial is weak evidence against.

Two things.

MUSD 89 is never peanuts. No director can order the payment of that sum without an underlying contractual obligation. *

You speak with certainty about IH not getting it to work. What you basis for that certainty. That it is likely is another thing.

* And also. It is a misconception to think that it worth anything to IH to have Rossi on boards for the sake of it. The friendliest interpretation of Rossi is that he is a loose canon. In relation to potential investors, customers, goverment bodies etc. it is a good thing if IH can operate independently of Rossi and Rossi's own know-how.

Quote from THHuxley

It seems to me that in this debate continually trying to find ways in which IH could be acting improperly is actually spreading Uncertainty and Doubt (not so sure about Fear). Now, I'm not criticising you for that, just saying that it seems an overblown exercise and a more straightforward reading would give IH a good case based on what we now have (which of course is very partial) and the expectation of more in Discovery.

What most people here are missing is that IH – due to how the license and payment regime are arranged (which is probably Rossi’s work/fault) – did not have a genuine interest in a positive test because that would result in a payment liability of MUSD 89 and not very much in return. If – which seems extremely likely – Rossi staged a customer, IH must been happy as a fiddler because Rossi then provide them with excellent reason not to pay. Similarly, it is not appropriate to give credit to IH concerns over the flow meter (or whatever) because we cannot determine whether this concern is genuine altogether, inflated or artificial. If the underlying suggestion is that IH never would promote artificial concerns to avoid paying significant sums of money, this is in fact arguing that IH:s behavior is different to 99,9 percent of all other businesses.

Don't confuse physics with law. What IH and Rossi tried to pin-down in the the License Agreement was that IH would pay MUSD 89 if Rossi could run a working LENR-apparatus above certain specific threshold values under certain conditions. I believe that there is a consensus here that IH did not have a genuine interest in if Rossi could meet these threshold values; it's somethings that Rossi insisted on. IH is now anyhow disinterested in paying Rossi because a) they don't have the sum readily available, b) see an opportunity to settle on a lower sum, or c) don't think it works at all. This forum is dedicated to c) only. The bottom line here is that it is somewhat unlikely that the dispute concerns anything relevant for those interested in LENR. The dispute rather revolves around Rossi's and IH's commercial motives.

A thought that this forum was dedicated to LENR. The part of the case that is most directly linked to LENR survived. Is this not that what matters here, regardless of what you think will be disclosed in this respect? I look forward to IH giving their side of the story.

Quote from "Jed"

/.../ By the grace of God we may still have money from I.H.,
without which this field would be dead, dead, dead.

IH has been recently sued for owing MUSD 89 for something they now claim never worked in the first place, and have, in addition to this, provided the claimant with a legal war fund so that legal disputes can be carried forward an eternity almost. IH is hardly a reliable money source (with the possible exception for their law firm) in any foreseeable future. It is also hard to see why IH - given the ride that Rossi has given them - would think that cold fusion is a good thing to put money into. I find it fascinating if IH has indicated to you that they are willing and able to invest further.

Not this shit again. Please.

As to the question what Rossi is up to now, I think it’s worth noticing that when he divorced Defkalion he was all over the place for quite some time, a leading keyboard warrier. One aspect that disturbed him in particular was the fact that Defkalion claimed they could make its own ecats, a claim that we now confidently can say was incorrect. Rossi seems to be more laid-back about the break up with IH. At the same time he makes a particular point of that IH (according to him) can and have made own working ecats, which IH on the other hand denies. You would think IH’s alleged capability would upset him but it doesn’t.

The difference in Rossi’s reaction surely stands for something. The easiest explanation is that IH in the meantime wired him MUSD 11 so he is simply better off. However, my guess is that has closed or feels confident about closing a deal will someone else and this deal in unaffected by what IH can or cannot do in its licensed territory on its own.

Rossi's previous deal with Defkalion was based on a shared view that the technology was ready to roll out on a mass market for industrial and domestic use. The 1MW plant was part of that idea. My understanding is that IH's 1MW plant and the one year test is simply a Defkalion residue. Rossi insisted on that the technology is ready for market and it is priced accordingly. I can't imagine that IH shared his view but they had to align with it contract wise to get the deal. A one year test as such is not a bad idea for IH becuase it postpones their heavy payment with the same amount of time so theres is no reason to stear away from it. As I pointed out in previous posts I think it is a huge misstake to think that IH ever had any genuine interest in the test in the first place and in particular in a positive outcome.

Quote

refusing to allow the I.H. experts into the customer site

There is something odd about this. The one that can allow or refuse someone into the customer's site is the customer, not Rossi.

Also, if I made an agreement with someone and he later starts searching of over the place looking for faults just to avoid paying me, I would restrict the number of places he was allowed to look. The reaons I would do that is that my counter party was not pursuing an interest in good faith and it then makes perferect sense for me to minimize his bad faith fishing expedition. I'm not saying that this is was happened. What I am saying is that it is not true that "the only plausible explanation is that [Rossi] is trying to cover up what is in the customer site".

The argument is also circular. Who is claiming that it is doable to raise funds for paying for a non-working device?

Quote from frankwtu

I agree. It appears to me that those who engage in abusive ad homs are open to the charge that their abusive ad hominem 'attacking the traits of an opponent' is a means to invalidate their argument equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument. This means of debate and argument is a logical fallacy.

perhaps. But my point is even simpler. There is a rational to a dispute like this that is overlooked.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

As Rossi was instransigent, I suspect, they told him. "We have no intention of paying if we are not satisfied." He then translated that to "they never had any intention of paying, the snakes!" In normal business, with a sane inventor, the inventor would ask, "What do you need to be satisfied?" And would provide it if possible. To someone who was paranoid, this would be Proof that they were untrustworthy, people who would not keep their agreements.

Rossi thinks that the behavior means that they had no intention of paying from the beginning. No, they knew this was a safety hatch.

The agreement is very, very rear heavy. 90 % of the payment is made after the delivery. If one - which I would do - consider the significant value of the delivery to be the working technology (assuming there is one) it also comes with built in delay. Further, there is no security for the payment like a L/C. And IH is a start-up.

This type of payment arrangements are hard to come by in the real world for several reasons, one being that they would be very vulnerable to a conflict, in particular bearing the sum in mind. The bank interest alone on the sum in dispute would set-off the attorneys' fees.

I don't think that there's a need pointing towards to Rossi perculiar personal traits to explain why there is a dispute right now.

Quote from quizzical

This has been mentioned before, but I agree that there are a lot of similarities - although it now appears that Defkalion had nothing, even though they claimed at the same time that Rossi terminated the agreement that they had built working reactors using Rossi's IP. If I remember correctly, Defkalion's issue was "stability". Here's an interesting link which provides a "look-back" through time, which makes neither of the parties look very good:

http://pesn.com/working/includ…Defkalion_controversy.htm

I retrospect it seems obvious that the core issue was that Defkalion run out of funding. Almost everyone seems to assume that funding it not issue this time. Personally, I think this is an excellent explanation for the present commotion.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Zuff - This is a multi-step process. The MTD is a technical response to Rossi's civil filing. There is much for you to learn from this document and there might not be much left of Rossi's lawsuit by the time the judge is finished with it. Rossi gets to respond as a next step - we'll see what his attorney is made of. Not very impressive so far.

Bad attorneys are in my experience underrated, but that is probably are different topic.

Anyhow, I may have been a bit unfair because it is up to Rossi make case with regards to the test, and he has not done that.

Anyone else having a deja-vue?
DEFKALION
Rossi: you have not paid!
Defkalion: well, you see we have some technical concerns.
Rossi: Fine, then I terminate.
Defkalion: No, no, you can't do that! We have an agreement.