me356 has said in his opinion Ross's stuff works
"me356 says" as evidence for "Rossi says"?
me356 has unfortunately lost any credibility.
QuoteYou are firing bullets for the anti LENR camp.
Here exists no anti-LENR camp. Only some people with a primary interest in finding facts.
It should be totally comprehensible, that these people become more and more skeptical if huge claims are made without any substantial verification.
Rossi must be totally crazy If he really has stated, what has been quoted by Shane D..
Here is another example (comment by Rossi in his JONP):
QuoteDisplay MoreAndrea Rossi
June 9, 2016 at 1:12 PM
Norma Gaylor:
...
...
Let me remember that the ERV is an expert nuclear engineer, with
experience of work in nuclear power plants and in certifications of
industrial plants, mainly in the energy field: for this reason he has
been chosen jointly between Cherokee Fund ( from which eventually has
been born IH ) and Leonardo Corporation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
He had signed the License Agreement with Industrial Heat LLC, neither with "Cherokee Fund" nor another entity "from which eventually has been born IH".
The only question is whether he completely has lost touch with reality or it's an example how he deceives his followers.
If you don't know the specific volume of the produced steam, then you know nothing about the energy.
... he can go positive and start to plan for proprietary blockbuster applications. That is where the profits lie.
Sure, but I think that Rossi's steam quality would better match the requirements of espresso machines. 
All these millions of espresso machines. A real blockbuster application with huge profits.
For example, if a turbofan jet engine that uses Rossi's product is sold ...
What comes next? Fantasies about using Rossi's products for time travel and laser swords?
An over complicated espresso machine might be more realistic.
Please check the format and quotes of your comment:
Now IH have lost E-Cat License and IP, who will manufacture E-Cats in the US?
Thanks for the clarification.
The usage of Ni nanopowder is the only thing that has been really invented by Rossi (if it was not the idea of Focardi et.al.).
I do not want to devalue this, but don't think that this describes an inventive step that wouldn't have been sometime made without Rossi's participation.
I've got the impression, that many of his supporters have a false impression as to the importance of Rossi for LENR, because they think he has been the discoverer / inventor of the NiH effect.
Consider Piantelli's NICHenergy which is privately funded. And in this case they apparently gave 6 times more than that elsewhere.
Can you please give me a source for your statement about the connection between IH and Piantelli/NichEnergy?
To add to this point, that's 11.5 million dollars that did not go to hardworking researchers in a field that for years has been starved of funding. To put things in perspective, the National Cold Fusion Institute in Utah was funded with 4.5 million dollars (in 1991 terms). There have been cold fusion researchers who have been discouraged in their own efforts when they heard stories of kilowatt reactors. There will have been real damage to LENR research if it turned out that Rossi was not being honest with IH. Anyone who cares about LENR research should not be cavalier about the Leonardo vs. IH lawsuit.
Therefore we should hope that the trial takes a quick end.
The technical issues which all of us interests can anyway not be resolved by judicial process.
If the Motion To Dismiss will be rejected, it will be a question whether Rossi can win through his drafting of the contract, inadequate measurement methods and his magical calculations, but nothing of that would testify the real efficiency of the E-Cat.
If Rossi has nothing in terms of IP, and has simply deluded himself, then no harm, no foul.
Delusion is not a criminal action, but deceiving others to cash in 11.5m$ is not only "harm and foul" it is called fraud. And this is a criminal action.
If Rossi has nothing in terms of IP, then he has not only defrauded IH, but also deceived all of his followers. And then you would be the only one who thinks that this is "no harm, no foul".
The joke of the day ...
QuoteDisplay Moreing giordano colonna | Jun 6th 2016, 5:28pm
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The measurement protocol described in the agreement between Leonardo
Corp and IH, deposited with your complaint, is perfect. It is the system
normally used in all the thermoelectric plants where I, as an engineer
expert of the matter, have to make such measurements.
This is to answer to all the non experts that talk of the matter.
Cheers,
Giordano
Dewey - Rossi will surely do anything to keep his condos.
So we have two (main) reasons for the dismiss, the first one is the time issue of §5 and the second is the allegation that a wrong Ecat version was used. The first allegation is form my point of view definitely false, because in the valid §5 of the second amendment is no deadline and what the 6 cylinder (sounds like my BMW engine
) Ecat is, does not exist as an information.
But the main point of the motion to dismiss is the missed deadline and this is definitely out of the race and therefore the court will most probably decided to carry out the trial.
Greets
Felix
QuoteThe first allegation is form my point of view definitely false, because in the valid §5 of the second amendment is no deadline
I think, if you would evaluate the entire line of argument presented by Jones Day, not just individual sentences or articles, this could be totally different.
QuoteDisplay MoreThe License Agreement provided for a third potential payment to Leonardo, which is the
subject of this litigation: An $89 million payment “contingent upon the Plant operating at the
same level (or better) at which Validation was achieved for a period of 350 days (even if not
consecutive) within a 400 day period commencing on the date immediately following delivery of
the Plant to the Company,” which the License Agreement described as “Guaranteed
Performance.” License Agreement §§ 3.2(c), 5; Compl. ¶ 46. That delivery, Plaintiffs allege,
occurred in August 2013: “In or around August 2013, the E-Cat Unit was delivered from
Ferrara, Italy to IH at its facility in Raleigh, North Carolina, where preparations began for the
final Guaranteed Performance Test.” Compl. ¶ 59. Plaintiffs’ purported “Guaranteed
Performance Test,” however, was not commenced until “on or about February 19, 2015” and not
“concluded” until “February 15, 2016.” Id. ¶¶ 66, 71.
The Complaint alleges that the Second Amendment to the License Agreement (“Proposed
Second Amendment”), which is attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint, “formally eliminated the
requirement that the Guaranteed Performance test period be commenced immediately upon
delivery of the plant and instead requiring [sic.] that the Guaranteed Performance Test period
would commence on a date agreed to in writing by the parties.” Compl. ¶ 62. The Proposed
Second Amendment, however, clearly states that “[t]his Amendment may be executed in
counterparts, none of which need contain the original signatures of all Parties, provided that one
or more counterparts collectively shall contain the signatures of all Parties to this
Amendment.” Proposed Second Amendment § 3 (emphasis added). AmpEnergo, Inc. (“AEG”),
a party to the License Agreement and the Proposed Second Amendment, never signed the
Proposed Second Amendment. Id. at 3. The Proposed Second Amendment also addressed the
testing of a “Six Cylinder Unit,” not the E-Cat unit alleged in the Complaint to have been tested.
Id. § 1
Their argumentation explains clearly that §5 of the second amendment is not legally valid.
Quotethe 6 cylinder (sounds like my BMW engine
I would also be happy if this damn thing would work like our 6 cylinder BMW engines .
With best wishes
Tom
As said above, not a single word in the court paper that the device did not work and I can not imagine a single reason why the by IH in their press statement claimed dysfunctionality of the Ecat is not mentioned with a single word! So I expect that the evidence is against IH's assertion (ie the ECAT works)
A motion to dismiss outlines legal reasons why the trial should not be continued.
If Jones Day know several reasons which explain why IH is not obliged to pay the 89m$ then they will of course identify the legal reasons that are the easiest to comprehend. That's what everyone would do.
Stating a single reason that no payment obligation exists would have been quite sufficient .
The two reasons which are mentioned here, are easy to understand. This says nothing about the evidence in a different argument, only that presenting this evidence would be very extensive and that the introduction of new facts could be required. Such an argument not conforms to a Motion to Dismiss.
The date of publishing of the patent application is Feb. 25, 2016 filled Feb.20,2015 so if IH had, as they claim in their papers to the court, the information in 2015 that the device does not work, then they have to withdraw the patent application and the application should have never been published. But nothing, the application is still available.
Until now, the lawyers of IH have not presented any argument that the device does not work.
I think it's understandable that one cannot act beside the ongoing litigation.
fill a patent application and then claim that all this is your invention and your intellectual property and in this special case IH vs. Rossi additionally claim that your invention does not work, which is not only criminal but also outlandishly stupid.
It is true that one can't file for a patent, simultaneously claiming that the invention is not working.
This is not the case here.
IH had to assume that the test result is correct, when they had filed the patent application, even if this may be assessed differently today.
It's obvious, that the time course has to be considered.
To substantiate my note:
It is rather likely that IH has got appropriate rights.
Claiming of a "theft" without knowledge of the agreements between the authors/IH is certainly not appropriate.
Is there link to full 'Proposed Second Amendment' document (Exhibit D in complaint), which IH refers in their response
License Agreement:
https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf
First Amendment:
https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-3.pdf
Second Amendment:
https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-4.pdf
Tom,
Let me respond to your post in a slightly different way. It's obvious that Rossi and IH signed the contract. But that does not make it fair from an IP point of view. Also, a number of provisions of the contract may be interpreted differently. Similarly, for Rossi's and IH's actions related to the contract and to IP. Getting to the bottom of this requires both knowing all of the facts (which we don't know) as well as legal interpretation (to be done by a Court).
That we comment here on the basis of previously published facts and that ultimately a court will decide on the case is probably quite clear.
But just as you have brought your views expressed, I also expressed my estimation.
And I can assure you that I have examined the known facts intensive with different perspectives.
