This is what we are saying. Yes, there is a duty, but the only penalty for lack of performance on the duty is that the patent might not be enforceable.
This is also not correct. But I'm pretty sure you are convinced of your position, so I'll stop.
IH Fanboy
Member
- Member since May 23rd 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by IH Fanboy
-
-
Display More
A response came back that what I wrote was correct, and
IHFM argued strenuously against this. I had said that the action was not
illegal, and IHFM wrote "that is not correct," and with such a simple
statement, that is equivalent to saying "It is illegal." And it is not.
It can invalidate the patent, but isn't that obvious? Is it illegal to
file an invalid patent? People do it all the time. No, it is not.
Natural consequences only you waste your own money, if your goal was to
create an enforceable patent. But if your goal was to confuse
competition, say, not a problem. -
Besides, suppose -- just for the sake of argument -- I were to say to
you in response: "yes, it sure looks like it was made up of whole cloth.
No pump can produce exactly the same flow on multiple days, to the
nearest kilogram." Okay, that's purely hypothetical. I am not saying that,
okay?Okay fair enough. It appeared you were leaning that way, but understand your reluctance to go that far with it.
But suppose I were to say that. Would you believe me? Or would
you demand I supply proof? And what kind of proof could I supply,
anyway?Again, good point. This actually underscores the need for the numbers and data to come out in the context of a court of law, where real consequences loom for untoward behavior.
If I uploaded a table of numbers, you would say it is fake.
After all, I can easily make tables myself.Not necessarily. I may not go directly to fake. But I agree, it is impossible to prove data on an internet forum. I'm pretty sure IH and its sympathizers are just as likely to cry fake for whatever Rossi releases. And in fact, you have already.
No, I am afraid the only way this issue can be addressed or resolved is
for you to get data from Rossi himself. You don't need the whole ERV.
Ask him for a schematic and 5 days of data.But that still wouldn't resolve it would it? Because things can be faked. Anything released in the course of litigation will hold much more weight with me and others. Which is probably why both Rossi and IH are withholding the information and will release it in due time in connection with the pending litigation. So be it. Then we can take a closer look.
-
I assure you they do not generally scrap up enough. Not even 1/10th of enough. Since I personally have paid for some of these experiments I know this for a fact.
Funding is lacking. I think that all within the larger LENR community can agree with that. I've also personally paid for equipment, made donations, and the like. I think many on these forums have. As much as we all tend to bicker over finer points, what brings us together is our interest in LENR. I happen to be more interested in LENR+ and its implications, and so lean MFMP, Rossi, Mills, Brilluoun, etc. But that doesn't mean that basic research in LENR couldn't use some more funding, of any kind. It no doubt could. And if it were not for the strident opposition from some scientific quarters, it would receive it.
-
It is astounding how stable this reactor was, and how stable the pumps were, and the ambient temperature, pressure and so on. Unbelievable stable.
Are you suggesting that none of it was measured? Just made up out of whole cloth?
-
My policy is to try not to share technical details that have not already been revealed by Rossi or by I.H., in press releases and in the legal filings. I may have let a few things slip.
Thanks for the clarification. It did seem a little odd that Rossi would somehow be stopping you personally from sharing information.
-
I would not think that IH would be providing "engineers and labs," and I'm not sure that they have them to provide.
Apparently IH does have engineers and labs that are available for promising NiH track research.
The dispute with Rossi would be irrelevant.
It appears to be relevant according to Dewey.
My sense is that Dewey might be distancing IH from Brillouin because it does not help the current narrative with Rossi.
-
The data is full of absurd round numbers. Evidently they are meant to be taken as exact.
Well, that would be such an obvious giveaway, so much so that I'm willing to venture a guess that such data were not meant to be taken as exact. Without any visibility of the data itself, which sections of the data are intended to be measured values, and which sections of the data are intended to be sanity check calculations, it is impossible for those of us without the data to make any kind of conclusion. Can we get on with releasing the data already so that we can end the speculation?
-
I don't think that is a position error. I can't discuss it. Sorry. It is a shame Rossi has put a lid on information about this test. You should ask him for info.
(The outlet temperature looks like a position error to me.)
Are you under NDA with Rossi? If not, what is holding you back from sharing your information?
-
As far as the identity or purpose of the "customer" is concerned, all that should matter is an accurate measurement of the input water and output steam with verification of whether it was wet or dry steam.
Shouldn't matter if there was nothing in the secret room, a heater, a factory, Dewey Weaver steam cleaning his money. Or does it?
I think it does matter because it would provide corroboration, or not. If the "fake" customer turns out to be real, and they come out and say we saved a bunch of money on our endothermic chemical process, then that would matter and would provide another piece of the larger puzzle. If, on the other hand, there is no larger going concern behind the shell company, then Rossi looks less credible. It is an accumulation of evidence that will matter in the end--not one single report, not one single witness' testimony, etc.
-
IHFB - I've seen a letter from SRI that is lukewarm at best and advises that additional testing / research are needed. I don't think that any letters have been issued since. The reason we are discussing this is because Rossi accused IH and Brillouin of colluding and stealing his IP which is a complete fabrication from his twisted imagination.
Thanks again for your answer. You do seem to be a bit more open and sincere lately. So is this letter what Brillouin bases their claim on that "SRI independently reviews and confirms the accuracy of the Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT) System January test results that produced a 4.13X Coefficient – January 2015" as stated here: http://brillouinenergy.com/about/milestones/
?Are you not providing your labs and engineers to Brillouin because of your fear of Rossi's accusations? I guess to put it differently, if there was no current dispute with Rossi, would you be providing your labs and engineers to Brillouin?
-
To me it sound like franktwu defend the idea that IH's expert was not allowed to see the customer side. And I still think that is a strange thing to defend.
I've stated before that the "fake" customer is Rossi's weakest point at this time. But what is more strange to me is that IH apparently agreed not to look at the customer side. That is very strange.
-
Quote from IH Fanboy: “Quote from stephenrenzz: “but again you are completely wrong that it is illegal to file a patent for a device that does not end up working as claimed.”
But that is not what I stated now, is it?”
Then what exactly ARE you stating if not that?
It is in the thread above and stated quite clearly.
-
but again you are completely wrong that it is illegal to file a patent for a device that does not end up working as claimed.
But that is not what I stated now, is it?
-
Mary Yugo vs team IH vs team Rossi would have been epic
No doubt, some day there will be a big screen motion film depicting all three of the characters in a final story that captures LENR rollout to the world.
-
You just are not getting it.
I'm afraid you don't get it. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.
It is illegal to infringe on a patent, but it is not illegal to file for a patent on a device that does not end up working.
That isn't my point. So, I think perhaps, you are missing the point.
You are not understanding the function of the USPTO. Please point me to ANY information to support your claims...USPTO documentation of associated laws you speak of or even a case to support your claim. You are not correct.
Just look at the duties owed to the patent office by applicants, inventors, and attorneys. Not too hard to find.
-
First of all it would be impossible to determine if an individual was to "KNOW it doesn't work as stated in the application" so on that point it is moot. Next you have a case where a individual was either mislead by an inventor or by their own very work to believe the patent would work...when it does not...and this is very often the case as there are thousands of patents that do not work on file...literally thousands. So again moot point. Then you have the fact that there is no legal mechanism in the patent process for determination of operation of patent art...nor is it the function of the patent process. You are WAY in over your head on this one IHFB. Please provide reference to how this could be so.
If and when a patent gets litigated, everything comes out. Email trails, testimony, anything a defendant can do to poke holes. And if there is evidence that the inventor or applicants, or their attorney, knew it didn't work, there are consequences.
-
IHFB,
PLEASE don't take this as snarky, not my intent, but after watching phenomenon like the Rossi effect over the years,
I don't believe anything unless I see it with my own eyes and even then I'm not too sure.
SRI also validated the guy who could bend spoons via telekinesis.people have a bad habit of turning opinions into religion
Non-answers are not much appreciated, at least by me. Does that mean you have not seen with your own eyes the SRI verification report? (I can only assume that there is one given the precise COP values claimed.) And even if you have seen it, you wouldn't believe it? I can appreciate that second bit, as a healthy skepticism is called for in the LENR+ field (albeit not pseudo-skepticism), but can you address my first question?
-
By "larger concern" do you mean a company that owns this company? It would have be listed in the official records in Florida. As you see, nothing is listed. This is a shell company with only Henry W. Johnson listed as agent. See their annual report.
Johnson is Rossi's lawyer.
Shell companies are used to hide true ownership, and are often registered by lawyers as company agents. This is bread and butter for lawyers.
-
It is out already. It was in the legal papers, and Rossi gave the name and address in his interview with Lewan. It is:
Well, yes we know the name of the "shell" company. What is not known, at least very widely, is whether there is a larger going concern behind the shell company. That is what needs to come out during trial.
