I think all the readers should appreciate sifferkoll's efforts to inform us about Rossi E-cat demo. He is a "believer" (like me) but has proved his goodfaith many times so far... 👍
Italianlawyer
Member
- Member since May 12th 2017
- Last Activity:
Posts by Italianlawyer
-
-
laughable, Rossi attacks IH by bringing a suit and then proposes an agreement to walk away from his attack. I do not see him winning a battle but backing away from his attack when he found that he could not prove his case against IH to get $89 to 200M and recover his IP. There would be no "bankrupt trick" unless Rossi lost the case. Rossi knew full well before he brought suit that IH would likely be able to bring more money than he could to the table. He gave up and ran away.
Your post is a nonsense. Rossi started his suit without Ip but with initial IH payment. After the suit (and thanks to it) he obtained Ip and IH renounced to take back the payment...
What can we say? I would say that Rossi has improved his situation without finishing the trial.
If IH had been so sure about its reasons, it would had refused settlement or signed a different settlement.
Display MoreA bit of revisionist history and plain speculation in what you say:
First, I always said that I believed that IH would win on the principal claim. Second, I said that it was at best, probably even odds on the counter claim and that a jury could easily split the baby and have IH win the principal claim, Rossi the counter claim and that unless there was an attorney's fees clause (which I stated I had not checked), each side would pay their own costs and fees. Please explain how this differs radically from the agreed upon settlement, other than Rossi got back his worthless IP (time, and the absence of any commercialization of said IP, will prove that it was worthless).
In the settlement, IH got a complete, COMPLETE, release of any and all claims Rossi had against IH. TO PARAPHRASE BOTH WILLY WONKA AND MICHAEL CORLEONE, Rossi took nothing on his principal claims. Further, in the settlement, Rossi got a complete release of IH's claims against him and IH took nothing on the counter claim.
As to your comments about Rossi proposing and IH immediately accepting, you could just as easily have said (and assuming you have no inside knowledge, be just as speculative) that Rossi eagerly pushed a settlement offer and IH reluctantly accepted. DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIDE INFORMATION?? And why did Rossi propose?? Was he scared of getting his ass kicked at trial? And if not, why did he settle? After all, according to you, SSC, Kev and many others, he was going to show IH, Darden, et al, for the alleged corporate crooks they were and the jury would carry Rossi off on their shoulders after awarding him 100's of millions of dollars. Why did Rossi settle? Please explain.
Your are a Lawyer like me. In this settlement I see a party who has solved a problem. A bad licence agreement with a bad clause.
If we assume ecat is scam, this agreement is a good victory for Rossi, because he has obtained the initial payment 😎
If we assume ecat is real, this agreement is far better. Because he has obtained ip whose value is multiple times more than 80M...
But let me say that a big and rich client signs such an agreement only if he thinks he could loose... Otherwhise it's better to celebrate the trial...
-
Assuming that this is a true and complete (and executed) copy of the Settlement Agreement, I don't see anywhere in there where IH agreed to pay Rossi any more money or any portion of Rossi's legal fees. I was absolutely positive (sarcasm warning ELE), based on all of the pro-Rossi pundits posts, all of which were incredibly persuasive, well reasoned and based on inside information (more sarcasm ELE), that IH had agreed to pay Rossi tons of additional monies and some or all of his legal fees to be released from trap that Rossi had IH in. What happened? How did evil IH (more sarcasm ELE) escape from having to pay Rossi more money? Inquiring minds want to know.
PS: pretty standard form of Settlement and Mutual Release - I must have several almost identical (except names, dates, etc.) in my form file. Also, I noticed AmpEnergo was not released. Would someone refresh my memory as to their involvement.
PPS: Ele is correct that I have not been a layer (not lately). However, I am still a California lawyer in good standing with the California State Bar.
I don't agree with you. Rossi obtained his IP. This was his main goal. He has not to restitute the first payment he received. It's clear this settlement was an amazing victory, giving the fact that the IP value is far bigger than the money IH had to pay to Rossi... Rossi is the only who guiñes something. About legal fees... How much could be? 1M, 3M, 5M? They are nothing compared to the risk of losing IP...
-
That is bullshit. I have read Italian media attacks against Rossi far stronger than what I
Maybe your knowledge of Italian is not as good as you think
-
This is not "business." It is fraud and theft. If businessmen acted like Rossi, commerce would cease to exist. No one would negotiate contracts in good faith, or abide by them. Without trust there can be no business.
You have weird notions about how the world works. Calling this "business" is like calling armed bank robbery, "an innovative financing technique."
Your are lucky you are posting in USA. If you were in Italy, your post would be enough for a criminal charge for defamation (in Italy defamation is both a tort and a crime) 😉 You speech is full of violence.
-
Italianlawyer. You just used an absurd double standard. If Rossi loses the case, it indeed does not necessarily mean that his alleged gadget does not owrk. But the converse is equally true. If he wins the case, all it means is that the jury somehow bought his bundle of lies. You don't get to apply logic in one direction and blind faith in the other.
That's not a double standard.
It's legal reasoning.
Rossi loses if he is not able to prove his test complied with the contract signed. This means that (despite the functioning of the machine) if the procedure used by mr. Penon was not correct, Rossi loses his claims.
And the same will happen if IH persuade the jury that test was not the gpt.
From this point of views, we don't care about the Ecat machine.
But, if he proves the test complied with the contract, it means "per se" (for itself) the test was realized according to the protocol. This would mean that his Ecat really produces an excess of heat.
-
Display More
THHuxleynew basically nailed it.
It seems that there are a fair number of Europeans here, so I think it might be helpful to touch on the role of the court in this trial. For simplicity, I'm going to be grossly oversimplifying most of the points, so this should be taken as a rough outline, not a detailed explanation.
Most of the nations in Western Europe (the UK and Ireland being the major exceptions) have legal systems that have their roots in the Napoleonic legal reforms; these reforms, in turn, took heavy inspiration from the Code of Justinian. The role of the courts in these systems can be broadly described as inquisitorial, with the idea being that the judge is there to actively seek out the truth. It is common for a judge in one of these legal systems to take a very active role in questioning witnesses, etc. My understanding is that it is not unusual for courts in these systems to seek independent expert advice in a case.
The common law nations (basically England and former colonies - US included) are an adversarial system, with roots in the king's role (originally in person, later delegated) as an arbiter of disputes. In an adversarial system, each side presents its evidence and arguments to the court (which includes the judge and jury). Courts in adversarial systems tend to take a more passive (and listening-based) role in the process. Judges and juries may sometimes ask questions of witnesses, but that will typically be in a supplemental role, seeking clarification of points already brought out by the lawyers.
So there are probably places where the judge could order independent testing or evaluation of the technology, but the USA is not one of them. The judge's discretion is much more limited, as are the possible options. The parties have set out their claims. The judge narrowed those claims in preliminary proceedings. The jury will rule on each of the remaining claims after listening to all evidence and deliberating as a group to determine how to best interpret the evidence. Their ability to rule, however, is limited to ruling on the specific claims in front of them. They have no ability to go beyond that scope.
You are just oversimplifying. Adversial trials are the norm in Italy... with few exceptions (labor trials, family trials and administrative trials). Yes, a judge in a Italian civil trial can choose an expert "ex officio" (by himself), but only to evaluate facts already proved by the parties... And the parties can cross examine these experts...
-
I am sure that MikeD will also answer, but my take, as a non-scientist and non-engineer, is that the outcome of this trial, whatever that outcome may be, should have no effect on LENR and associated research. This trial is not about LENR, it is a simple contract dispute.
Dear Colleague,
I respectfully don't agree with you. If Rossi loses this case, for sure we can't affirm his machine doesn't work. But if wins, it means that the Erv report is "real", not "fake". A real erv report with high cop means that Ecat is a functioning machine.
"in mercato veritas". It's Latin.
-
Are you able to post without insulting other people? Thanks.
Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric
-
Any comment about recents Altonaga's orders? Don't say "cat" if you haven't it in the sack.
-
Rossitalianlawyer - Its very clear that law is not your field at all.
Tough hearing yesterday?
What's disturbing you? The fact I'm a lawyer, the fact I'm Italian or the fact I think Rossi is sincere? You can do better! Law is my field and I don't need to insult people (as you do) to substain my opinion 👏👏👏
-
By the way, the situation is tense. Judge Altonaga will deposit her orders soon. And this will have a great impact on the trial. I don't comment other lawyer strategies, but It's evident that Judge doesn't appreciate Rossi's motions and their "aggressive" stance.
And that's no good at all (for Rossi).
-
Insults as usual, Dewey ? Just for curiosity what do you have against 5/22 and 5/23 ? Memorial Day is on 5/29.
Why italianlawyer ( is he/she really Italian ? and a real layer ? must be advising them ? what do you have against Italians ?
He (me) is Italian and is a real lawyer specialized in Administrative law (which in Italy, more or less, means trials between a private and the Government). Unfortunately I can't advise Rossi because I'm not in contact with him and because Ip and usa civil procedure are not my field...
-
Maybe Italianlawyer can join their firm as well - I might be able to get partial naming rights to "Dewey, Cheatem and Howe LLP" if they'd like to expand on
their field of expertise. Isn't it also amazing how the socks go quiet when there is a hearing - is somebody busy or something?
No, it's all quiet because we like listen your magnificent wirds. It's seems you are quiet obsessed by an Italian lawyer. You have mentioned me two times in few minutes... 😂😂😂
-
Judge said no more discovery stuff ... predict NO on Smith MAYBE on Murray
Am I an IH fan if I say I agree with you?
-
"every post you write is biased against" IH "and this reduces your credibility"
you will judged as you judgeI was honest and admitted I think AR is sincere.
Also for the reasons showed by Ele (a scammer disappears with money, doesn't start a mediatic trial against a big company...).
And - for sure - doesn't buy apartments in Florida... 👍
Off course, if I say that AR is sincere, then the consequence is that according to me the IH conduct isn't sincere...
But I don't attack IH. I don't fell the need to discredit them.
And, on the contrary, I have admitted that IH could win about Ecat IP affair... for the reason n. 2 of Erik.
So, maybe I'm biased, but not so biased like other people here... Let's say I could change my opinion about AR after the trial. If he will be defeated.
Are you ready to affirm the same if he wins?
-
Italian lawyer -It is evident that you are not a lawyer. Rossi took $10M in exchange for rights to his invention. He did not deliver and now doesn't get to claim
harm as a result of being paid and not delivering. Planet Rossi law schools are as bad as Planet Rossi physics, science, logic, rhetoric, history, math, and etc, etc etc...
Well, for sure I'm not a lawyer 😂😂😂
And judge Altonaga the same. Because she rejected motion to dismiss relating the point you mentioned... Ip question is on the table.
This means there are disputed facts that should examined by the jury.
-
Display More
Here's my point (which deals with hypotheticals): (1) It's hard to imagine that the QuarkX IP is not derived in some way from the E-Cat IP. (2) Even if the QuarkX IP is only very slightly derived from the E-Cat IP, the provisions of sec. 13.4 of the license agreement are extremely broad and likely cover the QuarkX IP nonetheless. In that case, we then have (3) Rossi's developing something different, i.e., the QuarkX IP, does not allow him to get out of needing to transfer it to IH under the terms of the license agreement, contrary to your suggestion above about maintaining control over it.
But we can go even further. Even if the QuarkX is completely unrelated to the E-Cat in terms of its embodiments and related processes, it seems likely that the QuarkX IP would be covered by the license agreement nonetheless. Here I have highlighted statements in sec. 13.4. on the assumption that any hypothetical QuarkX IP is not derived from the E-Cat IP:
Recall that Rossi was at one point IH's "chief scientist" and presumably an employee, which might explain why the terms of this section are so broad. It is worth reading over the section in its entirety.
Eric, my post was done to reply to who has stated that AR conduct was "strange", because Rossi, instead of commercializing Ecat, developed an assumed new machine... Soneone stated that this would be a scammer conduct... Bevause if you have a working product, you put it on the market...
Well I tried to explain why AR could have decided to develop Quarkx. But I'm not an Ip lawyer and can't predict the outcome of a litigation between them...
But I want to reply to your interesting arguments.
1) hard to imagine doesn't mean impossible. We don't know how Quarkx works...
2) I agree with you. If there was a link, Rossi could have problems (if I doesn't win the trial for the relevant count)
3) In a civil law system, we should say this clause, in the part in which says that every future development not related with Ecat belongs to IH - is null. Why? Because it represents such a broad clause that would impede AR to realize any invention in the energy sector, thus realizing a "perpetual obligation". What's about Common law? I should study it but at the moment, I prefer to wait for the trial!
Are you sure this clause could not be considered as a "clause de style", without real effects (I don't know how to say in English, in Italian we say "clausola di stile")?
-
Display More
[...] And why does Rossi want "control over his IP"? He has half of the world to market stuff in with no interference from IH. Is that not enough for him? How can IH prevent him from doing anything?
What would be more relevant, were Rossi to have something that worked, is that IH would be steaming ahead pouring in $100Ms and establishing first-mover advantage in what would become a competitive field - with no certainty there is any IP protection (water-heater patents?).
The idea that Rossi has working stuff given to IH but turns his back on it to develop new different working stuff, wasting another 2 years, is absurd.
But then the whole Rossi circus has been absurd, so I guess those who are inclined to believe him will not notice a bit more of that.
Why accept 50% when you can have 100%? The mutual trust and respect between AR and IH was compromised by events. AR was too jealous about his secrets and IH tried to develop ip by others guy...
Do you remember the Meucci-Bell affair? Quite similar... even in the bias of English speaking and Italian speaking observers (English page is "Pro bell" and Italian page "pro Meucci").
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci
But Italian page contain this interesting link:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo…nternationaleducationnews
---
By the way, are you sure AR and IH will no sign a settlement during or after the trial? As an attorney, I always suggest my clients to find an agreement. And I'm sure US colleagues will do the same...
-
Italianlawyer - what Eric said. IH has a paid up IP license to all Rossi ecat IP in their territory into perpetuity. That doesn't appear to have any positive value right now.
Are you hear to help Rossi maintain his crime spree cover-up from his days in the mother country? How far back can you go?
I'm here as an observer who thinks Rossi is sincere about the fact that his IP works well... I see every post you write is biased against him and this reduces your credibility... Instead of speaking about his past legal problem related to events happened 30 years ago in Italy related to violation of administrative regulations, let's speak about the us trial...
