Posts by frankwtu

AlainCo

Quote from AlainCo

As I understand IH does not own Rossi's IP, but have a license on it, to use it in some territory.

Yes, I can see that now, thanks, my error.

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

IH would like something besides a lawsuit in return for the $11.5M paid to Rossi and will get it one way or another.

Does this mean, IH think Rossi has something? And if they do; can you foresee IH and Rossi 'cooperating once again? And if they cooperate, will Rossi get his $89 million? This sounds suspiciously like an 'out of court settlement' you are inferring, am I right?

If there is an out of court settlement, can we infer that the 'something' that IH want is 'rights' and 'full knowhow' to the 'Rossi Effect' and if that is so can we (and the rest of the world) infer the 'Rossi Effect' is 'real'?

Best regards
Frank

Tom

I recommend you read 'fully' this: http://www.infinite-energy.com…ustrial-heat-lawsuit.html thanks to Shane D for this. In fact I recommend everyone seeking some insight to reduce the 'fog' to read it.

In fairness there appear to be a number of 'flaws in Rossi's complaint which he still has chance before the deadline to rectify.

Then of course we will have to wait for the defendants reply and then Rossi's reply to their reply. If Rossi's stuff doesn't work as you claim, the patents and I think the contract will be invalid. It will be interesting to see if IH alledge 'fraud' in this respect or they concentrate on their right to use the IP the way they have done and intend to do so. Cant see them continuing with this tack if:

Quote from H-G Branzell

Rossi never produced anything that works and with more brains than God gave to a wooden duck (courtesy MY)

It looks more likely the case will focus on the 'contract' so we will have to wait and see.

Best regards
Frank

Thomas

You said:
(1) The premise here was that IH was not lying (see above). And it is the simplest assumption - anything else is libelous. Disagree, what about your assumption Rossi is lying?
(2) You speculate as to what the Court will conclude when the only comment from a lawyer I have seen makes the point that most such cases never get to Court. And you don't speculate on scientific matters even though you are not a scientist?
(3) Whether IH lose from this action or no is irrelevant here, they did not start it. Disagree
(4) You argue that Rossi is likely to have something because he would not take this step (the legal action) if he had nothing. This is not logical. On many different grounds! (I could expand). No I have not, but I have speculated on a number of opposing hypotheses.

Is that the best you can do Tom, I think you should concentrate on the science, or become a 'cherry picker'.

Best regards
Frank

Shane

Do you have a link to the write-up of David French?

Best regards
Frank

Axil

Okay, my misunderstanding on that. So what constitutes competition, that's what Rossi will need to prove if he is to win that particular complaint.

Best regards
Frank

Bob

Then IH seem to be home and dry, if Rossi cannot 'prove' the IP came from IH. In any case it also appears the technology needs to 'come out of the lab' and cause 'a competition risk' to be a breach of contract.

Best regards
Frank

Dewey

You are shooting from the hip a bit here; take a break. See above.

Axil

IH will not complete on the payment until Rossi gives the required information, unless of course the court order them to do so which I don't think is likely.

Quote from axil

Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence:

Yes I have seen that, but now I think the goal posts have changed see Hoover's blog to Rossi 2 hours ago.
Sharing IP appears to be okay providing it does not come 'out of the lab'.

Best regards
Frank

Axil

But they did, it was worded in a legal way but I think it meant that any new or subsequent inventions or knowledge deriving from the technology was included.

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Axil - I keep seeing this - what is the basis for the story that IH gave Rossi IP to others?

This is what Rossi is claiming in his 'complaint' this is what the court will need to consider. If they find it is true, they will then need to consider if it was a breach of contract. For it to be a breach of contract even Rossi seems to be saying it isn't providing it 'stays in the lab'

Best regards
Frank

Bob

Just seen on Rossi blog reader (2 hours ago) 'Hoover' brought to the attention of Rossi "test made by Brillouin in Washington DC: but it is a copy of your Hot Cat"

Rossi in his reply seems to think this is okay providing it 'stays in the lab'. So if he persists with claiming IH breached the contract sharing IP with his competitors, he may also have to prove the reactor 'came out of the lab' and in some way transferred into real or expected 'competition' that caused harm or potential harm for Rossi.

I suspect his reply is tempered by legal advice that he may have received. Or it could be that negotiations are on-going in the background. Who knows, there may be a re-union after all.

Best regards
Frank

Axil

That will be for the court to decide, but the more expensive the legal representation the better the case that can be made perhaps, Unless there is factual evidence; I think we will have to wait and see on that one.

Best regards
Frank

AlainCo

I have looked at the contract but cannot find it at the moment, but I will answer your points as best I can.
1- the IP transfer appears to be broadly worded to include any derivative inventions of the E-cat, that then would be for the court to decide.
2- not sure how this works. If IH own the IP they will want to produce units, they will need to contract the production out to someone who is skilled in the area, it might be quite easy to claim this is legitimate use of the IP, unless this particularly hurts Rossi then he may have a case.
3- If IH asked other 'persons skilled in the art' to substantiate it for them, then perhaps so. If Rossi can show other 'persons skilled in the art' could 'replicate' and 'substantiate' but chose to withhold that information from IH or withhold it from the court with the knowledge of IH, then for sure Rossi will win and IH et al might be in contempt of court.
4- If IH own the IP I think they can do what they like with it unless there are restrictions in the contract, so that would I think be down to the 'fine print'.

Best regards
Frank

Dewey

The court will not be interested in PR wars except if any information from such PR wars reaches the jury they will be instructed to ignore it. If the judge thinks they are unable to ignore it he/she will dismiss the effected jurors and call for new jurors who have not been so influenced. If after taking precautions the Judge cannot prevent the Jury being 'influenced' he/she will call a 're trial. There is no advantage to any side in propagating a PR war and there are distinct disadvantages one of which is 'contempt of court' which may carry a prison sentence.

Best regards
Frank

Thomas

(1) If IH are lying, Rossi is likely to win although I don't discount many complexities
(2) Rossi is not even half rational - the court will not be interested in Rossi's rationality, they will be interested in facts in two distinct areas (I) the Patents and Information property - are they valid, which I suspect you think they are not. (ii) the contract. They may conclude (a) if the Patents and Information Technology are not 'safe' the contract is invalid then everyone will loose. (b) the Patents and information technology is 'safe' i.e. the Rossi Effect is 'real', but there has been a 'breach of contract'. If they rule there has been a 'breach of contract' they may rule against Rossi or they may rule against IH et al or both.
(3) Rossi's stuff does not work - If The court rule the Patents and IP is worthless i.e. 'they do not work' and 'they are not or will not be useful' then this opens the door to further claims from people who have incurred 'damages' for example Woodford and the alleged Chinese investors all of whom could then theoretically sue both IH et al and Rossi.

So to me, both of the actors in this little game have most to loose if your scenario (3) is correct so I disagree with you, I think your Bayesian logic has let you down on this one.

Best regards
Frank

Alan

Quote from Alan Smith

IH never said AFAIK 'it doesn't work'. What they said was they were 'unable to substantiate his claims'. This could for example mean that it was working but COP of 5 not 50 which AR told them it would achieve.

Okay, if this is the case then the court will have to decide if it is 'reasonable' for IH to attach conditions that are 'additional' to the contract and that these conditions were 'agreed' between all parties, they will of course require evidence which is likely to be in the form of 'written evidence'. Alternatively they will need to confirm this was indeed part of the 'contract'. I understand the contract says a COP >6 and refers to the authority of the ERV report.

So where are these new requirements and did anyone tell Rossi?

Best regards
Frank

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

I think that visibility will improve when the Penon report and supporting data can be reviewed by more of the interested parties on both sides of this matter.

Both sides and their interested parties (attorney's) in the dispute already know the contents of the ERV report. We are not in the 'need to know' list.

You mentioned IH has shared information, my guess is that the moderators here would be just as excited about that as anything else at the moment, do you have anything that would 'reduce the fog in the meantime' in particular anything from IH.

Best regards
Frank

Dewey

I am saying it depends if the Court judge the Rossi Effect to be real and then on how the Court interpret the 'contract'.

Do you have a link to the information which IH has shared?

Best regards
Frank

@ Dewey Weaver

Was that ever included in the contract? it sounds to me what you are saying is that IH will not accept the ERV report as evidence of a fully vetted system. Have they indicated this in writing anywhere, i.e. that the ERV report is not evidence of 'fully vetted' and described what is evidence; and agreed this with Rossi, If Rossi is unaware of this 'formally' then it is unlikely to form part of the 'contract'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law

Best regards
Frank

Bob

There is a third option; if Rossi's claims are true, that IH built a working reactor without his help, that might suggest IH has the IP and expertise. I understand Rossi is claiming IH built the Lugano reactor.

If the Lugano test results are thrown out by the court as 'invalid' in this case this might be negative for Rossi's case, but if they are not then the spotlight turns to IH and the question arises 'are they not being truthful about their 'without success' claim. If they press ahead with this then it will be necessary for them to discredit the Lugano test and perhaps the 3 monthly and annual ERV report; which of course will be interesting in itself.

I don't think they will do that, the most likely scenario is that both parties believe the Rossi Effect invention works but that Rossi is in breach of contract by not supplying IP and assistance or IH are not being truthful about their claims; could go either way!

Best regards
Frank

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

That is a legal deadline. You mean "on or before"!

I don't expect any 'Fog' will clear before the legal deadline, as this is the deadline for IH to 'answer to the complaint' once they have answered, the court will consider (before a jury) both the claims and counter claims of each party, that could theoretically take months if not years. Note, the case has been re assigned as a 'patent case'

"CLERKS NOTICE REASSIGNING CASE. Case re-categorized as PATENT case and reassigned to Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga for all further proceedings. Senior Judge James Lawrence King no longer assigned to case (vp)

This in itself suggests the court' considers this case to be predominantly about 'information property' and 'patent law'. This suggests the issue regarding who owns the 'information property' will be considered before any judgment regarding breach of contract. If Rossi's invention is considered by the courts to be a 'fraud', a 'scam' or simply 'does not work' then the 'patents' are likely to be judged 'invalid'. This will then have an impact both for Rossi and for Industrial Heat as they will both be liable for further court actions by persons who have suffered 'damages'. However, if the court decides the 'Information Property' and particularly the various 'Patents' are valid (they have to 'work' and be 'useful') then this will be a judgement that both Rossi and Darden et al will capitalise on.

Then, and only then, will come the issue of 'breach of contract'. At this stage, the court having ruled the IP and Patents are sound, IH will be able to afford to pay Rossi his $89 million if indeed they are found by the court to be in breach. Equally likely is that Rossi will be found to be in breach by not providing 'assistance' and further IP. But either way they will both be riding on a 'Patents' court having 'rubber stamped' the invention.

Here I disagree with you Tom, neither side has any interest in settling 'out of court' since both require the publicity that the 'Patent Court' case will give to the 'validity or not' of the 'Rossi Effect' invention.

Best regards
Frank

PS: If one or other sides in the dispute believe the Rossi Effect is not real the none believer, will press for an out of court settlement. In the case of IH, not to do so would expose themselves to further claims from their investors.

Peter

Can you explain what:

'

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

Testing the water with your big toe?

Has to do with being an expert in pin ball wizardry, and what pinball wizardry has to do with 'Cutting through the fog surrounding the Rossi/IH dispute?

Are you straying 'off topic'?

Best regards
Frank