The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows. IF Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days of its start. If IH believed that Rossi;s IP worked, they would have started setting up a production plant early on to get a jump on E-Cat production before the test was completed. IH did nothing. IH recognized Rossi's IP worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.
IH must realize that Rossi's IP worked in some degree to place it in Brillouin's product. IH never intended to pay Rossi for his IP, but instead use it in other products where the cost of licence is far less. IH never intended to manufacture the E-Cat, they never intended to pay Rossi the 89 million, they intended to be a competitor of Rossi's world wide by disguising Rossi's IP in other products that they intended to sell without licencing the E-Cat. On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now. >> > > IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have > any IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as > it stands now, and as it will always stand. > > > If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to >> pay Rossi the 89 million? >> > >> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the >> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products? >> > > As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I > cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well > be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure. > > It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW > reactor does not work. > > - Jed > >
