Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results of the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they had Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and that of their other EOMs.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > What confuses the analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the > Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP > worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot > figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management > disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of > IH. > > The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed with > Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently > evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the > evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why? > > It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers should > have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden, unless > I was certain of the outcome. > > Craig > >
