I am just bring into focus what the theory of Rossi's case is...the avoidance of the $Billion payment in licence fees. It has nothing to with Rossi's tech not working. If IH claims that Rossi's IP does not work, they will lose their case since their duly authorized agent who designed and conducted the test certified that it does work and proved to his own satisfaction that it does work.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is >> they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their >> OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees. >> > > This theory is bonkers. The machine DOES NOT WORK. It does not produce any > excess heat. Therefore, there is no IP, and there will be no products. > > > >> This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was >> performed because they never intended for that test to produce any >> contractual results. >> > > The test produced clear-cut results. It showed that the machine does not > work. Those are contractual results. They give I.H. the right to terminate > the contract. > > Whether it produces heat or not cannot be decided by nutty legal theories, > or based on the notion that I.H. wanted to throw away $11 million for no > reason, or by some similar lunatic notion. This question can only be > settled with reference to data and calorimetry. I am confident that any > person who understands these subjects if given the opportunity to analyze > the data will agree there is no excess heat. > > - Jed > >
