Lennart and Eric--
I see where Eric is coming from regarding the Hot Cat being part of the E-Cat
IP for which Rossi licenses use by the Company (IH).
However, the only place it is apparently covered by a document (appendix to the
agreement) is as a patent application. The validation test in Italy and the
1 year test were accomplished on the E-Cat. The Hot Cat specifications I have
not seen written anywhere. They may be in the patent application. They are
not specified in the Agreement unless its via the Patent application.
If you (Eric) think there is anything in the agreement that speaks of providing
IP associated with exceeding a COP of 6 (or an inference of this), I would be
interested in a paragraph reference.
I think that by the definition of IP its scope only includes tangible
information—data, documents, pictures, drawings, recordings, etc. It does not
seem to include knowledge that is contained in ones brain and not otherwise
recorded. Such knowledge is not property IMHO. The only reasonable obligation
Rossi had, was to document operational procedures for the E-Cat to achieve a
COP of 6. The Patent for the control system for the E-Cat may not have
included details to allow exceeding the COP of 6.
However, if the Company invents such improved controls that provide operation
at a higher COP they will own that IP and could obtain an applicable patent it
seems, all in accordance with the Agreement.
I agree with Daniel that the Quark X invention is separate and would not fall
within the E-Cat IP defined by the Agreement.
As noted in previous comments, I consider this may be the issue that is
upsetting to IH, since such a device would upstage the E-Cat and Hot Cat alike.
The Quark X may not even use Ni as a fuel. If as Rossi says, it produces
direct electricity as well as heat, it clearly would be a different invention
from the Cats. Rossi would be free to market the Quark X in the US and the
other areas licensed to IH for the E Cats.
I would have guessed that Rossi was not too uncomfortable with the broad scope
of the agreement, given his ongoing research and appreciation of the science
behind the Rossi Effect. I think he was careful not to let the scope of the
agreement extend to the Quark X technology, which he knew was around the corner
and would make the E-Cat and Hot Cat inventions less important.
Bob Cook
From: Eric Walker
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent
Lennart,
I said that with more confidence than is warranted. I am not a lawyer, so I do
not know how to interpret a license agreement, how the court will interpret
this particular agreement, or what IH and Rossi should have put in it with the
benefit of hindsight. But I suggest to anyone who is interested in the
question of what improvements to the E-Cat technology are covered by the
agreement to read through it for these details, as perhaps you have done. One
will see that the language is very broad. Perhaps Daniel is correct that the
QuarkX would not be covered by it; presumably in that case the QuarkX is not a
derivative work.
One might speculate that if Rossi had anything at all he might have felt very
uncomfortable with the broad scope of the agreement, being acquainted with his
personality and temperament.
Eric
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one of
the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not specify
the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their shoes. Maybe I
just have been around for too long:)
IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the
detailss then who to blaim.???
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.
I read the license agreement quite differently. It had language pertaining
to all future improvements. The language sounded like it readily covered the
HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X. The contract also stipulated that Rossi help
out with transferring any knowledge required to make use of his technology. I
can look it up the relevant sections if they would be interesting. Whatever
ways that IH may have been in breach of the license agreement, Rossi was
assuredly in breach in this specific regard.
With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent
applications filed by Rossi.
Eric
