On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:50 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
Not clear how you arrived at that conclusion. > I got that impression from observing Rossi's poor behavior over many years, and from observing what seems like forbearance on the part of IH, especially as seen from hindsight, as more information trickles in. I do not require that you arrive at the same conclusion. You clearly have a different take on things, one that seems naive to me. Another story is that IH never tried to find a customer and then blamed > Rossi for starting late. Or maybe didn't get all the partners to sign the > agreement with the modified test procedures so they could claim it was > invalid? Of accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and > then at the end complained about it? > If IH have rebutted in a reply to a US federal court to a lawsuit raised against it that Rossi was at fault for starting the test late when it was in fact their own failure to obtain a customer, Rossi will have an opportunity in Leonardo's reply to clear up this error, making IH look very bad indeed. If IH maliciously took note a lack of a signature on the second amendment so that they could use it to attack the validity of the second amendment to the license agreement later on, while playing along as though nothing were amiss, this would definitely have been playing hardball on the part of a party negotiating "at arm's length" with Leonardo. Again, Rossi will have an opportunity to clarify the situation, making IH look bad. If IH accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and then at the end complained about it, this will no doubt come up in Leonardo's reply. The test is what a reasonable man would do. > It is hard to by any stretch of imagination to describe Rossi's behavior as that of a reasonable person. Rossi has been his own worst enemy, as even his admirers will attest. He succeeded in obtaining millions of dollars in funding, with the possibility of many more, in a field that has been starved of funding for many years, and yet he managed to alienate the people trying to help them and then used the money he obtained to sue them. He has filed many patent applications with gross deficiencies and even obtained a few patents, but none are enabling. He has carried out test after test that experts that have debated them for years agree are lacking. He has claimed that he was shipping this many units to this customer or about to build a factory full of robots, while nothing of the sort was happening. He claimed that everything was good between him and IH only a few weeks before launching a lawsuit that he must have known was in the works for weeks or months. I hope these are not actions that reasonable people take. In the circumstances described by Jed (that it was impossible to know the > results) a reasonable man would have fired the ERV and shut it down after > say a week, not waited a year. > Not being privy to the details of the situation, it is difficult to say what IH have attempted to do and what they've done, apart from what we've read in their statement and their reply. Eric
