In reading the legal document, I could not find any clear discussion as to if the device worked or was claimed to have worked. The document began by saying that the court needed to take note of other exhibits – so perhaps they dealt with that question.
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit Jed, IH have two problems. 1. They did not display good faith and keep their side of the agreement when they failed to pay Rossi $89 million. 2. It is not clear if the agreement with Rossi covered the later development of the QuarkX. On 6/30/2016 9:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote: Contrary to Jed's comments, I expect there will be commercial plants running by the time this reaches court. If that happens, Rossi will lose. He will have to provide I.H. with the IP as originally agreed. - Jed
