Of course, Rossi may have a case. Also, he may not have a case. This would be for the courts to decide. No matter what, Rossi cannot unilaterally nullify the license. He would have to sue in civil courts to have the license contract dissolved for cause. Until the court says otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was signed and money changed hands. We do not know whether the court will side with IH or Rossi. If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another license for the same region, there would be no question that he would be getting fitted for a striped suit immediately.
Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with IH in any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the license contract is dissolved. This probably puts licensing of his "quarkX" technology in limbo in all of those regions as well. Rossi seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand. Unless he gets some kind of motion to have the license dissolved in the mean time, he could go to jail for selling licenses to regions already licensed to IH, and anyone who bought such a license from him would stand to lose all of their money. Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up appearances of being in the high ground. However, this will not keep him out of jail if he commits fraud. On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > Bob, > He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract and paid > him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant. > > On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > > I am not a lawyer. However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly > executed license agreement with IH. He cannot unilaterally cancel that > after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could not even give the > $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with > other signed documents. The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the > license belongs. In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to > jail by offering the license to anyone else. > > It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very definition > of fraud. > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie < <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> > cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless >> he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null >> contract; not the rights to the IP. >> >> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: >> >>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have >>> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void. Having >>> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract. Yet >>> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no >>> other contract. This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put >>> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period. He should be >>> collecting his reading material on antigravity. >>> >>> I couldn't help myself. >>> >>> >> > >
