Bob,
So you say, but it is not that simple.
The contract and the license are only valid if both parties follow the
agreement. Right now Rossi has done so as reported by the ERV. IH have
not as they have not paid up. It is not IH taking Rossi to court for
failure to comply and IH don't own rights to the IP until they have paid
for it. The price was $100 million and IH reasonably said they would
not pay it all until the concept was proven. The ERV says it has been
proven to work. The court will decide but before payment IH do not own
the license
On 7/1/2016 6:31 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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.
