On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> My reading is that IH had very little in-house expertise Yes. They're venture capitalists. They don't maintain in-house expertise. I suppose they have a nice office with coffee machines and other venture capitalists, and maybe a massage room. so hired gunman Murray. Ok, so your reading is that Murray is a hired gunman. You go to great lengths to read IH's actions in as negative a light as possible. Have you been effective in persuading people here or elsewhere to your position? Murray apparently felt the need to justify his existence and as an IT guy > does not seem to have expertise in the areas he is criticizing. He was > probably pissed that he had not been allowed in the plant before. > IH were probably irritated as well that one of the people they hired to introduce some technical rigor into their relationship with Rossi was not permitted, acting as an agent of IH, to have access to a facility that was, by Rossi's claims, the location of the Guaranteed Performance Test. This story is too strange to turn into a movie. People would roll their eyes and not take it seriously. Perhaps it would work as a B movie on the USA Network. By sometime in 2014, I would not be surprised if IH did not take any action without first consulting their lawyers and thinking carefully through each next step. They surely saw that Rossi was a loose canon and that he was capable of doing all kind of things. > I don't buy your argument that the plant didn't work without seeing > Penon's report. > I don't hope to persuade you of anything, and I doubt that you can be persuaded. For the benefit of anyone here who has not had time to really look into the details, I'm addressing points you attempt to make for their sake. Rossi maintains it was IH who were keen to stop the test, offering x > millions. Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11 million to buy back > the license/IP, but IH refused. > It is true that the Complaint and the Answer presented strikingly different pictures. I was taken aback about how many allegations IH denied; I would have imagined that there would be more that they could have agreed upon with the plaintiffs. One of the parties to this case is presenting a very distorted picture of things. I suppose the judge is going to become quite irritated with one of them once enough information comes to light. > The arguments that IH have come up with have all been weak. I expect we > will know just how weak after Rossi files his reply. Before that it is > silly to leap to conclusions that the plant didn't work. The arguments that IH have come up are very strong. Their position, that Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed Performance Test, left for Florida on the pretext of selling power to a fake customer, and then went through the motions of the Guaranteed Performance Test over IH's objections and without renegotiating the terms of the test, looks compelling. Until that position is tested, it would be premature to conclude that IH will win this case. But that does not mean that one cannot step back and get a general impression of things. Eric
