Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Patrick Ellul]

The attorney of the defendants: http://www.jonesday.com/crjpace/

Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Terry Blanton]

Hey, Jones, you're a JD.  Any relation? :-)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Seems Darden/IH et al have retained Jones Day  to 
> represent them.
>  arden-e-cat-lawsuit/ 
> >
>
> This apparently gives them 60 days to reply in detail.
>
> Presumably it'll cost them an arm and a leg, but with $89M at stake
> ...
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Alan Fletcher]

Seems Darden/IH et al have retained Jones Day  to 
represent them.  
< 
http://freeenergyscams.com/now-we-know-the-defendants-law-firm-in-the-rossi-v-d
arden-e-cat-lawsuit/ > 

This apparently gives them 60 days to reply in detail. 
Presumably it'll cost them an arm and a leg, but with $89M at stake
... 

RE: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Russ George]

Alas the babble here on Vortex and other similar venues all focusing on either 
Rossi or IH being fools is preposterous. That’s a spin mastering ploy that is 
as old as human stupid egotism. Neither Rossi nor IH went into this without 
consummate skills and experience, plenty of quirks as well, I am not sure about 
‘quarks’, the latter is of course of the most importance.

 

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

Russ--

 

Your comment about Rossi avoiding the courts, if he were off base on his 
complaints, was the first thought that entered my mind when I read the 
complaint.  He clearly is on the right side of the truth and was smart enough 
to plan for contingencies in his potential negative interactions with IH.  As 
Fran noted in an earlier comment in essence, Rossi entered the tank of sharks 
in a steel cage and the sharks only realized its capability after bumping their 
noses.   

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Russ George <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>  

Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:08 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>  

Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

I find this post about a ‘court ordered process’ indicative of the pervasive 
‘passive aggressive’ tone of some here on Vortex. Rossi’s stated intentions are 
cast aside, which clearly include production and sale of many of his E-Cats. 
This makes any ‘court ordered’ process ridiculous unless one wants to inject 
the ‘court’ into the story of Rossi as the spiteful passive aggressives clearly 
do. That Rossi has done the right thing in the world of corporate law and take 
the perfectly proper and ordinary course of asking that agreements be enforced 
by the courts ought not cast aspersions on Rossi, if he were anything other 
than honest and earnest he would avoid the courts at all cost!

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 8:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 

The resolution to this dilemma – and the court may order it – is pretty simple: 
to have the system independently tested by a fully qualified ERV – one with 
real credentials such as via PhDs from the University of Miami, which is not 
far away. I’m not Solomon, but this is what I would do … and it’s not quite as 
brutal as splitting the baby in half.

 

That would be a great thing indeed to happen.  Such a test would require much 
less than a year, and Rossi would be sure to do what is needed to make it work, 
unless he abandons the case.

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Roarty, Francis X]

Perhaps this is why IH kept spinning off shell companies- to dampen the 
liability when they intentionally violated the nondisclosure and IP. A lot 
cheaper to let the “e-cat” out of the bag and then depend on your head start 
once the Chinese do the grunt work for you. Setting up a no lose scenario where 
a bust would prove Rossi didn’t have anything to sue over or a boom where their 
licensee value would immediately skyrocket and the payment to Rossi would 
amount to peanuts.. The problem for IH is Rossi called them on it before the 
Chinese results are known and did not give them the time they needed to 
monetize.. I think both sides have their ear to the ground waiting on Chinese 
results and suing IH for payment is just Rossi’s default move since he can 
declare the contract broken if positive reports while keeping the 89M in play 
in case of negative reports. Both sides  were hedging but I think Rossi may 
have eliminated the upside for IH by documenting contractual breach. I don’t 
think IH was expecting or financially prepared for this move – they thought 
they were the only sharks in the tank and now look like idiots.
Fran

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 6:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

As there is no trade agreement between the US and China transfer of IP from the 
US to China is really hard to understand that IH have transferred the IP.

I agree with that this is the way we will get final clarity about how well or 
at all the E-cat works. That might be good - I think so.

The other side of the story as I see it is that it shows how useless patents 
are. Only lawyers gain from the existence of patent. I can remember more 
License agreement that caused headache and controversy, than the ones that 
created mutual benefit. Contrary to the critic, against Rossi for the way he 
has accepted the agreement, I think it was smart to take money upfront. Then we 
will see what is in the pudding.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com<mailto:lenn...@thornros.com>
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
<francis.x.roa...@lmco.com<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote:
Bob , if you are correct the Chinese will have this tech in production very 
rapidly and then it doesn’t matter, an international technical race will ensue 
where government labs have carte blanche to catch up with the Chinese. Making 
Rossi whole will be an afterthought because the economy and world trade will 
demand everyone has equal access to this tech. IH letting the tech slip away 
would be bad for them but possibly very good for the world.
Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP rather 
than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.  IH has had 
advertised substantial involvement with various entities in China.

The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade secrets of 
his fuel formula, secret?

If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion by 
Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.  Rossi 
raised this issue in his recent complaint.

I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese 
Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in order 
to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was not a 
listed IP associated with the agreement.

Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But as 
has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining 
reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants, and  
consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific theories” or 
validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than elsewhere, IMHO.

Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi


From: Robert Lynn

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face.

I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.

If the d

Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

The Lugano test used Rossi's fuel and it did not produce commercial levels
of excess heat. There is more to Rossi's reactor than just the fuel mix.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP
> rather than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.
> IH has had advertised substantial involvement with various entities in
> China.
>
> The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade
> secrets of his fuel formula, secret?
>
> If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion
> by Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.
> Rossi raised this issue in his recent complaint.
>
> I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese
> Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in
> order to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was
> not a listed IP associated with the agreement.
>
> Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But
> as has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining
> reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants,
> and  consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific
> theories” or validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than
> elsewhere, IMHO.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
> *From:* Robert Lynn
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
>
> I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation,
> whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.
>
> If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a
> burden - and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself
> is an admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is
> that IH is in fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not
> present well to a jury, and has little chance of succeeding in a trial
> unless there is evidence of such a ploy.
>
> Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go
> direct to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that?
> There is no doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and
> that an e-cat may never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture
> dynamic.
>
> It just gets curiouser and curiouser….
>
>
>
>