Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Good question.

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Oystein Lande:
It’s ok, thanks for your comprehension.
The circuit was complex, but yes, the steam was superheated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:06 PM

Oystein Lande:
Let me repeat another time: I cannot disclose even parts of the Report 
of the ERV before it is disclosed in Court. All I can say is that the 
measurements have been made by a nuclear engineer expert of nuclear 
power plants, certifications and validations. Do you think we ( or you ) 
have to explain to him how to measure the energy consumed and the energy 
produced by a boiler during one year ?

Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed,
My motto is ,there is always two possibilities. I an sure you have found
the only thing that contradict that statment.
You may have inside information but you have claim for having THE answer.
On May 21, 2016 13:32, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

H LV  wrote:

4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
>> have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
>> machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
>> waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
>> to open the door?
>>
>>
> ​
> You maybe invoking a concept which at present doesn't exist in US contract
> law.
> ​
>

I do not know a thing about contract law, and I am not discussing. I am
saying that a. ashfield should use some common sense instead of coming up
with improbably nonsensical hypotheses that might possibly explain why
Rossi's behavior is innocent in a parallel universe. Here in this universe,
the only plausible reason why he refused to let the I.H. people in is
because there was nothing in there. He was covering up fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
>> have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
>> machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
>> waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
>> to open the door?
>>
>>
> ​
> You maybe invoking a concept which at present doesn't exist in US contract
> law.
> ​
>

I do not know a thing about contract law, and I am not discussing. I am
saying that a. ashfield should use some common sense instead of coming up
with improbably nonsensical hypotheses that might possibly explain why
Rossi's behavior is innocent in a parallel universe. Here in this universe,
the only plausible reason why he refused to let the I.H. people in is
because there was nothing in there. He was covering up fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[H LV]

​I  wrote:

> ​It seems to me the doctrine of ​u
> nconscionability
> ​could be used by IH in their defense although it would be inconsistent
> with their claim of having performed due diligence.
>
>
​Actually, it says only a judge can rule on unconscionability and since the
trial (I think) is by jury this defense could be not be used.

Harry




> ​
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability​
>
>
> ​<<
> Unconscionability
> ​ ​
> (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a
> doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust,
> or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior
> bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an
> unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable
> or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the
> conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the
> ​ ​
> consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to
> enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the
> contract.
>
>
> Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the
> parties when the contract was made, such as their bargaining power, age,
> and mental capacity. Other issues might include lack of choice, superior
> knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the
> bargaining process. Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of fraud
> and deceit, where the deliberate misrepresentation of fact deprives someone
> of a valuable possession. When a party takes unconscionable advantage of
> another, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of
> deceit.
>
> For the defense of unconscionability to apply, the contract has to have
> been unconscionable at the time it was made; later circumstances that make
> the contract extremely one-sided are irrelevant. There are generally no
> standardized criteria for determining unconscionability; it is a subjective
> judgment by the judge, not a jury, and is applied only when it would be an
> affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such a contract.
> Upon finding unconscionability a court has a great deal of flexibility on
> how it remedies the situation. It may refuse to enforce the contract
> against the party unfairly treated on the theory that they were misled,
> lacked information, or signed under duress or misunderstanding; it may
> refuse to enforce the offending clause, or take other measures it deems
> necessary to have a fair outcome. Damages are usually not
> ​ ​
> awarded.
> ​>>​
>
>
> ​
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[H LV]

​It seems to me the doctrine of ​u
nconscionability
​could be used by IH in their defense although it would be inconsistent
with their claim of having performed due diligence.

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability​


​<<
Unconscionability
​ ​
(sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a
doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust,
or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior
bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an
unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable
or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the
conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the
​ ​
consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to
enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the
contract.


Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the
parties when the contract was made, such as their bargaining power, age,
and mental capacity. Other issues might include lack of choice, superior
knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the
bargaining process. Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of fraud
and deceit, where the deliberate misrepresentation of fact deprives someone
of a valuable possession. When a party takes unconscionable advantage of
another, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of
deceit.

For the defense of unconscionability to apply, the contract has to have
been unconscionable at the time it was made; later circumstances that make
the contract extremely one-sided are irrelevant. There are generally no
standardized criteria for determining unconscionability; it is a subjective
judgment by the judge, not a jury, and is applied only when it would be an
affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such a contract.
Upon finding unconscionability a court has a great deal of flexibility on
how it remedies the situation. It may refuse to enforce the contract
against the party unfairly treated on the theory that they were misled,
lacked information, or signed under duress or misunderstanding; it may
refuse to enforce the offending clause, or take other measures it deems
necessary to have a fair outcome. Damages are usually not
​ ​
awarded.
​>>​


​


On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 3:25 PM, H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
>> have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
>> machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
>> waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
>> to open the door?
>>
>> -
>>
>>
> ​
> You maybe invoking a concept which at present doesn't exist in US contract
> law.
> ​
>
>
> The concept of
> ​ ​"
> Duty of honest contractual performance
> ​" was
> only adopted in Canada
> ​ in 2014​.
>
> see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_honest_contractual_performance
> < common law organizing principle of good faith is a modest, incremental
> step. This new duty of honest performance is a general doctrine of contract
> law that imposes as a contractual duty a minimum standard of honesty in
> contractual performance. It operates irrespective of the intentions of the
> parties, and is to this extent analogous to equitable doctrines which
> impose limits on the freedom of contract, such as the doctrine of
> unconscionability. However, the precise content of honest performance will
> vary with context ...>>
>
>
> However, it seems the foundation of most contract law in the US is the 
> "implied
> covenant of good faith and fair dealing"
> ​see ​
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)
> ​< is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each
> other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right
> of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It
> is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or
> promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the
> breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to
> claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when
> he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse
> to perform his or her contractual obligations, despite the general
> circumstances and understandings between the parties.>>
>
>
> Please read and compare the two principles and you will see the question
> you pose appears to carry no legal significance in the context of "the
> covenant good faith and fair dealing".
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[H LV]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

>
>
> 4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
> have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
> machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
> waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
> to open the door?
>
> -
>
>
​
You maybe invoking a concept which at present doesn't exist in US contract
law.
​


The concept of
​ ​"
Duty of honest contractual performance
​" was
only adopted in Canada
​ in 2014​.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_honest_contractual_performance
<>


However, it seems the foundation of most contract law in the US is the "implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing"
​see ​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)
​<>


Please read and compare the two principles and you will see the question
you pose appears to carry no legal significance in the context of "the
covenant good faith and fair dealing".

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed.  "I have no knowledge of this alleged agreement, but I know that 
Rossi constantly lies about all kinds of things, including me. However, 
as I pointed out above, even if there were such an agreement, any 
sensible person would agree to modify it when the I.H. expert insisted 
he needed access. I gave the reasons above. I suggest you address these 
reasons, rather than pretending that an agreement of this nature is a 
suicide pact that both parties must blindly adhere to."


Jed,  The only evidence we have is that IH made the agreement that each 
party would not visit the other in order to protect IP.
You keep saying Rossi lied about it but have no proof of this.  I am not 
persuaded that it was necessary to visit the customer in order to prove 
the output of the 1 MW plant.  It should be straight forward to measure 
the input and the output of the plant with appropriate instrumentation.  
If that was not done, it is a different argument.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> AA.  Jed, you have made much of Rossi's refusal to allow IH to visit the
> customer's plant.  Now that statement looks very misleading unless you have
> some evidence that Rossi lied about it being IH's written agreement.
>

I have no knowledge of this alleged agreement, but I know that Rossi
constantly lies about all kinds of things, including me. However, as I
pointed out above, even if there were such an agreement, any sensible
person would agree to modify it when the I.H. expert insisted he needed
access. I gave the reasons above. I suggest you address these reasons,
rather than pretending that an agreement of this nature is a suicide pact
that both parties must blindly adhere to.

Let me partially repeat the reasons for your convenience. I suggest you
address them, honestly, instead of dancing around the issue and making
absurd excuses for Rossi.

1. Rossi himself in the interview said that the I.H. expert insisted upon
seeing the customer side. Surely you realize that this is a reasonable
request, and that any expert would insist on it. Agreement or no agreement,
Rossi should have acquiesced. It would have instantly proven his case. It
would instantly resolve all doubts. There is no rational reason to deny
this request.

2. Whatever they agreed to, it is common sense to alter an agreement in
response to a reasonable request. I cannot imagine a more reasonable
request than this, or one that would better serve Rossi's own purposes --
assuming he is honest and he actually has 1 MW. Opening the customer site
would have as many advantages to Rossi as to I.H. . . .

3. Rossi is not a reliable source of information. . . .

4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
to open the door?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed.  "His refusal to allow access to the customer site tells you he is 
running a scam."

"Their statement about blocking the door to the customer convinces me. "

AA.  Jed, you have made much of Rossi's refusal to allow IH to visit the 
customer's plant.  Now that statement looks very misleading unless you 
have some evidence that Rossi lied about it being IH's written agreement.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Mats Lewan is quoted:


> <<
> ​...​
> I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that
> hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told
> me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1
> (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output
> Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake
> report in collaboration with Rossi.
>

Just based on the interview with Lewan himself I would accuse them of that!
Their statement about blocking the door to the customer convinces me. I
cannot imagine why Mats did not conclude it must be fraud. What was he
thinking?!?


Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large
> mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by
> people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH).>>
>

The calorimetry and data I saw is full of holes, large enough for a mistake
on this scale. That data definitely came from Rossi, because he quoted the
same numbers in the interview.

The only question is: are those giant holes stupid mistakes, or deliberate
fraud? You can't tell from the data itself. People do make large mistakes,
after all. Heck, I've made plenty of large mistakes. Rossi has made many
large mistakes.

Based on their refusal to open the customer site, I say fraud. Other people
think it is okay to close the door, so I guess it is a matter of opinion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

The trail will cut through the FUD,
>

You mean the trial.


Rossi has already cut through the FUD in the interview. His numbers tell
you there is no excess heat. His refusal to allow access to the customer
site tells you he is running a scam.

Rossi has given you proof he is wrong, and he is lying. You refuse to look
at that proof, but it is right there.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Axil Axil]

The trail will cut through the FUD,

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed "As I said, there is clear evidence of that: Rossi refused to let
>> anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi himself."
>>
>> AA.  It seems this was the agreement written by IH before the test began.
>>
>
> 1. Rossi himself in the interview said that the I.H. expert insisted upon
> seeing the customer side. Surely you realize that this is a reasonable
> request, and that any expert would insist on it. Agreement or no agreement,
> Rossi should have acquiesced. It would have instantly proven his case. It
> would instantly resolve all doubts. There is no rational reason to deny
> this request.
>
> 2. Whatever they agreed to, it is common sense to alter an agreement in
> response to a reasonable request. I cannot imagine a more reasonable
> request than this, or one that would better serve Rossi's own purposes --
> assuming he is honest and he actually has 1 MW. Opening the customer site
> would have as many advantages to Rossi as to I.H. It makes no sense to
> enslave yourself to an agreement when it can be improved to everyone's
> benefit.
>
> 3. Rossi is not a reliable source of information. You should not believe
> his blog or his assertions about agreements. He often lies. He lied about
> me, blatantly, years before I said anything particularly bad about him in
> public, other than the fact that he refused to let me visit and measure the
> temperature and flow rate.
>
> 4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
> have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
> machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
> waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
> to open the door?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed "As I said, there is clear evidence of that: Rossi refused to let
> anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi himself."
>
> AA.  It seems this was the agreement written by IH before the test began.
>

1. Rossi himself in the interview said that the I.H. expert insisted upon
seeing the customer side. Surely you realize that this is a reasonable
request, and that any expert would insist on it. Agreement or no agreement,
Rossi should have acquiesced. It would have instantly proven his case. It
would instantly resolve all doubts. There is no rational reason to deny
this request.

2. Whatever they agreed to, it is common sense to alter an agreement in
response to a reasonable request. I cannot imagine a more reasonable
request than this, or one that would better serve Rossi's own purposes --
assuming he is honest and he actually has 1 MW. Opening the customer site
would have as many advantages to Rossi as to I.H. It makes no sense to
enslave yourself to an agreement when it can be improved to everyone's
benefit.

3. Rossi is not a reliable source of information. You should not believe
his blog or his assertions about agreements. He often lies. He lied about
me, blatantly, years before I said anything particularly bad about him in
public, other than the fact that he refused to let me visit and measure the
temperature and flow rate.

4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
to open the door?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed "As I said, there is clear evidence of that: Rossi refused to let 
anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi himself."


AA.  It seems this was the agreement written by IH before the test began.

1.
   Sebastian
   May 20, 2016 at 4:50 PM
   


   Dear Andrea:
   Why you were not able to show to Darden the Customers’ area ?
   Sebastian

2.
   Andrea Rossi
   May 20, 2016 at 5:07 PM
   


   Sebastian:
   In the agreement signed between IH and the Customer it had been
   agreed by the parties that nobody of IH was allowed to enter in JM
   area and nobody of JM was allowed to enter the area in which the
   plant was in operation. This had been agreed upon to defend the IP
   of both. This agreement has been signed by IH and JM, plus also me.
   The text of the agreement has been written by IH and accepted by JM.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[H LV]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> No Jed I do not know the results.
>>
> The results are quoted by Rossi right here in the interview! What do you
> mean you do not know them? You can't read?
>
> Daniel Rocha did the analysis of the numbers from the interview. He showed
> the temperature is just above 100°C. The data sample provided by Rossi to
> Lewan, to me and to others shows exactly the same thing, except the numbers
> are listed directly, without extrapolation. The temperature is listed at
> just over boiling. Actually it is just below boiling, given the pressure
> and other factors.
>
>


​Matt Lewan seems to accept a different analysis of the data:

<<
​...​
I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that
hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told
me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1
(that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output
Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake
report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to
give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high
COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with
persons connected to IH).>>

taken from ​
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/
​



Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> You still do not give actual figures nor cover the unknowns.
>

Rossi gave the figures, in the interview with Lewan. If you don't believe
him, you don't believe me, and you don't believe I.H. . . . Who *do* you
believe?

As I said, I am not free to give the details, but I and other people who
are way better at calorimetry than I am went over this carefully. We did
not jump to conclusions. (They have a lot more data than I do.)



> I think it better to wait before coming to a conclusion, but you have
> already made your bed.
>

I don't need to wait because I have the data. I am sure this is Rossi's
data from his instruments, because the numbers are the same as the ones he
quoted in the interview. It is not fake data foisted on me by I.H. You need
to wait because the only thing you know so far is that the temperature was
just at boiling. How likely do you think it was that the pressure was no
more than 1 atm?

By the way, if Rossi wanted to cheat, and little antifreeze would do the
trick.



> ff the output really was zero you are saying Rossi, his team, Penon and
> the customer have all engaged in fraud.
>

Yes. That is my conclusion. As I said, there is clear evidence of that:
Rossi refused to let anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi
himself.

I believe the data indicates other reasons for thinking it was fraud, which
I cannot discuss.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You still do not give actual figures nor cover the unknowns.
I think it better to wait before coming to a conclusion, but you have 
already made your bed.
ff the output really was zero you are saying Rossi, his team, Penon and 
the customer have all engaged in fraud.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

AA.  That is still not enough.  What was the actual temperature (just over
> 100C doesn't hack it), what was the pressure, was there a steam trap or
> other device to take out the condensate?
>

I can only say that the answers prove there cannot possibly be 1 MW.
Rossi's data and the methods are a mess, so there could be some excess
heat. More careful analysis by other methods confirm there is none.



> I find it difficult to believe someone as qualified as Penon wouldn't
> understand the possibility of water in the steam line.
>

I expect he does understand that. I expect he and Rossi are engaged in
fraud. Either that or they are very, very stupid. Given the fact that they
blocked access to the customer, I assume it is fraud.

There are other ways to prevent boiling besides pressure, by the way. A
little antifreeze will do it.



> Also, there were periodic reports to IH: surely they would have spotted
> something as basic as that?
>

When the test ended I.H. announced in no uncertain terms that they did not
agree with Rossi's analysis. Later they announced that they were unable to
substantiate the heat. So obviously they did spot the problems. Rossi has
described only a little about the calorimetry, but you see from what he
said that he has no heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed.  "The results are quoted by Rossi right here in the interview! What 
do you mean you do not know them? You can't read?


Daniel Rocha did the analysis of the numbers from the interview. He 
showed the temperature is just above 100°C. The data sample provided by 
Rossi to Lewan, to me and to others shows exactly the same thing, except 
the numbers are listed directly, without extrapolation. The temperature 
is listed at just over boiling. Actually it is just below boiling, given 
the pressure and other factors.


   I know not to spout firm controversial judgment.

What could possibly be controversial about the boiling point of water 
for crying out loud!?


   I am sure you know. I am less sure of you judgment, based on your
   vague bak up of your statements

What was vague about Rossi's adamant refusal to allow people to see the 
customer equipment? What do you find vague about that what possible 
justification can you think of for it.


This is not vague. This is the clearest evidence imaginable, in words 
directly from Rossi himself, showing that he was engaged in fraud. There 
is no other plausible explanation. Or if there is, you have not provided 
it and neither has he.


This has nothing to do with me. This is now based entirely on what Rossi 
himself said in the interview. If you cannot see that you are incapable 
of elementary analyses and you do not even understand the boiling point 
of water."


AA.  That is still not enough.  What was the actual temperature (just 
over 100C doesn't hack it), what was the pressure, was there a steam 
trap or other device to take out the condensate?
I find it difficult to believe someone as qualified as Penon wouldn't 
understand the possibility of water in the steam line. Also, there were 
periodic reports to IH: surely they would have spotted something as 
basic as that?

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Daniel Rocha]

Mats does know how to do calorimeter calculations. He is an applied
physicist, that should be imprinted on his mind. I think that it is highly
unlikely that he did a mistake in calculation. It's much more likely that
he is just lying or that he has a completely different set of data.It is
possible that he has the data from the side of the customer and Jed from
Rossi's, which is probably be subjected to larger errors.

>From the perspective of the custumer, it should only get a hot tube coming
and going into a wall. Rossi's side has all kinds of parameters to control,
like steam quality, input from the electric grid (~160KW for COP 6!),
measurement of temperature and probably much more.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> No Jed I do not know the results.
>
The results are quoted by Rossi right here in the interview! What do you
mean you do not know them? You can't read?

Daniel Rocha did the analysis of the numbers from the interview. He showed
the temperature is just above 100°C. The data sample provided by Rossi to
Lewan, to me and to others shows exactly the same thing, except the numbers
are listed directly, without extrapolation. The temperature is listed at
just over boiling. Actually it is just below boiling, given the pressure
and other factors.

I know not to spout firm controversial judgment.
>
What could possibly be controversial about the boiling point of water for
crying out loud!?

I am sure you know. I am less sure of you judgment, based on your vague bak
> up of your statements
>
What was vague about Rossi's adamant refusal to allow people to see the
customer equipment? What do you find vague about that what possible
justification can you think of for it.

This is not vague. This is the clearest evidence imaginable, in words
directly from Rossi himself, showing that he was engaged in fraud. There is
no other plausible explanation. Or if there is, you have not provided it
and neither has he.

This has nothing to do with me. This is now based entirely on what Rossi
himself said in the interview. If you cannot see that you are incapable of
elementary analyses and you do not even understand the boiling point of
water.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed I do not know the results. I know not to spout firm controversial
judgment. the  without support.
I am sure you know. I am less sure of you judgment, based on your vague bak
up of your statements
On May 20, 2016 17:29, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Jed, if I had nothing I should say nothing.
>> Vague data and very mean conclusion.
>>
> There is nothing vague about it! Rossi's own numbers show the temperature
> of the fluid is just above 100°C. That is his own data, in the Lewan
> interview. What more can you ask for? He did not quote the pressure,
> because that would show it is hot water. That plus other data shows it is
> below 100°C. There is no steam!
>
>
>> There is no win in that behavior regardless of if you are right or wrong.
>> Just reflects back on you.
>>
> I am telling you clear-cut facts, confirmed by Rossi himself.
>
> Furthermore, you are evading, dancing around the issues, and refusing to
> face reality when you will not admit that Rossi's blocking the door to the
> customer factory proves beyond any question that he is a fraud. If there
> was a machine in there consuming 1 MW of process heat he would be thrilled
> to show it. It would be the first thing he shows everyone. There can be
> NOTHING in there.
>
> Your blather and evasions are tiresome. Rossi torpedoed himself in that
> interview. He inadvertently proved once and for all that there is no heat,
> and that the test was fake.
>
> If you disagree, tell us why he would refuse to show definitive proof of
> his own claim. Go ahead, give a reason. Amuse us. Rossi himself has not
> even tried to invent a reason. He just says "it isn't important." Do you
> buy that? Do you think it is not important? Why do you let Rossi feed you
> such arrogant, foolish nonsense?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I have not seen any convincing proof from you either.
>

It is RIGHT THERE in the statements Rossi made in the interview! I don't
need to give you anything. Do the numbers. The temperature is just at
boiling. There is no steam.

He himself is bragging that that he blocked the door and prevented anyone
from I.H. from seeing the customer equipment. What conceivable motivation
would he have to do that if there was actually working equipment in there?
In what universe would anyone block access to definitive proof of his own
claim?

How can you possibly justify this?!?


“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> evidence.”
>

The evidence is overwhelming and it is from Rossi himself. You do not need
a thing from me. He told you everything you need to know. He proved that
the test is fake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> Jed, if I had nothing I should say nothing.
> Vague data and very mean conclusion.
>
There is nothing vague about it! Rossi's own numbers show the temperature
of the fluid is just above 100°C. That is his own data, in the Lewan
interview. What more can you ask for? He did not quote the pressure,
because that would show it is hot water. That plus other data shows it is
below 100°C. There is no steam!


> There is no win in that behavior regardless of if you are right or wrong.
> Just reflects back on you.
>
I am telling you clear-cut facts, confirmed by Rossi himself.

Furthermore, you are evading, dancing around the issues, and refusing to
face reality when you will not admit that Rossi's blocking the door to the
customer factory proves beyond any question that he is a fraud. If there
was a machine in there consuming 1 MW of process heat he would be thrilled
to show it. It would be the first thing he shows everyone. There can be
NOTHING in there.

Your blather and evasions are tiresome. Rossi torpedoed himself in that
interview. He inadvertently proved once and for all that there is no heat,
and that the test was fake.

If you disagree, tell us why he would refuse to show definitive proof of
his own claim. Go ahead, give a reason. Amuse us. Rossi himself has not
even tried to invent a reason. He just says "it isn't important." Do you
buy that? Do you think it is not important? Why do you let Rossi feed you
such arrogant, foolish nonsense?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, if I had nothing I should say nothing.
Vague data and very mean conclusion.

There is no win in that behavior regardless of if you are right or wrong.
Just reflects back on you.
On May 20, 2016 16:45, "a.ashfield"  wrote:

> Jed,
> I have not seen any convincing proof from you either.
> “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> evidence.”
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I have not seen any convincing proof from you either.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without 
evidence.”

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> But Jed, if you have the data why do you advice me to ask Rossi instead of
> just sending them.
>
Because I am not free to share everything yet, obviously.

You don't need anything more from me. Look at the numbers from Rossi and
the analysis from Daniel Rocha. Assume the pressure is a little high or the
temperatures a little low and most of the excess heat vanishes. The rest
goes away for other reasons.

If you want to know whether this is a stupid mistake or fraud, you need
only look at Rossi's refusal to allow people to look at the customer's
equpment. That customer was set up by Rossi's own lawyer. Rossi has the key
to the room, and he has often been seen coming and going. Why do you think
he will not let anyone in? If there was 1 MW equipment in there, why would
he not allow people to see it? It would instantly prove his claim is true!

Stop dancing around that issue. Stop making up pretend reasons why he would
prevent people from going in there. Be honest with yourself and admit that
this proves he is making it all up.

If this was anyone other than Rossi, you and everyone else would agree this
has to be fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

But Jed, if you have the data why do you advice me to ask Rossi instead of
just sending them.
On May 20, 2016 15:16, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Show me and the all Vortex and we might just agree.
>>
> Show you what? You don't believe what Rossi said to Lewan? He said that
> the I.H. expert insisted, but he did not allow it. From that alone it is
> clear he is running a scam.
>
> You don't even believe the truth when Rossi admits it! Or brags about it,
> I should say. He as much as told you he is committing fraud. If anyone else
> said "no, you are not allowed to look at where the 1 MW of steam is being
> used" you would conclude that person is a crook. You must be mesmerized by
> Rossi because you give him a free pass.
>
> The calorimetry problems are pretty clear already from Daniel Rocha's
> analysis. This is hot water, not steam. There are other reasons confirming
> that, and there are other mistakes in the calorimetry.
>
> Just sitting there telling a bunch of smart people how it is makes no
>> sense. Show it.
>>
> Ask Rossi for the data. Ask him for the ERV Penon report. Ask him for
> photos and a complete description of his equipment, and of the customer's
> equipment that uses 1 MW of process heat. He is the one covering up the
> facts. Despite his efforts to hide the truth, it will come to light in the
> court proceedings, unless the parties settle out of court.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> Show me and the all Vortex and we might just agree.
>
Show you what? You don't believe what Rossi said to Lewan? He said that the
I.H. expert insisted, but he did not allow it. From that alone it is clear
he is running a scam.

You don't even believe the truth when Rossi admits it! Or brags about it, I
should say. He as much as told you he is committing fraud. If anyone else
said "no, you are not allowed to look at where the 1 MW of steam is being
used" you would conclude that person is a crook. You must be mesmerized by
Rossi because you give him a free pass.

The calorimetry problems are pretty clear already from Daniel Rocha's
analysis. This is hot water, not steam. There are other reasons confirming
that, and there are other mistakes in the calorimetry.

Just sitting there telling a bunch of smart people how it is makes no
> sense. Show it.
>
Ask Rossi for the data. Ask him for the ERV Penon report. Ask him for
photos and a complete description of his equipment, and of the customer's
equipment that uses 1 MW of process heat. He is the one covering up the
facts. Despite his efforts to hide the truth, it will come to light in the
court proceedings, unless the parties settle out of court.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Show me and the all Vortex and we might just agree. Just sitting there
telling a bunch of smart people how it is makes no sense. Show it.
On May 20, 2016 14:34, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another.
>> Because you believe?
>>
> No, because the data shows it.
>
>
>> If IH is in control they would come free . . .
>>
> I.H. is not in control. As Rossi said in the Lewan interview, the I.H.
> expert insisted he must see the customer machinery, but Rossi refused.
>
> My data comes from Rossi. His instruments. Not from I.H. The numbers I
> have are the same as the ones quoted by Rossi in the Lewan interview. What
> he does not say is that he screwed up the analysis, the configuration and
> choice of instruments, and that every expert who has looked at the data
> concluded there is no excess heat. Plus every non-expert such as me.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another.
> Because you believe?
>
No, because the data shows it.


> If IH is in control they would come free . . .
>
I.H. is not in control. As Rossi said in the Lewan interview, the I.H.
expert insisted he must see the customer machinery, but Rossi refused.

My data comes from Rossi. His instruments. Not from I.H. The numbers I have
are the same as the ones quoted by Rossi in the Lewan interview. What he
does not say is that he screwed up the analysis, the configuration and
choice of instruments, and that every expert who has looked at the data
concluded there is no excess heat. Plus every non-expert such as me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another.
Because you believe?
If IH is in control they would come free and not gossip their findings.
Tell me one reason they should not. Do not say lawsuit as it is on the
contrary if they have solid ground.
On May 20, 2016 13:53, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH reason to
>> not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork.
>>
>
> Perhaps I.H. has many reasons, but the the reason they gave is that the e-
> cat does not work. There is no question this is true. The numbers quoted by
> Rossi in the Lewan article are the same ones in my sample data. These
> numbers prove that the e-cat produces no excess heat.
>
> Let us have some sanity in this conversation. Why would anyone pay $89
> million for a machine that does not work??? No sane person would pay even
> $1 for it. It has no value.
>
> Why are you searching, scraping and hypothesizing to come up with some
> other reason? The fact that it does not work is reason enough. Would you
> pay for a machine that does not work?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH reason to
> not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork.
>

Perhaps I.H. has many reasons, but the the reason they gave is that the e-
cat does not work. There is no question this is true. The numbers quoted by
Rossi in the Lewan article are the same ones in my sample data. These
numbers prove that the e-cat produces no excess heat.

Let us have some sanity in this conversation. Why would anyone pay $89
million for a machine that does not work??? No sane person would pay even
$1 for it. It has no value.

Why are you searching, scraping and hypothesizing to come up with some
other reason? The fact that it does not work is reason enough. Would you
pay for a machine that does not work?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Daniel Rocha]

He would have to live in a place where he would not be extradited and make
sure he can use the money. So, he'd probably have to run away carrying some
kind precious metal, to make sure he wouldn't have problems with a closed
bank account.

2016-05-20 12:24 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :

> why does he not just walk away and live the rest of his life in peace
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Bob I think business climate is important. I have not been so
impressed by Swedish business climate in the past, but it has some
advantages to the US systems particularly the government and the
universities are only part of the equation. The Royal academy of science
and similar organization has  a say as well. They are mostly made up of the
private industry. My information is 30 years old so . . .

Jed, you think you have the answer. If you gave the background I might see
the same , but as you just continue to say the same sure thing without any
support it sounds really weak. That IH should pay if the result was
positive is not absolutely true. Many reasons has been brought up here and
on other blogs why that is not so sure. To me there is other evidence that
'proves' the opposite; i.e. when Rossi has received $10M plus and knows he
is a scammer why does he not just walk away and live the rest of his life
in peace. No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH
reason to not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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, May 20, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>
>> As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous
>> patents for something—the Quark X IMHO.  When this came out IH got upset I
>> would imagine.  They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for
>> only the E-Cat IP license.  And that is where it stands now.
>>
>
> As I said, that is not what happened. The statement from IH makes it very
> clear what they claim happened: the 1 MW reactor does not work. It does not
> produce any excess heat. None of Rossi's present reactors produces excess
> heat. The one at Lugano did not, as far as I know.
>
> Why do you keep inventing imaginary reasons for this dispute when I.H. has
> clearly stated why they do not wish to pay? They have said there was no
> heat. Rossi says there was fifty times input. Surely you agree that is a
> large enough bone of contention to justify a lawsuit. If both sides
> sincerely believe what they say, you do not have to add any additional
> motivation for a lawsuit.
>
> Perhaps you are saying you do not believe there was no heat. You think
> I.H. is lying. Based on my analysis of the calorimetry I am sure you are
> wrong about that. Perhaps you will not take my word for that, but you
> should at least wait to see the calorimetry yourself before you go off
> inventing imaginary reasons for the dispute.
>
> If you have a chance to learn calorimetry, you will see that I.H. has good
> reason to believe there is no heat. As do I, for that matter. I am not just
> making this stuff up. Even assuming both sides are completely honest and
> sincere, and that Rossi made no attempt to defraud anyone, that is more
> than enough grounds for a lawsuit.
>
> There's *nothing more* to this dispute than that. It is not about Rossi
> refusing to teach his IP. It is not about a failed replication attempt by
> I.H. employees. It is not about Rossi's more recent claims. It is not about
> I.H. "stealing" patented technology and giving it to Brillouin, which is an
> absurd concept. This lawsuit came about because machine does not work.
> There is no excess heat.
>
> If the machine did work, every indication is that I.H. would be happy to
> pay the $89 million.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:


> As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous
> patents for something—the Quark X IMHO.  When this came out IH got upset I
> would imagine.  They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for
> only the E-Cat IP license.  And that is where it stands now.
>

As I said, that is not what happened. The statement from IH makes it very
clear what they claim happened: the 1 MW reactor does not work. It does not
produce any excess heat. None of Rossi's present reactors produces excess
heat. The one at Lugano did not, as far as I know.

Why do you keep inventing imaginary reasons for this dispute when I.H. has
clearly stated why they do not wish to pay? They have said there was no
heat. Rossi says there was fifty times input. Surely you agree that is a
large enough bone of contention to justify a lawsuit. If both sides
sincerely believe what they say, you do not have to add any additional
motivation for a lawsuit.

Perhaps you are saying you do not believe there was no heat. You think I.H.
is lying. Based on my analysis of the calorimetry I am sure you are wrong
about that. Perhaps you will not take my word for that, but you should at
least wait to see the calorimetry yourself before you go off inventing
imaginary reasons for the dispute.

If you have a chance to learn calorimetry, you will see that I.H. has good
reason to believe there is no heat. As do I, for that matter. I am not just
making this stuff up. Even assuming both sides are completely honest and
sincere, and that Rossi made no attempt to defraud anyone, that is more
than enough grounds for a lawsuit.

There's *nothing more* to this dispute than that. It is not about Rossi
refusing to teach his IP. It is not about a failed replication attempt by
I.H. employees. It is not about Rossi's more recent claims. It is not about
I.H. "stealing" patented technology and giving it to Brillouin, which is an
absurd concept. This lawsuit came about because machine does not work.
There is no excess heat.

If the machine did work, every indication is that I.H. would be happy to
pay the $89 million.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

As I reread the relevant section of the license agreement, I am startled by
how broad the language is.  It covers the existing IP as well as any
derivative works and future inventions.  It is one of those paragraphs in a
contract where, if I were the signing party, I would wonder how a
negotiating party could ask for so much.  See section 13.4 and take a
moment to read through it:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf

Unfortunately I cannot copy and paste it here.

Eric


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart and Eric--
>
> I see where Eric is coming from regarding the Hot Cat being part of the
> E-Cat IP for which Rossi licenses use by the Company (IH).
>
> However, the only place it is apparently covered by a document (appendix
> to the agreement) is as a patent application.  The validation test in
> Italy  and  the 1 year test were accomplished on the E-Cat.  The Hot Cat
> specifications I have not seen written anywhere.  They may be in the patent
> application.  They are not specified in the Agreement unless its via the
> Patent application.
>
> If you (Eric) think there is anything in the agreement that speaks of
> providing IP associated with exceeding a COP of 6 (or an inference of
> this), I would be interested in a paragraph reference.
>
> I think that by the definition of IP its scope only includes tangible
> information—data, documents, pictures, drawings, recordings, etc.  It does
> not seem to include knowledge that is contained in ones brain and not
> otherwise recorded.  Such knowledge is not property IMHO.  The only
> reasonable obligation Rossi had, was to document operational procedures for
> the E-Cat to achieve a  COP of 6.  The Patent for the control system for
> the E-Cat may not have included details to allow exceeding the COP of 6.
>
> However, if the Company invents such improved controls that provide
> operation at a higher COP they will own that IP and could obtain an
> applicable patent it seems, all in accordance with the Agreement.
>
> I agree with Daniel that the Quark X invention is separate and would not
> fall within the E-Cat IP defined by the Agreement.
>
> As noted in previous comments, I consider this may be the issue that is
> upsetting to IH, since such a device would upstage the E-Cat and Hot Cat
> alike.  The Quark X  may not even use Ni as a fuel.  If as Rossi says, it
> produces direct electricity as well as heat, it clearly would be a
> different invention from the  Cats.  Rossi would be free to market the
> Quark X in the US and the other areas licensed to IH for the E Cats.
>
> I would have guessed that Rossi was not too uncomfortable with the broad
> scope of the agreement, given his ongoing research and appreciation of the
> science behind the Rossi Effect.  I think he was careful not to let the
> scope of the agreement extend to the Quark X technology, which he knew was
> around the corner and would make the E-Cat and Hot Cat inventions less
> important.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:17 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent
>
> Lennart,
>
> I said that with more confidence than is warranted.  I am not a lawyer, so
> I do not know how to interpret a license agreement, how the court will
> interpret this particular agreement, or what IH and Rossi should have put
> in it with the benefit of hindsight.  But I suggest to anyone who is
> interested in the question of what improvements to the E-Cat technology are
> covered by the agreement to read through it for these details, as perhaps
> you have done.  One will see that the language is very broad.  Perhaps
> Daniel is correct that the QuarkX would not be covered by it; presumably in
> that case the QuarkX is not a derivative work.
>
> One might speculate that if Rossi had anything at all he might have felt
> very uncomfortable with the broad scope of the agreement, being acquainted
> with his personality and temperament.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is
>> one of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not
>> specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their
>> shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:)
>> IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the
>> detailss then who to blaim.???
>>
>> Best Regards ,
>> Lennart Thornro

RE: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jones Beene]

From: Daniel Rocha 

I think it covered the hot cats. The cold cat is way too weird. Generally cold 
fusion happens with high temperatures, at least microscopically. For example, 
the working function of a metal is 4eV. So, when you do electrolysis, you have 
at at least at tiny places the equivalent of 40,000 K. Though, that thermacore 
result is something that is really amazing.

Did thermacore have any patent? 



Thermacore was issued a 1992 patent US 5273635 on an Electrolytic device. They 
did not pursue a patent on the “runaway” device.

Abstract - 

A heater which uses the electrolysis of a liquid to produce heat from 
electricity and transfers the heat from the electrolyte by means of a heat 
exchanger. One embodiment includes electrodes of nickel and platinum and an 
electrolyte of potassium carbonate with a heat exchanger immersed in and 
transferring heat from the electrolyte.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Eric Walker]

Lennart,

I said that with more confidence than is warranted.  I am not a lawyer, so
I do not know how to interpret a license agreement, how the court will
interpret this particular agreement, or what IH and Rossi should have put
in it with the benefit of hindsight.  But I suggest to anyone who is
interested in the question of what improvements to the E-Cat technology are
covered by the agreement to read through it for these details, as perhaps
you have done.  One will see that the language is very broad.  Perhaps
Daniel is correct that the QuarkX would not be covered by it; presumably in
that case the QuarkX is not a derivative work.

One might speculate that if Rossi had anything at all he might have felt
very uncomfortable with the broad scope of the agreement, being acquainted
with his personality and temperament.

Eric


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one
> of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not
> specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their
> shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:)
> IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the
> detailss then who to blaim.???
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> 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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook 
>> wrote:
>>
>> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
>>> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.
>>>
>>
>> I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language
>> pertaining to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it
>> readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also
>> stipulated that Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to
>> make use of his technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they
>> would be interesting.  Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the
>> license agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard.
>>
>> With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent
>> applications filed by Rossi.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one
of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not
specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their
shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:)
IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the
detailss then who to blaim.???

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook 
> wrote:
>
> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
>> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.
>>
>
> I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language
> pertaining to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it
> readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also
> stipulated that Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to
> make use of his technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they
> would be interesting.  Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the
> license agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard.
>
> With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent
> applications filed by Rossi.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Daniel Rocha]

I think it covered the hot cats. The cold cat is way too weird. Generally
cold fusion happens with high temperatures, at least microscopically. For
example, the working function of a metal is 4eV. So, when you do
electrolysis, you have at at least at tiny places the equivalent of 40,000
K. Though, that thermacore result is something that is really amazing.

Did thermacore have any patent?

2016-05-19 20:32 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :

> .  The language sounded like it readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the
> E-Cat X.  The contract also stipulated that Rossi help out with
> transferring any knowledge required to make use of his technology. I can
> look it up the relevant sections if they would be interesting.  Whatever
> ways that IH may have been in breach of the license agreement, Rossi was
> assuredly in breach in this specific regard.
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.
>

I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language pertaining
to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it readily covered
the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also stipulated that
Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to make use of his
technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they would be
interesting.  Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the license
agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard.

With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent
applications filed by Rossi.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[John Berry]

The only way to steal IP from a patent (other than producing and selling in
secret) is to make changes, possibly ones that give you a superior
technology that is not protected by their patent that you then patent.
'
Patents are about giving IP freely, but protecting the rights.

Thinking about it, patents might become useless with advances in 3D
printing, where a consumer can make a file, share the file (because it is
not the thing itself) so others with no effort can print up the invention.

But as we reach a robotopia we are again going to have to find different
ways of distributing things.

John


On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
> It would seem the only PHOSITA  that was required by the agreement was for
>> the low temperature E-Cat.  Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers
>> what was necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6.  That
>> is all the patent identified.
>>
>
> I did not realize that. However, my point still stands. Assuming the 1 MW
> gadget works --
>
> If he gets a patent later for it, that will protect him. Neither I.H. nor
> any other company will be able to "steal" the technology. They will have it
> for free, but they will not be able to sell it. That is how patents work.
>
> If he cannot patent the 1 MW reactor for some reason, he will have no
> protection at all. Something this important cannot be protected with trade
> secrets. It will be reverse engineered.
>
> However, this is mere fantasy. Or alternative history. In fact, the 1 MW
> gadget does not work, so there is no intellectual property, and a patent
> would be meaningless. A patent for an invention that does not work is void.
>
>
>
>> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
>> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.  I think that is what
>> is grating to IH . . .
>>
>
> No, what is grating to IH is that they paid $11 million for something that
> does not work. At all. As they said, they could not substantiate it.
>
>
>
>> The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant
>> they produced to go above a COP of around 6.
>>
>
> That is incorrect. The plant was made by Rossi. It never went above 1. It
> is well below 1 in the fluid because of losses from the reactor.
>
> I have not heard that the I.H. engineering team ever made a plant. Perhaps
> they did; I have only a little inside information. However, in their press
> releases the only thing they discuss is the reactor made by Rossi. All my
> comments about calorimetry pertain only to Rossi's device. I have no
> knowledge of any other machine.
>
>
>
>> It would seem they want to be trained further to improve their PHOSITA.
>>
>
> This has nothing to do with the ability or inability of the I.H. team to
> replicate. The only issue is that Rossi is unable to make his machine
> produce excess heat. He was given a year to do it, but he failed.
>
> At least, that is what I.H. claims, and what my analysis shows. Rossi, of
> course, claims that it does work. You will have to see the data before you
> can take sides.
>
>
>>
>
>> I do not blame them for that want, but.
>>
>
> There is no such want. You misunderstand. What you think happened here *did
> not* happen.
>
>
>
>> However, IMHO Rossi does not have any obligation to do that training.
>>
>
> As I said, training is not the issue. I.H. has never mentioned it. Perhaps
> Rossi did; I don't follow his blog, but I.H. is not contesting this. The
> issue is, he cannot make his machine produce excess heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:

It would seem the only PHOSITA  that was required by the agreement was for
> the low temperature E-Cat.  Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers
> what was necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6.  That
> is all the patent identified.
>

I did not realize that. However, my point still stands. Assuming the 1 MW
gadget works --

If he gets a patent later for it, that will protect him. Neither I.H. nor
any other company will be able to "steal" the technology. They will have it
for free, but they will not be able to sell it. That is how patents work.

If he cannot patent the 1 MW reactor for some reason, he will have no
protection at all. Something this important cannot be protected with trade
secrets. It will be reverse engineered.

However, this is mere fantasy. Or alternative history. In fact, the 1 MW
gadget does not work, so there is no intellectual property, and a patent
would be meaningless. A patent for an invention that does not work is void.



> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.  I think that is what
> is grating to IH . . .
>

No, what is grating to IH is that they paid $11 million for something that
does not work. At all. As they said, they could not substantiate it.



> The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant they
> produced to go above a COP of around 6.
>

That is incorrect. The plant was made by Rossi. It never went above 1. It
is well below 1 in the fluid because of losses from the reactor.

I have not heard that the I.H. engineering team ever made a plant. Perhaps
they did; I have only a little inside information. However, in their press
releases the only thing they discuss is the reactor made by Rossi. All my
comments about calorimetry pertain only to Rossi's device. I have no
knowledge of any other machine.



> It would seem they want to be trained further to improve their PHOSITA.
>

This has nothing to do with the ability or inability of the I.H. team to
replicate. The only issue is that Rossi is unable to make his machine
produce excess heat. He was given a year to do it, but he failed.

At least, that is what I.H. claims, and what my analysis shows. Rossi, of
course, claims that it does work. You will have to see the data before you
can take sides.


>

> I do not blame them for that want, but.
>

There is no such want. You misunderstand. What you think happened here *did
not* happen.



> However, IMHO Rossi does not have any obligation to do that training.
>

As I said, training is not the issue. I.H. has never mentioned it. Perhaps
Rossi did; I don't follow his blog, but I.H. is not contesting this. The
issue is, he cannot make his machine produce excess heat.

- Jed