I agree with Bob about the validity of the patent. Unfortunately I believe all patents are ending up in this dilemma. The amount of information is so enormous that it is going to be very hard to defend any patent. In addition there is no way one can get any positive earnings out of the patent only. One need organization, leadership and marketing much more than the patent. If I were in Rossi's position I would stop spending money on protection (patents) and concentrate on developing a commercial product.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > If I were Rossi or IH, I would worry more about the validity of his patent > due to prior art. There is so much ART that is described over the years in > online forums, particularly in Vortex-L, that a search used by any would be > patent busting organization would likely turn up amazing prior art public > disclosure for many of the things in his claims. If I were hired to bust a > patent, that's where I would begin. > > I don't think any controlling patent will survive for the basic LENR > mechanisms due to prior art public disclosures (not necessarily by the > inventors). The valuable patents will be for the machines that utilize > LENR in the future. > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the >> economic considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat. What >> caught my interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent >> application cited below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability >> of the Lugano isotope assays. If they were intentionally compromised, and >> were nonetheless used as evidence in the patent application, this would >> have endangered the patent, once granted, if there was a patent suit. >> >> In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial >> evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run >> for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be >> compromised). Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless. >> >
