Rossi was ready to pounce with his lawsuit the moment the 5 days had passed after the ERV report and he didn't get paid. He had his "plan B" in place as soon as IH showed their true nature. It had to take some time to prepare the case filing; in other words: how far in advance did Rossi see this coming? Rossi had a fair idea of the type of people he was dealing with. His statement that "We have prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the activity of our “Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now." Shows that he saw this coming a LONG way off and has been working with his attorneys for many months to prepare this lawsuit just in case. I guess he knew something was fishy once he saw the patent applications that IH filed and also the Brillouin demo in DC. Now he just needs to clam up so he his extra-judicial pronouncements don't interfere with or prejudice the upcoming legal proceedings, but we all know that clamming up is not in Rossi's nature.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Who could expect justice and morality from a money manager faced with the >> prospects of a thousand trillion dollars of revenue at his fingertips. >> > > I would expect justice and morality from such people, in that situation. I > have dealt with such people. Most of them are as ethical as any normal > person. > > There is no reason why a venture capitalist will cheat just because the > sums of money are particularly large. If they will pay you 10% of a million > as agreed, they are as likely to pay 10% of a billion or a trillion. They > do not make money or maintain their reputation by cheating, or by > alienating inventors. > > The assertion that they will be unethical because the sums of money happen > to be large makes no sense. That is like saying a car dealer will follow > the rules when he sells you a $20,000 Toyota, but if you go in to buy a > Lamborghini he is sure to cheat. > > If I.H. agreed to pay some dollar amount to Rossi, or some fraction of > total revenue, it is because they *want* to pay that amount. It is in > their interest to pay. The fact that they already paid him $11 million > tells you they are serious. The only plausible reason they would not pay > the remaining $89 million is the reason they gave in their press release: > they have not been able to substantiate the claims. If they were sure the > effect is real it would be insane not to conclude the transaction and move > ahead. > > - Jed > >
