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 +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 > 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] > *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM > *To:* 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 <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…. > > >
