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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 6:46 PM To: [email protected] 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> +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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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….
