Fran-- I tend to agree with your conclusion—“they thought they were the only sharks in the tank and now look like idiots.”
Rossi stands to gain much financial support by the rich entities that are willing to bet on his upper hand. The fact that the US government has been in the LENR R&D activity for 27 years or more, imply to me that there are secret patents that pre-date Rossi’s. And I guess also there are equivalent secret inventions to his Quark invention. This may explain the reason the Obama Administration is so interested in establishing a trade agreement with the Pacific Nations, including China, which Lennart has identified does not exist yet. It may be that Darden is merely a US envoy to encourage the Chinese to get up to speed on the global IP issues and make a formal treaty that would give any US Govt. LENR patents international status. I assume such provisions exist in the patent treaties the US has signed with other countries and the EU. Darden must have had the US’s blessing to deal with the Chinese with such important IP, IMHO. Since the US secret patents are owned by the US (which has a lot of power to enforce them, and could provide general license to exploit them, if any country tries to get to greedy) the US may really be in the cat bird’s seat, and ready to say hold on boys, we own that IP. It was invented here first. See here, it’s in our secret patent book log. This scenario raises the question—does anyone know how treaties handle secret government inventions that are patented? Maybe Mr. French could chime in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act The link above discusses how secret patents and IP are handled for individuals and other non-government persons—corporations for example—but does not indicate explicitly how government patents are handled, nor, what treaties have in them to control government patents held secretly. Bob Cook From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 4:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi 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] +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]> 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]] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM To: [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
