>From wikipedia:: "Filing by other than inventor: An entity can file an application on behalf of an inventor who assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention rights to the entity (or if the entity otherwise has financial interest in the invention), without seeking the inventor's execution of the application. However,
*any patentthat issues belongs to the inventor, absent a written assignment from the inventor or inventor's estate to the entity*." It was permitted to file a patent application without an inventor signature even before the recent AIA changes to the law. It was a little bit harder, but still possible. The significance of IH's pursuing patent filings on e-Cat technology goes to the credibility of their statement saying they have never substantiated Mr. Rossi's claims. Because if that statement is true, then their filing of e-Cat technology-based patent applications with the USPTO and the International Bureau , with knowledge that the tech did not work, would be something in my book as "wrong." And with possible consequences. Applicants and their patent attorneys must be candid with the patent office. If they aren't, there are consequences. If I.H. has never been able to substantiate the claims, and publicly state as much in a lawsuit, and yet you submitted patent applications on those claims, that is a problem with candor before the USPTO. Any person who contributed to the conception of the invention must be named as an inventor. If Mr. Rossi contributed nothing to Brillouin's invention, then he must not be listed as an inventor, and would have no ownership interest in it. But if Brillouin derived information through IH from Mr. Rossi, then there would be a problem (for IH and Brillouin). On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > I.H. has done nothing wrong. I.H. has simply set up a business and an R&D > plan that the new changes in the patent laws have made possible. > > It goes like this. Acquire as many patents and ideas as possible, mix, > match, and blend them together, put them in an innovation blender, and > produce a hybrid technology that is better than the sum of all your patent > acquisitions from your stable of inventors. > > Rossi being from the old country may not like this new way of doing > business in America, but the companies in the U.S. have paid the > politicians handsomely for these changes in the IP handling laws and now > they want to use the laws to their full potential. > > When you make your living as a snake charmer, you must recognize that > there is a possibility of being struck. > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>>He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The >> people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's >> evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at >> calorimetry, so it is likely they are right. >> >> Does the license agreement look like IH can interpret it? It reads as >> though the ERV certifies that the device complied with a set of >> specifications. If it did, then the ERV certifies it. >> >> Section 5. Guaranteed Performance. >> >> "The ERV (or another party acceptable to the Company and Leonardo) will >> be engaged to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance." >> >> I don't see where IH has the authority under the agreement to make any >> kind of judgment on the report. >> >> Craig >> >> >> On 04/10/2016 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> a.ashfield < <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >>> You write. "I know how the people at I.H. do it," >>> How do you know that? >> >> >> As I said, I have met with them and discussed this with them. >> >> >> >>> I doubt anyone who writes about this story knows the players better than >>> Mats Lewan. I judge him technically competent. >> >> >> He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The >> people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's >> evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at >> calorimetry, so it is likely they are right. >> >> I am not talking about personality, motivation, or anything else. I have >> narrowed this down to one question. Who is better at evaluating >> calorimetry? In my opinion, I.H. is, but I could be wrong. >> >> I take the two press releases at face value. I am assuming that Rossi >> means what he says, and I.H. means what they say. If I.H. actually thought >> the machine works, they would be crazy not to pay him the $89 million. >> >> >> >>> I get the feeling Rossi simply doesn't care about making a foolproof >>> demo. >> >> >> He must do this if he wants the $89 million. That is what is stipulated >> in the contract. >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >
