Bob Higgins-- I agree with most of what you say below. However, my reading of the agreement between Rossi and IH does not include unlimited transfer of IP by Rossi. I thought the scope of the IP involved was spelled out in the specific documents containing the IP. I would not suppose that it entails are the subsequent understanding of the suggested Quark-X device and the details of that design developed on Rossi’s own time as a principle of the Leonardo Corp.
As best I can see from the agreement, the idea was to demonstrate a long term test with an average COP of at least 4. This was (possibly) accomplished. The art of Rossi’s ability to tune the E-Cat X was not part of the agreement. I think that is the main issue to be left to the Jury to decide. I do not see that there was agreement for “technology transfer” in the context you suggest. As I note above, the promises of the written contract will be determined by the Jury. I do not think that transfer of rights to a patent include the transfer of the “art” necessary to make the patented device work at an elevated performance level. Its like saying in a patent that 20 weight oil is what is specified for IC motor operation under 2500 rpm. Anybody in the know about IC engine operations knows that 40 weight oil works better at high temperatures and is required for extended engine lifetime. I think it happens all the time that Government researchers with government patents go out on their own with their own knowhow to produce a superior invention and may keep trade secrets associated with the superior (no-patent) invention to themselves Furthermore, it may be Rossi’s intent to provide additional operating instructions to IH for the E-Cat to get the 4 COP out of it, once the $89 M is ponied up. I would think that the Jury will make clear what the agreed upon COP is. Finally, I totally agree with you about Focardi, and I have considered Focardi was an honest reporter of the excess energy produced by the Ni-H system. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems Nothing I have seen reported, has proven Rossi has no technology now and never had any. Maybe it is not as good as Rossi claims. Maybe even Rossi is deceiving himself. Maybe Rossi has "guilded the lilly" - has deceptively over reported his results. I don't believe Focardi was deceived - I think Focardi saw real energy creation - and that is what leaves me with hope for this Rossi episode. So, I am NOT willing to say at this point that I think Rossi has no LENR technology. Though the case of "always net 0" is still possible. I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working LENR technology using what Rossi has disclosed to them. This is a completely different situation than Rossi having no technology. We know Rossi is a difficult character from which to get technology transfer. Look at his previous failed relationships. I suspect that he sold the license agreement to IH for the large initial investment of $11.5M and then he just threw them a few bones of information - this is not technology transfer. How should this be resolved? Rossi should now be joined at the hip permanently with IH until he delivers what he promised them. Rossi is claiming high COP, high power LENR technology. Let Rossi start from scratch and teach every single detail to IH, and get IH to reproduce this reactor in their lab. Their creation should be measured in IH's lab together and agree on the performance. If it doesn't work reliably, then Rossi needs to stay until the team of IH + Rossi invents a way to make it reliable. It is only with this kind of enabling technology transfer that IH will be able to move toward making a profit from the license Rossi sold them. Rossi should not be allowed to escape his agreement until he cooperates and delivers this kind of technology transfer. If he truly has no technology, then he is stuck there until he develops it and transfers it, or until he admits that he really has nothing (at which time IH is entitled to damages). He will have to prove himself without the smoke and mirrors. Once he has done this successfully, he should be entitled to the full terms of the contract. The courts should not allow Rossi to behave as a scoundrel and escape his contract. I don't see how anyone could believe Rossi is the victim in this situation. Rossi should "man-up" and do the right thing. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press release:" I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat. I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as he has been wrong so often in the past. Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now. Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion. Either of us could be right. But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely I.H. is right. That's my point. The point is we don't know yet. We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong. - Jed
