On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
What confuses the analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented
the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that
Rossi's IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent
application, I cannot figure out their motive here??? It could b that
their was a management disconnect where the "plan" was not understood
by all of the employees of IH.
The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed
with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to
independently evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or
reject, the evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy,
Penon. Why?
It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers
should have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was
Darden, unless I was certain of the outcome.
Craig
