Axil Axil <> wrote:

The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
> they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
> OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.

This theory is bonkers. The machine DOES NOT WORK. It does not produce any
excess heat. Therefore, there is no IP, and there will be no products.

> This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was
> performed because they never intended for that test to produce any
> contractual results.

The test produced clear-cut results. It showed that the machine does not
work. Those are contractual results. They give I.H. the right to terminate
the contract.

Whether it produces heat or not cannot be decided by nutty legal theories,
or based on the notion that I.H. wanted to throw away $11 million for no
reason, or by some similar lunatic notion. This question can only be
settled with reference to data and calorimetry. I am confident that any
person who understands these subjects if given the opportunity to analyze
the data will agree there is no excess heat.

- Jed

Reply via email to