How do you know that this trial will be a jury trial? Reference? On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Axil-- > > Rossi has asked for a jury trial. The judge only listens to the arguments > on either side and decides if they are appropriate. The Jury will decide > whether or not the intent of the agreement was met. I would agree the > wording will be important to the decision of the Jury. I am not sure what > constitutes a favorable Jury decision in the Fed. Court regarding > contractual agreements. Frequently the understanding of the person that > did not write the contract is more important than the wording of the > contract as presented and interpreted by the party that wrote the > contract. > > Any of the documents entered into the record can be review by the members > of the Jury as each chooses I think. Who authored the Agreement should be > able to be determined by the Jury, if one side or the other wants that > information to be presented. It may be that the Jury can even ask the > Judge to require that information to be incorporated into the court > record. > > It was my impression that the contract was written by IH and edited by > Rossi. I do not know. In case of an edited version of a contract, there > would be no deference as to the author I would guess, since both parties > would have had a hand in the wording. What the intent was in agreeing with > certain wording is all important. Vague contracts typically do not “old > much water.” > > Bob Cook > > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:22 PM > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat > > The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as > the agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement > were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms > of the Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert > judgement, the terms of the licence agreement were met. The Judge will then > rule that the terms of the licence agreement were met and that 89 million > must be paid to Rossi. > > What Rossi thinks or does, if the e-cat works or not, if a teapot is used > to make hot water, what IH thinks or does are all immaterial to this > arbitration. The key to the legal case is the judgement of the ERV since he > is the absolute agent of arbitration. All the other noise is immaterial to > the legal case at hand. > > After the favorable ruling by the judge in favor of Rossi, if I were > Rossi's lawyer, I would request an injunction to prohibit IH from selling > any LENR based product until it is proved in court, that all these IH > products contain no Rossi IP. > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now. >>> >> >> IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have >> any IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as >> it stands now, and as it will always stand. >> >> >> >>> If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to >>> pay Rossi the 89 million? >>> >> >>> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the >>> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products? >>> >> >> As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I >> cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well >> be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure. >> >> It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW >> reactor does not work. >> >> - Jed >> >> > >
