On 05/17/2016 10:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Now that you know Rossi explicitly refused to allow an inspection of the customer's equipment, you should realize he has zero credibility, and you should not believe a word he says.
I've got to object to this statement; not that I believe, or disbelieve Rossi. If you've seen data, that's a world different than anything I've seen.
However, if Rossi believed he had something real, then there were valid reasons not to allow IH to analyze their own data, or get too involved with the validation of the device, at the stage which occurred last year in the process, when the agreement was signed. The primary reason before the test, to prevent IH from doing their own evaluation, was that it was going to take a year to go through the validation process, and Rossi may have wanted something more than an opt-out clause for anyone he was doing business with. So they set-up the method by which this device would be determined to be valid, or not. They both chose a third party to make this determination. This eliminated second guessing, and counter-claims by IH by which they could try to opt-out -- and now that IH is in violation of the agreement, there is no way I would let anyone near the equipment if I were Rossi. The courts will decide this case, and if the courts work as I think they do, then the case won't revolve around whether the device works. If Rossi were to let someone see the equipment, or do anything else at this point, to allow them to draw any of their own conclusions, then this could only hurt Rossi's case in court.
Why Darden signed that document, is beyond me. It makes him look like a fool.
Craig
