Peter, Jed and others--

It would seem the only PHOSITA  that was required by the agreement was for the 
low temperature E-Cat.  Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers what was 
necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6.  That is all the 
patent identified.  

The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in the 
IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.  I think that is what is 
grating to IH, since Rossi already has a new invention that out-performs the 
E-Cat.  I think he is NOT restricted in its production anywhere.  It is the 
subject of new patents that Rossi has claimed to have prepared and maybe 
already have applied for around the World.  

The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant they 
produced to go above a COP of around 6.  It would seem they want to be trained 
further to improve their PHOSITA.  

I do not blame them for that want, but.....   However, IMHO Rossi does not have 
any obligation to do that training.  We will see as the trial unfolds, if it is 
not settled first. 

If it is settled, I would guess a new agreement would result.  Both parties 
will be smarter and will become much more careful about the options, the 
wording and the issue of competition.  It seems to me that Rossi has the upper 
hand, so to speak.  I doubt he will give up his inventive superiority to IH for 
any money.   IMHO he needs a different financial source of funding.  I suspect 
he already has that, given his apparent desire to buy the factory in Sweden. 

Bob Cook

From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Dear Jed,, 

PHOSIA is a slogan-acronym with one poisoned letter "O" 
ordinary skill has to be defined for each case.
The difference between patent and know how is greater for processes than
for products.
I give you an example:
- a patent gives a recipe with ingredients in some limits, sometimes large but 
actually optimum or even usable narrow limits exist;- climited combinations,
- the patent has to give all the steps but does not give necessarily the real 
order and that can be critical;

and there are some features difficult to define- please imagine a patent
for a well working FP Cell in the hands of a good PHOSITA To not use 
a remote example.


On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell <> wrote:

  Peter Gluck <> wrote:

    Are you aware about the differences between a patent and know-how?
    Plus know-what, know-why and know-how- not?

  Yes. I understand this difference. A PHOSITA has the know-how. If the patent 
does not disclose enough information for a PHOSITA to replicate -- from the 
patent alone, without any inside information from Rossi -- then the patent is 
invalid. That would mean Rossi has no intellectual property and anyone can use 
his technology without paying him.

    Do you have some industrial experience with this- even a minimum - IT 
included where you are at home?

  I do not, but a PHOSITA does, by definition.

    Every industry and problem is very specific and the essentials cannot be 
transferred from one to another.

  If no one in the world has the appropriate background to do this, then there 
is no PHOSITA at present, so the patent will have to disclose a great deal more 
information than patents normally do. A patent must be enabling, or it is 

  - Jed


Dr. Peter Gluck 
Cluj, Romania

Reply via email to