As I said, this is lawyer fodder. The Chief Justice once said "The law
is an ass" so anything might happen.
On 6/4/2016 1:34 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It is not that clear. Rossi maintains IH have not fulfilled the
terms of the agreement and his lawyer has issued a public
statement saying that IH's license has been withdrawn for said
reason. So who owns what will be income for lawyers for a long
time I imagine. There maybe IP in the new 250KW E-Cat's for
example. Weren't IH complaining that he didn't use the original
E-Cats that were on standby?
It is a stretch to argue that ownership of the physical 1MW plant,
obtained with the first 1.5 million dollars, is mixed up with the
licensing of the E-Cat IP, obtained with the subsequent 10 million
dollars. Whatever IP or trade secrets went into the 1MW plant,
presumably their physical embodiments are now the property of IH,
prior to any licensing question. Perhaps Rossi has a case that IH have
not satisfied their side of the licensing agreement with regard to the
IP, in which case they just have a 1MW plant. I do not see how Rossi
could argue that they have not paid up for the 1MW plant. Perhaps
these two things are tied up together. That is something a lawyer will
know more about. But pending such a clarification, one is strongly
tempted to conclude that IH have more than adequately satisfied the
terms of the actual /acquisition/ of the plant.
They /may/ have a basis for claiming damages from Rossi for switching
out the original modules that were purchased with the plant and
replacing them with others later on during the test which IH had not
purchased and did not approve of. I suppose that would depend upon the
details, e.g., whether the original modules are still around, and how
irritated IH get with Rossi's ongoing miscalculations.
Eric
