Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: Jed and others on vortex have had permission for quite a long time. >
That's ambivalent. "Jed and others" is not clear, and what exactly is it we have permission to do? This is the sort of vague statement that got me in trouble the first time. Swartz sorta maybe kinda gives permission to quote him or upload something, maybe it is permission for you or maybe someone else . . . then when you do it, wham! -- he nails you with a letter threatening a lawsuit. I fell for that trick already. If Swartz wants to end this dispute, he will clearly and unambiguously say who he is talking about, and what permission he is granting. Something along these lines: I hereby grant permission to Jed Rothwell to copy my paper now on-line at http:xxxxx, and to upload a copy to the library at LENR-CANR.org in text Acrobat format. If he wants he can add conditions such as: "the text must be verbatim and I reserve the right to withdraw it at any time." These conditions are a given, in any case. I will not copy anything until I see permission expressed as unambiguous as that. Also, if I ever find the original copy of the document is gone, I will delete the LENR-CANR version immediately. As I have said, I have no desire to upload any of his work. So if he never clearly grants permission that's fine with me. I don't care how many times he repeats this hogwash about censorship or CD-ROMs. I have ignored that stuff for years, just as I ignore Steve Jones and his magical recombination. But I will not put up with intimidation, ever, and I will not sweep his manipulations, threats and vile behavior under the rug again. As I said, if he sends me any more e-mail or snail-mail intimidation, I will post it everywhere. Lomax wrote: "Jed, I imagine you would know this, but I'll repeat it. According to my understanding, if you are not profiting from publication, and you have reasonable evidence of permission, the most that a copyright holder could do is to demand that you take the material down." I expect that is true, but that is not how nuisance lawsuits work. The purpose is not to win but to intimidate and silence the person. There is little chance that a case filed by Swartz would go to court, and if it did I would never lose, but just fighting it off would be a pain in the butt and a major expense. Santilli never had valid case, or even a sane case, or any hope of winning. He made wild accusations that Gene had stolen this or copied that. He never met or talked to me, and I knew nothing about him, but he filed charges against me and several others. He got a list of Gene's friends and associates and had legal motions served on them. Gene's friends would call him in a panic asking: 'Who is this guy? What is this million dollar lawsuit claim against me?' (or however much it was). When judges would get around to examining his motions they would say he was crazy (literally) and dismiss them. Yet Santilli's legal shenanigans cost Gene tens of thousands of dollars and trouble before Gene finally got the man off his back. And it was far too much trouble counter-sue him for expenses. These people use the legal system to pursue their private vendettas. Imaginary vendettas in this case. It is an abuse of the legal system. - Jed
