Jed wrote the cited text, not I. Without a patent Rossi is vulnerable, he made good publicity however has a very weak strategy and a dreadful reputation management.. Peter
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Roarty, Francis X < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM Peter wrote [snip] I do know about > trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide > realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in > dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect > a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside > knowledge, skill, and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good > example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that > is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions > of dollars over the next 100 years.[/snip]**** > > ** ** > > Peter,**** > > I would agree that Rossi is “stuck” with a weak patent. If the > Rossi “trade secret” is the only catalyst that will work then he is indeed > very lucky as Jones Beene surmised BUT in the very unlikely event that he > has the theory correct then he would indeed deserve all the marbles. IMHO > the lengthy communications online and his investment with University of > Bologna reveals an ongoing struggle to leverage the secret recipe into > revealing the theory. He admitted as much initially but then later tried to > convince us he understood the underlying theory – He may honestly believe he > has figured it out but without a comprehensive explanation that starts with > how exactly the lattice environment and defects initiate the process, it > will not survive the rigors to which such a paradigm shifting patent will be > subjected. His procedures and materials are not even first generation > without the stable control loop tha t broke the contract with Defkalion. * > *** > > ** ** > > I predict that the turmoil will eventually fall out to a couple major > contenders like the Mac [Mills] and PC [Italian researchers] with a third > open source flavor like Linux based on expired patents and grand fathered by > existing enthusiasts researching the Patterson and Meyers cells. I hope > Rossi, Panatelli and Focardi all get some measure of reward but between > patent litigation and human nature they are likely to die broken men if they > don’t accept a big industry buy out. **** > > Regards**** > > Fran**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO**** > > ** ** > > Dear Jed,**** > > I think the best patent agents can improve a situation**** > > but cannot reverse a lost situation to one of a winner.**** > > If he had a compound X acting as catalyst, he could easily get a patent > protecting the E-cats against copying of **** > > the core with Compound X. Theoretically good, in practice**** > > a bit complicated and risky.**** > > peter**** > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was > just wrong approach.**** > > I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with > difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.**** > > ** ** > > **** > > In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009 > when he filed patent application. **** > > ** ** > > I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology > in anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away. > Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so > important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most > generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he > should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist.**** > > ** ** > > The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion > have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual > property. That tells me his patent is weak.**** > > ** ** > > I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very > weak. Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web.**** > > ** ** > > I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after > corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade > secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan > and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market > that calls for inside knowledge, skill, and lots of art. Conventional > catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather > simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth > hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years.**** > > ** ** > > I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He see > ms to have no good method of protecting his intellectual property. That's > awful. Assuming it works, it is the most valuable discovery in history and > he deserves a trillion dollars in royalties. I fear he may get nothing.*** > * > > ** ** > > If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. His > personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main problem is > that this particular intellectual property is very tough to protect. I > cannot think of a good marketing strategy. I wouldn't know how to do this. > If he asked my advice, I would suggest he talk to experts in patent law and > intellectual property. Perhaps he has talked to them. Maybe he has a good > strategy. I don't see how doing a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good > strategy, but since I know nothing about his plans I cannot judge.**** > > ** ** > > - Jed**** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck**** > > Cluj, Romania**** > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com**** > > ** ** > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
