Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > So you think experts on intellectual property protection told Rossi to > give 12 or more poorly controlled and calibrated demonstrations more or > less in public, not to get a single independent test . . . >
They would not advise him about this. It is not any concern of theirs. The experts on patents that I know say they have no opinions about his public tests. They say that as long as he has people sign NDAs for more revealing tests, these tests are not relevant to intellectual property. > . . . and to sell 50+ modules to a person or company who chose to stay > anonymous? > The company is not anonymous to Rossi! He knows what company it is. If he has good lawyers, I suppose he has them sewed up with an agreement not to steal the IP. I wouldn't know about that. It is a risky thing to do, but all of his choices seem risky. > While inviting the press and selected scientists to a demo of that > device at which they were not allowed to oversee data collection? If > Rossi paid for such advice, he should get his money back! > No IP lawyer would advise him about these matters. The demo, press and data collection have nothing to do with the issues a patent lawyer discusses with a client, as far as I know. That's what IP experts say. They definitely would tell him not to reveal his method of control, or the make up of the powder, or the other things he refuses to discuss on his blog. I'll bet they would be upset that he revealed the powder is made from Ni and two other elements. - Jed
