On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Except that, if I am not mistaken, Bushnell was talking about cold fusion >> in general and not, as the lame brochure suggests, about the E-cat in >> particular. Using a quote inappropriately to mislead is probably not >> within their rights. >> > > I am not a lawyer but I have consulted with some experts in copyrights and > IP, in connection with LENR-CANR.org. I have some knowledge of the > rules. In my opinion it would be all-but-impossible for NASA or Bushnell to > make this case. He was talking about cold fusion, and therefore by > extension, about the Rossi device. I think any judge or any reasonable > person would agree the Rossi device is cold fusion. Even if Rossi himself > says it isn't everyone will agree that it is. > Ah yes. But maybe the Sniffex case (fake explosive detector) gives a clue as to how some judges proceed. At the preliminary hearing of the case in which Sniffex sued Randi for libel when he called the device a fraud, the judge required Sniffex to bring a device into court to be demonstrated in front of experts. They refused and therefore had to drop the lawsuit. Perhaps in order for the brochure maker to prevail, they'd have to produce a working E-cat and have it tested independently by experts and have it pronounced genuine cold fusion. Wouldn't that be fun? Sniffex reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniffex
