I am not an expert at law, but I would strive to stop someone from selling my technology without permission even if it was a futile battle.
If I did decide to take money (if I thought it was the best way to fight against the company using my technology), I would let it be known to the courts that any money awarded to me would be instantly used to try and stop the activities of the party that stole my technology. For example, I would make products and give them away to stop people from purchasing products from the other company. Or I would wage a PR campaign against the other company. Also, a possibility would be to use the money to hire more lawyers to make the life of the company as miserable as possible. I would also not allow the offending company to obtain a license agreement. I would tell the Judge flat out that I would rather be publicly drawn, hung, and quartered rather than sign the piece of paper. He may end up awarding the technology ownership fully to the other company, but at least I would have stuck up for what was right. The world you are describing is a nightmare world, in my opinion. It is a world that does not deserve cold fusion technology. I hope the reality of things are not as horrible as you portray. ________________________________ From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Test day in Greece time noone noone <thesteornpa...@yahoo.com> wrote: We do not need both companies if one company has stolen intellectual property. We do NOT know if this is the case. I am not saying they have stolen intellectual property. But if they have, they need to be stopped from selling any products that use Rossi's IP (or use IP they developed by studying Rossi's IP without permission.) That never happens, at least not in the U.S. That is not how civil lawsuits and patent laws are enforced. Everyone continues selling until the court decides. If there is an infringement the judge awards the winner with a large share of the profits from the loser. No one "stops X from selling" except when X is a minor player and putting X out of business would have no impact on consumers. They never shut down an industry or a major producer in such cases. When IBM and Hitachi fight about a semiconductor patent, both sides continue to manufacture and sell the chips until they settle out of court or the judge rules. The judge never tells IBM to stop making the chips in the meanwhile, because that would hurt other companies and consumers. There have been fights like this since patent laws were invented in the 17th century. This is not widely known, but the U.S. Patent Office and the judiciary do not allow companies or individuals to stifle an important technology. If Rossi does not sell his product, even if he has a patent others will soon be allowed to make the product. If Rossi refuses to license them, the judge will force him to do so. The judge will -- in effect -- draft a license agreement, or tell the lawyers to do it. It is widely believed that "big companies" can "buy up a patent" and prevent important technology from being developed. This is a myth. As I said, the courts will not allow it. They have ruled that the patent system cannot be used to prevent the spread of useful technology. They take a dim view of companies that seem to be stalling. In any case, patents do not last long and another company can often "invent around" the patent if the owner refuses to license it, so this strategy would not work. - Jed
