I think there are critical aspects of Rossi's technology that are totally novel to cold fusion. Those are the ones that allow him to produce a practical amount of heat when no one else (that I am aware) has been able to do so. If these critical pieces of intellectual property have been stolen (I do not know if they have been or not) then I think he should do whatever it takes for him to stop any other company from using it without his permission.
I realize IP issues are complicated. But in Rossi's case there is SOMETHING that is allowing him to produce huge amounts of heat. I think this is his catalyst and perhaps the specific preperation and enrichment of the nickel powder. I doubt that anyone could say that they own these aspects of his technology, because otherwise I think they would have tried to bring about a robust cold fusion technology years ago. This is not a joke. I am being serious. I not a very jovial person. I do NOT know if Rossi's intellectual property has been stolen or not. But from what I have read I cannot totally dismiss the possibility. The fact is I've already hurt myself and my family with decisions I have made that were based on principles. I'm sitting here unable to get the medical care (at least not without going through countless hoops) I need (nothing life threatening) because of my decisions. It is also the reason why I'm single and never married. I refused to compromise on my morals, even when the so called "Christian" women were willing to. I'm not a saint. I'm not perfect. I also do not claim that I've always stuck to every principle 100% of the time. I sin and I have to ask forgiveness. But I do my best to live an ethical life. If that hurts me financially or otherwise, I try to realize that you can't take with you anything when you are dead. You can only hope that you lived as ethically and morally as possible. ________________________________ From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Test day in Greece time I think that you should consider that Rossi and many before him are using technology that was derived by others. It is seldom as simple as you seem to think when IP is being judicated. I recall when the company I worked with at the time as well as its main competitor would periodically have a patent battle. We all knew the game: each company would list a number of patents that they held which they considered violated. After a few lawyers were paid off, both sides would agree to allow the others to proceed with their production. It is a joke to think that Rossi does not owe his design to the shoulders upon which he stands. Look at all of the patents before him if you really think that his hands are totally clean. You seem to think too much in black and white when business is always handled in shades of gray. And I have a hard time believing that you really would rather see damage to everyone, including your family, in order to stand up for a principle that is not valid. Please explain how Rossi can be sure that his IP has been stolen by anyone? The only way that a determination of this sort can be handled is after an extensive court battle where all of the important conversations, any technology transfers, or other happening are examined. Are you knowledgeable of details that we have not been a party to? You do recall Rossi making claims that DGT does not have any knowledge from him don't you? What more do you require? This entire discussion is a bit silly and is most likely someone's idea of a joke. Dave -----Original Message----- From: noone noone <thesteornpa...@yahoo.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Feb 24, 2012 7:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Test day in Greece time 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
