Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: Right, so they sign a business without even knowing what they were getting > into? Complete transfer of technology? This is full of bull. >
How do you know? Did you read the contract? Do you think they could perform industrial development without a complete transfer of the technology? I don't see how. Of course both sides need to sign a contract before the complete transfer of technology. In this case, they also decided to form a joint venture. I don't see any bull. This all normal business activity. The abnormalities began after the joint venture started up, when the people from Mose tried to implement standard methods of confirming the calorimetry, and the people from Defkalion removed the Mose equipment without discussion. That was a red flag! As soon as the Greeks went home and the people from Mose got a chance to the test correctly, they discovered it does not work. They asked the Greeks for clarification. They got none. So, after a while they told their potential customers "it does not work" and they put the company out of business. If they had not done that they would probably be facing criminal charges. Let's see the timeline . . . January 2013 Gamberale goes to the DGT laboratories in Vancouver to copy them. Sets up a duplicate lab in Milan. June 17, 2013 SA came to Milan to start the first test of the DGT technology in the new laboratory. Very soon the demos for the European companies started. July 2013 DGT asked DE to organize a live stream of a demo to broadcast to the ICCF18. July 23, 2013 ICCF18 live streaming. "This challenging request by DGT [to do live streaming for ICCF18] . . . led DE to accelerate the clarification of some important technical aspects of the calorimetry which until then had been denied by DGT. To this end, overriding a gentlemen’s agreement, DE decided to undertake autonomous tests to identify any malfunctions of the calorimetry protocol." And . . . the jig was up. The results in the report were obtained right after ICCF18. They asked for clarification from DGT and "on the commercial side DE immediately stopped/froze all negotiations with both Italian and foreign companies to protect [DE's] clients." So, it did not take them long to find the problem after they were allowed to look for it, and they took action immediately. I recall DE announced there were problems, and they cancelled all negotiations with clients. I did not follow the story after that. I would say DE are blameless, although perhaps they had an obligation to inform the public in more detail. When DE announced they had a problem, I thought: "Ah, it didn't work. As everyone says, the damn flowmeter bit them on the butt." I did not realize the extent of it. I had no idea DGT forbid them from doing the test correctly, and removed equipment to stop them. That goes over the line. WAAAAAAY over the line. If I were a police investigator I would toss their offices and haul them in for questioning on the strength of that allegation. The "gentleman's agreement" was batty. That was a very stupid thing to agree too. If I had been there during the negotiations I would have raised hell as soon as DGT said that. I would not have agreed to any such thing, ever. In fact, if I had been Gamberale in Vancouver I would have demanded they do a proper verification or I would have called off the whole project. I have been fleeced enough times in business deals to know that you never trust anyone. You verify. That's called due diligence. If Gamberale did not confirm the flow rate in Vancouver, he did not perform due diligence. - Jed
