"He said they examined the powder with a mass spec in violation of agreements with Rossi, and without Rossi's knowledge"
Agreements made in a joint venture are null and void after the partnership is terminated by the principle party(Rossi) on any information producing activity that occurs after the partnership is terminated. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> He claimed that DGT learned Rossi's trade secret. He did not say DGT >> "stole" it. He stated this publicly because he wanted to persuade people >> that DGT could build a working reactor without Rossi's help. >> > > He said they examined the powder with a mass spec in violation of > agreements with Rossi, and without Rossi's knowledge. That is theft of > trade secrets. Some of the people negotiating with him were appalled, as > was I. Maybe you do not think this is theft, and maybe Xanthoulis does not > think it is, but by the standards of U.S. business ethics, it is theft and > will surely mean Defkalion is not free to sell the product and they will be > tied up in civil suits for years if they try to sell it. > > I am pretty sure there will be no civil suit for trade secret theft, > because as far as I know they do not have a working product. Maybe they > tried to steal the secret, but they failed. > > The people at Defkalion Europe (DE) declared themselves out of business as > soon they discovered the claims were false and the machine does not produce > excess heat. I and others have praised them for doing this. In point of > fact, they had to do that. Any other course of action would be criminal > fraud. Once you know your product does not work, you have stop selling it. > They deserve praise for doing this quickly and decisively, and for warning > their customers. They deserve praise for telling Defkalion, and for > publishing the report. > > Defkalion has known their claims are wrong at least since the day after > ICCF18, and probably much longer. Yet they are still in business, and they > still claim it works. If it was was not fraud up until ICCF18, it surely is > now. > > (It might have been an idiotic mistake up until ICCF18, but I think that > is very unlikely, given all the times I and others warned them to do > reality check tests.) > > - Jed > >
