The people have spoken, they want me to write about the SRI Brilliouin test results. However, I have an emergency. Axil said something wrong! This obviously, calls for a fast and thorough response, or I will lose my hard-earned reputation. Besides, I’m lazy today.
This is a bunch of crap – Brillouin’s IP is their own. Godes has been working hard, is tenacious and has contracted with Fran Tanzella at SRI for testing – a great move with a high integrity operation. The only thing that IH ever provided Brillouin was a small initial investment. Rossi’s storyline is yet another desperate attempt to generate a semblance of legitimacy for his empty shell of an operation. His attempts to astroturf via his sockpuppet army adds further to the hilarity and sadness of his self-destruction.
Based on what we presently know – we can see right through everything that he is doing.
You never can tell. Juries do unpredictable things; they found OJ innocent; one solitary piece of evidence did the deed. O.J. Simpson defense: ‘If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit’.
That was a criminal trial, where the standard for a guilty conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rossi v. Darden is civil, where the standard is preponderance of the evidence. OJ was not found “innocent.” He was found “not guilty,” that is what the jury spokesperson says in court.
When the family of OJ’s ex-wife took sued OJ over the same facts, they won a civil judgment.
Juries can do unpredictable things, it’s true, but verdicts can also be appealed. If a jury sets aside all the obstacles to a Rossi win, and awards him a cash judgment, and if the court allows this to apply against Cherokee and Darden and Vaughn personally, there would be an appealable issue on that alone. It is highly unlikely to happen, I see only that the judge was willing to allow Discovery to proceed, to bring out more fact.
In fact, Planet Rossi has been emphasizing that Darden supposedly waxed enthusiastic about the Rossi reactors in his China presentation. Problem is, it was not Darden who wrote that slide show, it was Vaughn, and it was not in October, 2015, as Planet Rossi apparently continued to believe even when the reality was found, it was probably in around October, 2013, when a presentation was apparently given in China. See The New Fizzle.
In the unlikely scenario that Rossi wins, i.e., the Penon report is confirmed by the jury, and the “room calorimeter” evidence and other evidence of fraud or error are likewise set aside (by what expert testimony?), Rossi ends up with, most likely, getting his License back. Except for pocket change — and some speculative recovery from Rossi and the 3rd Party Defendants — that is probably about all that IH owns. The fraud claims against them are very unlikely. Nonpayment is not evidence of fraud and that is basically all he has. Not having $89 million in their pocket in 2012 is not evidence of fraud. Overplaying one’s relationship with a $2.2 billion corporation is not evidence of fraud. It’s called “puffery,” and by common law, it’s legal. So, then, he would have a judgement against a company that is therefore bankrupt. He is not likely to receive even the costs of collection. Certainly not his legal fees.
If AR could take back the rights with the lack of an $89 MM backend payment, that first $10 MM from IH would have probably taken the form of an option to purchase the rights, predicated on certain future conditions taking place. That is not what they did. AR can’t take back something that he sold.
Right, unless there were a provision for nonpayment in the Agreement, where the License is cancelled if payment terms are not met. As the issue of terms not being met is controversial in the case, this could not be done unilaterally, even if there were such a provision. It would likely take court action. The payment was a conditional payment, not an unconditional one (like mortgage payments). Annesser’s announcement, which Rossi takes as if it was God speaking, was legally silly.
If the rights are taken back, what was paid for those rights might need to be considered. However, the legal strategy here is probably that if Rossi wins a large cash judgment, the rights are an asset of IH/IPH, and would be auctioned, and that auction would establish a market value for the rights. Rossi could be, if he wants to be, the highest bidder and, in fact, he could bid a very large sum, but this would probably whack the “market value,” since he would not have to actually pay that money, other than, say, borrowing it while the payment wends its way through the system back to him, through a bankruptcy distribution.
Bottom line, the lawsuit was founded in terminal stupidity, and it is possible that Johnson really did not understand what he was getting himself into. We do not know how Annesser advised Rossi. It might have been perfectly good advice that Rossi decided to ignore, to pursue his own ideas of justice.
There are two issues: IP transfer and License rights. The $10 million payment created a license and IP transfer. The IP transfer cannot be undone, the license could be transferred back. If the license is transferred back, IH could not do anything more than private research with the IP. Rossi is completely unclear about IP and patents and licenses. If they did reveal the technology to other parties, that, as well, cannot be undone, it was lawful at the time and cannot be made retroactively unlawful. Again, those parties could not use that technology for profit, unless they paid for a sublicense. And if they did, Rossi would have a legal problem, because they bought was was lawful at the time for them to sell, clearly by the Agreement.
I don’t know that they sold any sublicenses. To do so, they would have had to represent the technology as valid, very likely. Risky.
Here’s a nice recent tidbit from AR’s comments relevant to the disclosure that JMP has no parent company.
December 14, 2016 at 1:36 PM
Dr. Rossi: When will we hear about the economic benefits of the three E-Cats you sold to the customer of the year long test?
December 14, 2016 at 2:58 PM
This does not depend only on me.
This is classic Rossi. It implies assent to the primary claim (that he sold three “E-Cats,” actually, I think, from prior claims, 1 MW plants), but does not actually say that. Instead he makes a vague comment that sounds reasonable but is not. A full disclosure would obviously require the consent of the customer, but a summary disclosure that does not reveal the identity or specific business of the customer would not. Literally, the customer was J.M. Products, and the finances of J.M. Products will be laid out. Let’s say that it is extremely unlikely that they have bought any 1 MW plants. However, Rossi defenders could then claim that he’s talking about the “real customer,” i.e., the company behind J.M. products. But there is no company behind J.M. Products, that’s been revealed in court by Johnson. Basically, Rossi lied and continues to lie, to his fans. He will think that by making a vague statement, he is not lying, but he is being deliberately misleading. It is quite possible to lie even with the truth, if the intent is to mislead. Just make a true statement that would be reasonably expected to cause someone to believe something that is false.
Lots of venom against Brillouin on Rossi’s blog. Not seeing that stuff here or on ECW, so I’m gonna assume those folks only exist in Rossi’s imagination.
Before I comment on the Rossi blog posts quoted, I’ll show one other comment:
One of the above contributors has previously signed off as A.R., so make of that what you will.
The evidence that Rossi uses socks on his blog is overwhelming. He may think that this is following his lawyer’s instructions not to comment. It is not. Server logs can be subpoenaed, and destroying the logs to avoid this is illegal. Maybe he could get away with it, but it is a risk that his lawyer would tell him not to take. But Rossi doesn’t follow legal advice, isn’t that obvious?
Back to the Rossi blog comments quoted by LENR Calende,r but reversing order to put the oldest first:
January 6, 2017 at 7:39 AM
Brillouin has again replicated your effect, substantially copying your patent. They did it after the agreement they made with IH: what a coincidence! Before that Brillouin made only electrolysis…
It is important that many replications have been made so far of your patent: this fact adds value to it!
January 6, 2017 at 8:48 AM
Replications in scientific contexts are useful and permitted.
I am always delighted to read about them.
Rossi is correct. The claim here is that the BE reactor is a usage of the Rossi patented technlogy. Even if this were true, one may test patented technology without obtaining a license. Selling a product made from that, no. To see a product would require a license; however, if the new product is not covered by the license — this is why patents state so many alternatives — no license is needed. You can indeed learn from a patent, but then invent something new to do something similar. Is the BE device a “replication” of the Rossi device? I does not look that way to me, but details like this can occupy patent lawyers for years. Rossi, here, is using the BE announcement to attempt to increase the credibility of his own claims.
January 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM
I saw the last HHT of Brillouin, but it is just the copy of your old Hot cat, while their supposed “Q Pulse”, that pretends to be an invention, is nothing but a normal wave used in all the gensets of the world! It is a real bogus, not an IP!
In the electronic jargon this is called a “rectified square wave”, because it is used in the gensets that from direct current they first get a square wave, then they pass to a rectified square wave, then by a series of integrals they recreate a sinusoidal wave.
This smartasses have just invented a trade mark for a device that is one century old and that every electrician learns in his first year of school.
The COP they got comes only after their agreement with Industrial heat. Before that agreement Brillouin was just losing his time with electrolitic bullshit, as it clearly appears from their publications.
About what they call a “third party”: we have discovered that all the members of the “third party” that made their Washington test are members of their company…
My suspect is that they are just trying to fool the investors of IH, like Woodford, with smoke in the eyes, after they lost your license.
From Russia, with love,
January 7, 2017 at 6:37 PM
I never comment the work of our competitors.
January 8, 2017 at 10:46 AM
The establishment Gurus in California claim to have an “independent validation” even though they are old friends from years back? Gods Speed to you Dr Rossi
January 8, 2017 at 12:35 PM
I can’t comment the work of our competitors.
Straw man argument. If the SRI report is called an “independent validation,” that’s puffery, that’s all.
Rossi’s sockpuppets are hammering BE hard. Especially since BE’s press release. He has also targeted BE in his legal battle against IH, where he accuses them of giving BE his IP.
Oddly though, the judge has stood fast that IH must divulge their correspondence with BE. Maybe she knows something we don’t, or maybe Rossi is just being his usual crazy self? As Yogi said :”it ain’t over until it’s over”.
Fortunately, the socks hit with straw hammers. Don’t you love mixed metaphors? Shane is referring to the Magistrate and Discovery. Rossi is claiming improper disclosure to BE, harming him, so the relationship with BE is important. IH would naturally resist this, because of BE privacy concerns, but can protect the disclosures if necessary, and may. There is very likely nothing of serious concern there.
I don’t think any of us can know for certain if IH shared any of Rossi’s IP with Brillouin or anyone else. Of course, according to IH in the legal documents, they would have had the right to share Rossi’s IP with anyone they chose even without a non-disclosure agreement.
Right. Rossi has this idea about IP and secrets. It is not solidly founded. With a non-disclosure agreement, a party can be held liable for the harmful effects of disclosure. However, there was no such agreement. Rossi may think it was obvious. Legally, it is not. A verbal agreement might be binding, if it could be legally established that it happened. My guess? It never happened. Continuing the quotation:
Now, let’s say hypothetically the IP was shared. First of all, this does not mean that Brillouin would be using the IP. Secondly, it does not mean that the IP was used in SRI’s replication. Thirdly, even if some element of the IP was incorporated somehow, it doesn’t mean that it would do much mixed in with Brillouin IP. However, there is the chance that the replication by SRI does NOT represent the best and most powerful version of Brillouin’s technology. They could have much more developed versions with higher output and higher COP.
Possible, yes. It could explain some aspects of the Tanzella preliminary report that are otherwise puzzling to me.
A “secret” better performing version of Brillouin’s technology may or may not include any elements of Rossi’s IP. For those of us on the outside, it would be really hard for us to know since we have never read several of Rossi’s patent applications that he transferred to IH. If hypothetically Brillouin did release an actual product that incorporated some aspect of Rossi’s IP and Rossi took them to court, I think it would be another long, drawn out legal battle. To be blunt, I think there is a lot of overlap between many of the LENR patents and other players may get involved too.
Yes. Related here is Rossi’s claim of a fiduciary relationship with IH, which, as I recall, was dismissed. Such a relationship would have required them to protect Rossi’s interests even if there were no specific agreement, at least that’s how I understand it.
I think the company with the best performing product will win the race and have a brief and short window to gain a lead over others in the marketplace. Court battles won’t accomplish a whole lot in most cases, in my opinion. This will especially be true as more companies get involved once it is revealed how it is relatively *easy* (if you can properly hydrogenate and stimulate your nickel) to produce high powered LENR.
Given the assumption, yes. What is being assumed, though, has never been clearly and independently demonstrated. “LENR+” is wishful thinking at this point.
His whole sock puppet’s description of the Q-pulses is typical silliness and completely misunderstands how it works. It is not so easy as many would imagine. While I have my doubts about BE, I can admire Godes skill in what he has developed. His electrolysis system, which supposedly produced much more excess heat than the gas system, required a fair amount of study just to understand what he was doing with the electronics.
Shane D. wrote: [with reference to Dewey’s post quoted above]
I agree with you on everything, and the only reason I keep open a slight chance for Rossi, is because the judge has not thrown Rossi out of her court yet. I keep wondering whether my interpretation of that is due my ignorance of the process…and that is not my fault BTW, as my guidance in legal matters Abd, has been banned here, or maybe, just maybe there is something we don’t know, that the judge knows? All those hearings…you never know.
No, the Judge probably knows less than we know. She has not poured over the documents as we have. She is not independently informed. At this point, she is not seeing the Discovery activity, likely. (That’s the Magistrate.). She ruled against IH on their Motion to Dismiss on legal grounds (and her decision was at least reasonable, which would be why IH did not appeal it!) She wanted Discovery to proceed. IH filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, then withdrew it. I think they saw what she wanted, and stood aside. When discovery is complete, then we may see another Motion for Judgment. And this time it will be complete. The former motions were not quite complete, I’ve written about this, it’s a bit of a puzzle to me why they did not specifically allege the lack of an agreement signed by all the parties, setting the GPT start date. (But they hinted at it. Why a hint only?)
Dump the idea that the Judge is going to form an opinion and act on it, on matters other than law. She showed in her dismissal of the Rossi MTD that she understands, reasonably well, the IH claims. It’s worth reading both of those opinions, because the first one, rejecting half of the IH MTD, lays out the Rossi case, and the second one, rejecting the entire Rossi MTD, lays out the IH case, both as they appeared to her reviewing those motions. She will then go home and forget about it. She will not research the issues on the internet. She will not see our arguments on blogs. The idea that IH would pay people to bad mouth Rossi on blogs, in order to influence the case, is totally preposterous. It doesn’t work like that. If someone were organizing groups to picket the trial, it would probably harden her opinion of that side as attached. That could backfire, unless that side explicitly disavows that effort.
Even were it to turn out that IH indeed slipped BE the IP they lawfully bought from Rossi, that is their prerogative to do so. They own it afterall. Still though, the judge indicates Rossi may be onto something, since she insists IH turn over their communications to BE. So as a prudent person, I have to keep open the chance Rossi is on to something.
Not the judge. The Magistrate. The ruling is based, not on a sense that Rossi is “onto something,” but that it is reasonable that there could be something relevant there. That’s all. A possibility. You can always keep possibilities open, and I even recommend it if they inspire you. However, watch out for denial and paranoia, into your life it will creep.
A slight chance for Rossi in what way? I think we need to be specific in what we are communicating. For example, in my total guestimate (there is so much we DON’T KNOW because IH and Rossi are not really “going at it” yet in court):
Nice to notice the lack of specificity, and then to address it. I will essay my own estimates, based on a sense of what has been revealed of evidence at this point, and a sense of legal precedent, which is based on very many actual cases and decisions, only some of which I know, not being a lawyer. This naturally could shift as more evidence is revealed, but we may not see much until the trial or a Motion for Judgment may reveal some of what has been revealed in Discovery.
1) The chance Rossi has the ability to produce high powered LENR reactions and can prove it to the world if he is pushed into a corner (even if they are not always 100% reliable or stable): 99.999%
This is still a bit vague. Has he ever actually and legitimately produced, say, a kilowatt of excess heat sustained for a few hours? It would put this at around 1 or 2 percent. However, the question could also be read, “can he prove it to the world. One scientist thinks Rossi had something real and lost it. This would be classic for LENR. It turns out that the researcher did not have the control he believed he had, and accidents happen in putting together a “fuel” combination. And a result might depend on one of those accidents that is not necessarily reproducible. That he had some real results, sometimes, maybe not a kilowatt, I could give that a higher percentage. But that he can prove it, I’d give a lower percentage. He’s trashed his reputation, that has an effect. Some think this was deliberate, to protect his secret. But … that’s paranoid thinking and can affect many many decisions and beliefs. Given what we know, that SS gives such a high percentage reveals more about SS than about Rossi.
2) The chance Rossi will be able to prove that the absolute worst of IH’s accusations against him are incorrect (James Bass never doing any real work other than acting, JM Products being a *total* shell company that never received/shipped a single pound of chemical product, absolutely zero excess heat from the Doral plant, etc.): 95%
It’s stated as an extreme, and with “prove.” “Show” is more reasonable. “Absolutely zero excess heat” is impossible to prove! More than that, the evidence that could be revealed may show that excess heat was below some number. It is possible that IH might obtain the raw data from the computers collecting it and determine, from that and other evidence, a likely excess heat estimate, but “proof” is a strong word. This is not a useful question, actually. It is likely that James Bass did no work. It is likely that JM Products was a shell company with no manufacturing taking place. They may have tried something, though, that is not impossible. That is Rossi and Johnson may have attempted to set up a real manufacturing company, but it was a pipe dream, one of Rossi’s imaginary magnificences. So something like 1%. If there was a real owner (somehow still concealed, but this will come out in discovery), the chances rise.
3) The chance Rossi will be able to prove all of IH’s accusations are false, he was totally honest at all times, never exaggerated numbers, was within his rights to not allow IH to access the plant: .1%
0.001% The trial is not going to prove anything, though some proof might be found in the evidence presented in the trial, if the trial happens. Rather, a jury will decide questions legally presented to it based on a preponderance of the evidence. Because juries sometimes make weird decisions, the percentage rises. Maybe 0.1%. “Within his rights not to allow IH access” is a strange statement, since the Term Sheet explicitly allowed access. The jury would have to ignore that a Test was intended to be fully accessible to the customer, was originally even supposed to happen in the customer facility, where everything could be watched closely. For a jury to determine that would require massive lack of skill on the part of Jones Day, which I don’t expect!
4) The chance Rossi will be able to get a jury trial (I’m totally clueless here): 50%
5) The chance Rossi could win the jury trial and get everything he wants (I’m even more clueless here): 10%
0.001% There are too many violations of common law for this to happen.
6) The chance Rossi could get the jury trial and get some of what he wants (again, I’m not a lawyer): 50%
In my mind, I try to differentiate between the test in Doral and Andrea Rossi’s technology as a whole.
That is proper. I encourage it.
Because the technology is what matters most.
In some ways, long term. But this is not about Rossi himself, but a broader issue, and the case may help or harm the introduction of LENR technology, and I estimate the lost opportunity cost of the postponement of LENR technology at perhaps a trillion dollars per year. That is, it might take ten years to develop it to commercial practicality, say. If we delay beginning that research it may postpone the day practicality is realized. If necessary research effort were fixed, this is necessarily so, but it is possible that later research would be more efficient, with better tools, than earlier, so a more accurate estimate might be lower. But still a boatload of money, which translates to wasted resources, both human and environmental. So it’s important.
I truly have no clue what the outcome of the court case will be. But if his technology as a whole works — which I’m convinced it does — he has an ace in the hole. If it turns out that the worst of IH’s claims against him are true and the Doral test was a complete and total scam (which I say is a very low probability) then that Ace might not keep him out of prison.
Prison is not presently on the table. Depending on what the case develops, it might be. I would estimate the possibility of a criminal prosecution at about 10%.
Then it would be up to the replicators to make sure his technology is not lost forever, because I doubt there is anyone else at Leonardo Corporation who would try to continue the development. Actually, in that case, Leonardo Corporation would be liquidated and would no longer exist.
There are no replicators yet. There are people who have seen modest amounts of heat — or larger amounts but accompanied by major problems in calorimetry. Nobody has reported what Rossi claimed he could produce day in and day out, a megawatt. Nobody has reported the same for a kilowatt, even. A few watts, yes. A few hundred watts, maybe. No confirmations.
Rossi’s technology, if it exists, was apparently not disclosed to IH. It appears that he has not disclosed it to anyone. There is nothing to preserve at this point.
As to the BE report, some of this ended up being about that. I will write a review of that report, but it is going to be initially password-protected. I will reveal the password to known users or persons willing to not reproduce it nor to quote it or attribute opinions expressed there to me, because this will be a draft, preliminary, and on a topic that could have very high importance, as well as strong political implications.