Blizzard of blogviation

Discussion on lenr-forum about the new filings shows a phenomenon often encountered: an obvious argument is brought up, and someone says that this was considered and rejected long ago. But there is no actual reference, and the fora do not actually have a decision-making mechanism, usually, so this is just an opinion. I have seen it happen that a view was advanced and essentially crushed by many responses, but what I saw today was not like that. Rather, people had mostly quite talking about it, until a new occasion arose. This is coming from the newer, grittier version of the old IH Exhibit 5, Peter Gluck’s favorite punching bag, but it is now actual data, apparently, from the … ta daaaa!!! Penon Report! “Final,” it says.

Let’s review the issues:

Forty-two wrote: [before the new revelation of Penon data]

As Paradigmnoia wrote, Exhibit 5 is not new. It was already included in the first answer from IH, and therefore the major issues have been discussed long time ago.

E.g. that it is not feasible to drive the 1398 kg/h steam @0 barg through a minimum 6m long pipeline with DN40 (40mm) diameter.
Everyone can easily check that with this calculator:…-loss-through-piping.html
That fact is just ignored by Rossi supporter, and it is useless to discuss this again and again.

One might think. But, as it happens, it is argued again, as if the whole flow issue was conclusively debunked long ago. The new report gives a constant pressure of 0.0 bar. Not barg. The pressure gauge Penon planned to use, in the declared test protocol, was absolute pressure (bar). But 0.0 must be gauge pressure, i.e., the difference between the pressure in the pipe and atmospheric, which would be an error, because pressure would be needed to assess the boiling point of water, which depends on absolute pressure, not gauge pressure. If we assume zero barg at the return tank (which is likely), then 0.0 barg at the other end is, indeed, impossible unless there is very low flow. If the system is sealed, the pressure at the return tank could possibly be negative barg.

There are many ways for a test to go awry. I personally prefer to rely on the “room calorimeter.” If a megawatt is being dissipated in a fairly small warehouse with no forced air circulation, the temperature in the warehouse will increase with increased power. As has been pointed out, if delivered power really was a megawatt, it would have been deadly in there. As it is, in the summer, the ~20 KW input power to the Plant would make it uncomfortable, but that could be handled with air conditioners, which then explains the extra power that we will come to. Except it’s still mysterious….

But I think in Exhibit A at page 63 there is some interesting new information: [I’ve replaced the original link with the local file and PDF page.]

“In connection with the instant litigation – and after the Plant ceased operating – Counter-Plaintiffs obtained electrical power data from Florida Power and Light (“FPL”) for the Doral Location where the Plant was operated. The FPL records show that often more power was being used at the Doral Location than being reported by USQL for the Plant, but sometimes less power was being used at the entire Doral Location than being reported by Fabiani and USQL just for the Plant.”

Unfortunately the FPL records are not included in the docket files.
It would be good to have them, because I suspect that there was never significantly more el power consumed for the entire Doral site than the el. power for the 1MW plant – which would be another indication that there couldn’t have been any real production at the JMP area of the Doral site.

After this was written, Rossi put up FPL records, monthly billing, plus the Final Report, which gives daily figures for input power. Then, in their Reply, IH put up a chart showing three daily power levels for the duration of the alleged Test. The Fabiani and Penon reported levels match exactly except for what may be one or two small glitches, possibly typographical errors. This indicates to me that they are probably from the same data, not independent, I’d expect a little more variation. But there is also daily consumption for FPL. The suspicion above is not confirmed. Most of the time, the total JMP bill was for a little less than twice the reported Plant input power. But there is an odd period where the total bill is less than the reported input power. A single glitch could occur for various reasons, but this is more than that. See the last half of November, 2015.

I am unconvinced, so far, that this data shows deception on Fabiani’s part. However, the point is not that deception has been proven, but that with Fabiani’s failure to address issues, deception is reasonably suspected, and the data indicates the possibility. Something is off. There may be a harmless explanation, and that will come out in Discovery.

The ERV data, on the other hand, is more suspicious. So it relied on data provided by Rossi and Fabiani, perhaps. That is an issue about independence of the ERV. This will only become relevant if the primary IH defense — that there was no GPT, per GPT requirements in the Second Amendment — fails. This is all connected with the claims of fraud in setting up the Test in Doral.

If there could not have been a megawatt there — because of inadequate cooling, as IH has claimed — then there must have been some error in the Penon analysis, and some stand out as possible.

paradigmnoia wrote:

I would like to note that the Penon specifications sheet listed a pressure sender model that reports in Absolute pressure, and also for good measure is not rated for the steam temperature.

(We have no idea what actual model was installed, although there are possibly photos in the hands of IH et al).

He is correct. The specifications sheet was attached to an IH response to a Rossi request for production. However, there is no evidence or claim we have seen that shows that this is what was actually used. However, if the gauge pressure version was used, with the same temperature specifications, we see, then, that failure modes were set up. Most seriously, if the gauge was damaged, it might well report 0.0 barg, or even, if an absolute gauge, 0.0 absolute (which would be preposterous).

Dewey Weaver writes:

Planet Rossi somehow still manages to hang on in what must be a desperate kind of hope. You are surely warned and must be prepared for the the additional facts and truth that will be emerging in the coming weeks months. Rossi is finished.

Just to notice: Dewey has not said anything new here, but, on the other hand, he is an IH insider and actually has some idea of what might be emerging.

Zephir_AWT writes:

If the ECat technology doesn’t work, Industrial Heat shouldn’t issue another patents around it and he should return the license back to Rossi (AmpEnergo company).

Time for Albert again:

quote has been attributed to Stephen Hawking. Source unknown.

In their Counter-Complaint (the proposed version, but the others are the same), IH has explained: based on the results of their own testing:

95. Leonardo and Rossi purportedly transferred and delivered all E-Cat IP to CounterPlaintiffs on June 9, 2013. However, after numerous attempts, both with and without Rossi’s involvement, Counter-Plaintiffs have been unable, using the transferred E-Cat IP, to replicate the results included in the Evaluation Report purportedly certifying that Validation was achieved from April 30 to May 1, 2013, or otherwise generate measureable excess energy.

96. Only one of three conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing facts: 1) Leonardo and Rossi did not transfer and deliver all E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs; 2) Validation was never achieved and Penon’s reported COP calculations were false; or 3) both.

There is nothing there about “it doesn’t work.” Rather, that there is no actual excess energy is one of the possibilities, but not the only one. If IH were strongly convinced that Rossi actually has nothing, that the entire E-cat thing was a delusion or scam, then they might consider “returning the IP” for some small consideration, even. However, they probably spent about $20 million on this project, so far. If there is the smallest possibility of Rossi having real technology, then the License has a value. Further, this all came out, Rossi has been known — or claimed — to create a deliberate failure to get out of a contract, where he thought he could do better with someone else. Back to Zephir:

But IH doesn’t wants to do it despite the offer of Andrea Rossi – it wants to embrace this technology despite it doesn’t work. In addition, as MrSelfSustain also notedwe have multiple indicia, that A. Rossi has working technology in hands.

There has been no offer, apparently. That Zephir thinks there was is yet another example of how people believe blog bloviation without checking alleged facts, or at least realizing what is known as distinct from what is imagined or inferred, perhaps incorrectly. As to multiple indications, there is little that does not depend heavily on Rossi Says. There is enough to keep alive the possibility that, okay, he’s a terrible businessman, and check your wallet, but … maybe he has something. To present this as strongly evidenced (“multiple inidicia”) is misleading.  A pile of weak evidences is not necessarily strong evidence.

“IH doesn’t wants [sic] to do it.” They have not been tested in this regard. They have not asked for a cancellation of the Licence and a refund. Rossi has claimed to have cancelled the License, which is, given the Agreement, legally preposterous. (Some of this comes up, once again, with much confusion over it.)

Ampenergo was mentioned. This is interesting: IH has claimed to have paid Ampenergo “millions” in pursuit of satisfying provisions of the License Agreement with Rossi, which was subject to a prior agreement with Ampenergo. Ampenergo is a shareholder in IHHI, and if the License reverts to them, they could easily then license it to Industrial Heat, should it ever be necessary. (And that could be formalized, if needed).

Alan Smith wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Rossi is finished.

That has been said before of course.

Alan can be trusted to say something totally useless. And, to boot, misleading. While Dewey and others may have said “Rossi is finished” before, I don’t recall it being said in a context where it was becoming so obvious. Alan has shown many times that he doesn’t understand Rossi v. Darden, and he disliked that so much attention was being paid to it, but he persistently gunked up the discussions with useless junk like this.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Rossi has not offered to buy the IH license back but is welcome to do so at full price including $1.5M for the 1MW container and all legal expenses incurred by IH to date.

Dewey Weaver, though he is an IH insider, speaks for himself, not for IH, so this is his idea, not a suggestion coming from IH. I have no idea what IH would settle for, but normal principles are to settle for a bit less than you think you will get by going to trial. That (“full price,” if it is $11.5 million) could be a lot less than what they spent, but this is where sensibility wants a highly experienced and trustworthy attorney, to make judgments like that. I have professionals tell me what they think is likely. I’m not satisfied. I want estimates of odds. “But I can’t be sure.” I don’t want them to be sure, I just want them to give me a sense from their experience. Reality will always vary from expectation. It doesn’t mean the expectation was bad or wrong, it was merely incomplete.

Responding to more from Zephir,

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Zeph – we’re all trying to be patient with your lack of understanding of the facts and / or willingness to continually misconstrue and twist facts to fit your narrative. IH has a paid up perpetual license to Ecat IP, including derivatives and there is no alt legal interpretation available to you that says otherwise. The language is clear. The GPT that never happened has no bearing on the fact that $10M was paid for an IP license that Rossi never fulfilled. This is a clear as it can possibly be unless you reside on Planet Rossi.

This is, in fact, clear, and I will be looking at the License Agreement to check it (I’ve looked before, my my habit is to “crush the tests.” I read the sources again, not trusting that I remember them completely.) However Zephir doesn’t believe it:

Zephir_AWT wrote:

If he paid up, why Andrea Rossi filed his lawsuit against IH due to lack of payment? And why IH says, he won’t paid for license, because the test failed if he has paid up for it already? My understanding of your “facts” is very shallow here.

Zephir is completely careless about how he reads, and about memory and language. He is not relaying fact, but his own defective understandings. Yes, Rossi filed because of lack of payment, but payment of what and for what? What Dewey is saying is that the Licence is “paid up.” That is, it exists, as it did from the payment of $10 million. What adds some confusion here is that the $89 million is represented as part of a fuller payment for the License, but that was a conditional payment, possibly to be made in the future, or not, depending, but the License was immediate in effect. I will look at the exact language, but the intention was clear: IH could immediately start working on using the technology, and could sublicense, for example. Before I return with a study of the Agreement on this point, I want to go over what others have written about this. Much of it seems quite off to me, even people with whom I usually agree.

THHuxleynew wrote:

IH say (and I have no evidence to the contrary) that the IP depended only on the previous 10M payment. Therefore they have a perpetual license. The 89M is then a bonus payment on certain conditions being met. Maybe IH freedom to sell units (as distinct from use IP) also depends on this payment? I’m unclear.

The $89 million would be a bonus payment, offered as part of the full consideration making the Agreement binding. However, there is a confusion here between IP and a License, they are quite distinct. From the License, IH had the freedom to sell (or, relevant here, rent) “units.” They paid for two things, IP (information transfer, the “secret,” “Intellectual Property”) and a License for a territory. IP cannot be taken back, once disclosed (though sometimes a recipient may be required to return or destroy documents). IP may or may not be evidenced by a Patent.

And I’m also unclear whether not fulfilling the 89M payment, were it due, would invalidate the previous IP assignment. I guess it would, but I doubt this will ever be tested, see below.

First of all, the issue is not “IP assignment.” IP was disclosed, and IH had the power to disclose it to others. Licenses are assigned, not IP. (The agreement might have included a non-disclosure agreement, but the only NDA in the Agreement was one restricting Rossi, not IH.

It is obvious that Rossi did not consult an attorney before entering the Agreement, nor, as well, for the next year at least, because he could have backed out … or, he knew, and did not want to back out, he wanted the $10 million and then the rest.) If I needed to sign a $100 million agreement, would I consult an attorney? Maybe in the heat of the moment, not, but, then, As Soon As Possible! The Agreement was cancellable by Rossi at any time up to the transfer of $10 million and the IP, all he had to do was return the $1.5 million. He had not delivered the Plant yet.

The License would last until and unless it were terminable, which would be part of the Agreement. If a continued License were to be revoked for non-payment, the Agreement would say so. There is no contemplation in the Agreement of non-payment. Under those conditions, a proven nonpayment for a legitimate debt only creates a collectible debt, not a trigger for License Revocation. A negotiated return of a License might be part of a settlement, or could be something ordered by a court, which would consider law and equity.

Rossi has attempted to cancel the License, but did not offer return of what was paid for it, not that Rossi could force return; this simply shows how shallow his thinking is, he is only looking at his side.

Anyway, you can see the LT test is a separate matter from the IP assignment. Also, if you have paid attention to what IH say here they argue (with evidence):

that the test Rossi conducted is not the contractual bonus payment test anyway.

While it resembled the test — Rossi set up the charade that way — there were major defects, which have been covered in detail.

that if it is, then it does not in fact meet the required conditions

That is simply a way of saying there were more defects than one. Some of the defects are explicit from the Agreement and Second Amendment, some are equitable, based on reasonable expectations as to the underlying purposes in the Agreement.

As for Rossi’s motivation. That is speculation not fact. I’d guess he wanted the $89M and thought IH would settle and give him some of it rather than fight. That would be money + a PR victory.

I have speculated just what THH says here, that Rossi thought they were stupid wimps who would settle. After all, look at all the crap they tolerated! Rossi is learning the meaning of “a bridge too far.”

Zephir wrote:

The 89M is then a bonus payment on certain conditions being met.

Which ones? The regular reports from vacation of A. Rossi at Bali-Bali…? This is the most funny interpretation of IH-Ampenergo agreement, I ever read. :-)

I hereby create the Einstein Award. Zephir gets two:

Read it carefully. What Zephir quoted from THH is a simple, though nonspecific description of the GPT payment. The conditions are spelled out in the Agreement and Second Amendment, in particular. They have been covered again and again, but lets simply start with there being a GPT as described, with an ERV as described, and with performance as described, and without any interference as described. Conditions. Simple word.

The License exists before the GPT and does not depend on it, at all. Rather, the possible GPT bonus was simply part of the package, but clearly — because of the conditions — severable.

I’d guess he wanted the $89M

You guess? The $89M clause in agreement is just good will of IH – not condition for obtaining the license? Maybe it’s just a gift from IH promised for good behavior?

This is stupid, black-and-white thinking. It’s for the money or it’s just a gift? No, the possible bonus was clearly an incentive to enter the agreement and grant the License, as I wrote above, part of the consideration. However, suppose I buy a house from you, and in our agreement, I pay so much for the house, and I promise that if my kids like it and say so in some definite described way, I will pay you more, later. With the first payment I actually buy the house. But there was an additional promised consideration. If the condition arises for the payment, and I don’t pay it, do you get the house back?

It’s obvious. Unless a mortgage is involved, no, you don’t get the house back. Rather, you have a possibly collectible debt. If you go to court to perfect the debt, you might even be able to put a lien on the house (as a collection action), though you would not get that money unless I sell the house, which I won’t, because my kids love it! However, you can go after other assets.

If the License that Rossi sold to IH was actually valuable, presumably they will start making money from it, and they will have cash flow and assets that Rossi could go after. Rossi is trying to collect money from something that they claim is not of immediate value to them, because of the inability to confirm the technology in their own testing. It is a fatal defect to the intention of the Agreement. The GPT could be absolutely perfect, and it would still be inequitable to force IH to pay without the IP transfer being perfected and demonstrated with independent testing.

oldguy wrote:

[…] The GPT (which never was actually agreed to in writing) …

Probably. I would expect that if the start date (signed agreement to it in writing is explicit in the Second Amendment which allowed postponing the GPT) Rossi would have asserted it. He didn’t and hasn’t, but it is conceivable that some signed agreement exists and we just haven’t seen it.

was not for the license but for a commercial viable a system that was quickly ready for the market (hence the initial early start date). The 10M payment was for the license and IP. The 89M was for a ready to use commercial embodiment of that system.

Well, nice try. The GPT bonus was explicitly part of the consideration, simply not one that postponed License effectiveness. The thinking here is possibly how the GPT bonus would be rationalized. Rossi had indeed represented that he had a commercial-ready system, for only $1.5 million. Hence the original GPT concept mentioned, test to start immediately. That didn’t work, for reasons that are not completely clear: Rossi blames IH, but likely refused to run the GPT in an IH facility. Then he pitched the sale of power to IH. Why not? Maybe the thing would work! They wanted to know, so they were willing to support it by paying West and Fabiani and Penon to supervise measurments.

From Dewey’s account, with the Doral plant running, Rossi refused to support the IH in making devices work under their own testing. If he is not a pure con, he is clearly unaware of what others would need. If we take him at his word, preposterous as it is, he believed that IH was really Cherokee Investment Partners and had gobs of money, ready for wire transfer to him with a simple command, and surely they would pay up if he set up something like a GPT, and who cares about niggling little details like signatures? Besides, he worked hard for a year.

Document 126, the USQL (Fabiani) opposition, appeared.

Alan Smith wrote:

126 is nifty footwork I thought.

Damn! I thought so too! Nuñez seems to have his head screwed on straight.

Paradigmnoia wrote:

I tend to agree. I guess we will see what the Court thinks about this soon enough.

Great minds think alike.

Eric Walker then explained the new filings. I covered these in much more detail at Judge demands fast response

E_Man wrote:

If IH owns the licence, then which for invention?

The E-cat and all derivative technology, including what is not yet developed. See the Agreement, Section 13.4.

Is it for E-cat described in their patent?

Not only for that, for all E-Cat technology. There is also a covenant not to compete, so even if Rossi somehow managed to invent something “entirely new,” but it would compete with E-Cat technology, the Agreement covers it.

Is this licence for “non function” E-Cat tested in GPT?

All E-Cat technology. We do not know, by the way, that the GPT Plant was “non-functional.” That is not the claim, which is much more sophisticated than that.

In case Rossi will develop new plant for instance with “Mercury-Cat(M-Cat)”, can IH say “licence for M-Cat belongs to us” ?

Probably, if it is a power plant.

How IH will distinguish which for Rossi’s next inventions is “their licence”?

If Rossi actually develops a functional power plant and it becomes available for sale, one can expect that they would claim rights to it. They would be very likely to prevail if this is legally tested. Quark-X is almost certainly covered, but IH is not going to bother with legal action unless there is actual money there, not merely fuzzy photos and hot air.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

This judge means business and is determined to stay on the schedule she has established. I was impressed that FF’s attorney was able to respond so quickly. Apparently the attorneys for Rossi and Johnson got responses in overnight as well. We’ll see how today goes.

Not only was Nuñez quick, he was right on point. I do think that it won’t work, that Fabiani is likely to still be a defendant, but he did a great job and I notice that the knowledgeable writers are all agreeing on that.

Regarding the license – Planet Rossi remains dumbfounded that Rossi asked for and accepted $10M for ALL Ecat IP past present and future for use in the agreed upon territories. This was his deal and he took the money. He did not deliver on the license terms and then he somehow thought it was a good idea to sue his customer. Why is this is so difficult for those breathing the P.R ether to understand?

People have difficulty understanding what looks unfair to them. Planet Rossi believes that Rossi has what the planet needs, he’s a total genius, and that any opposition is stupid, evil, or greedy. Since the technology is so valuable, surely he would not sell it for a mere $10 million.

But he didn’t. He sold a package: a reactor for $1.5 million, a License and IP for $10 million, and a contingent payment upon completion of a specific test of $89 million. He had previously said that he would sell his secret for $100 million. So IH offered it to him, right, Dewey?

I need to study this:

because the IH move looked really dumb to me. It took a while for me to realize what they did, and how brilliant it was. When Planet Rossi sees these terms, it combines them with the PR paranoia, rooted in Rossi’s paranoia, that big money is out to screw him over. However, the GPT could still happen, though Rossi has now made it difficult. Part of a settlement, however, might well be the maintenance of an opportunity for a genuine GPT, which could wait until Rossi has the technology perfected.

This is not an assumption on my part that Rossi technology is real. I don’t know if he actually has something or not, and Rossi generates a confusion field, it’s part of what he does.

All Rossi has to do is to fulfill his part of the Agreement, and because the License is only for half the planet, he still gets to become a trillionaire, maybe. If he fufills the Agreement. This is utterly and completely fair.

What some think is that IH would refuse to agree. Maybe, but for cause, I’m sure. IH might say, show us how to make devices with significant XE and good COP, in our own testing, and we will agree to a GPT in a flash. In fact, we might waive it and just hand you the money. Right, Dewey? If IH unreasonably refused, Rossi could go to court and obtain a specific performance ruling, much more easily than the crap he tried to pull, with a fraud claim.

Rossi, however, never learned how to actually negotiate. His operating principle is My Way or the Highway.

Maybe life will force him to shift. Wouldn’t that be great? I’d love for this movie to have a happy ending, where everybody wins. Meanwhile, IH is doing what it needs to do.

Zephir kept on posting nonsense, quoting sections of the Agreement that don’t say what he thinks. He’s not a quick learner, that’s for sure. Look, part of how to be on the other side of the Einstein Award is to recognize the taste of one’s own feet, and pull them out of one’s mouth, quickly.

I will, before this is done, quote the relevant sections of the License Agreement. This is about science and the process of science. The goal of research is to prove oneself wrong. Not right. If we go looking for evidence of being right, we find it, the human mind is an amazing machine for generating rationalizations. No. I look for what makes me wrong. I look hard for it. And if I can’t find it, I then create an operating hypothesis, that I accept might actually be right. But I keep looking. I’ve been over the Agreement many times, but, today, I realized I needed to look again. What does it actually say about when the License comes into being, and does it say that it is “paid-up.” Has Zephir ever looked? Here, he pointed to a copy if the Agreement as if it confirmed his point. Instead, it was just about the GPT and payment for it, it was not about the License at all. Which people have been telling him.

There is another part of the Agreement, not quoted by anyone yet, which could make it look like the GPT payment would be necessary. Because another part is explicit on the point, that interpretation is not correct. What continues to amaze me is how people will express strong opinions without actually reading the source documents carefully. Making mistakes is normal, but when others are pointing them out, clearly, and one keeps repeating the mistake, what then is happening?

People hate to be dominated, and resisting it is a normal survival function. However, there are much better ways than stubborn denial. Ask for evidence! I see this and I think this and with that I don’t understand what you are saying, can you show me evidence? In this case, explicit language in the Agreement?

Most on LF, though, do not seek that kind of clarity.

Dewey Weaver wrote, and repeated:

The IH Ecat license is paid up […] The IH Ecat license is paid up […]  The IH Ecat license is paid up

Is that conclusory or is it fact and how would we know?

THHuxleynew wrote:

The license agreement governs the license to sell stuff, and also certain conditions that must be met by either party. So, I agree, if the test is the GPT, if it is properly conducted, if it has met the performance requirements, IH has voided the license to sell. Those ifs are big ones you seem to ignore.

THH writes some stuff that is sort-of correct, but is here in diametric opposition to the actual language of the Agreement. I guess it’s time to put it here.

Section 1 of the License Agreement comes to: “Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Leonardo Corporation and Rossi hereby grant … the License.” The right to sublicense is also granted. What does this mean, “the terms and conditions”? Is there specific language? Yes.

Section 1.2 gets right down to it:

… the License shall commence on the date provided in Section 3.2(b) below, and shall remain in force for the following term:

as for the Licensed Patents, on a country-by-country basis until the expiration of the last Valid Claim to expire of the last Patent covering such country, and

as for all other E-Cat IP, the duration will be unlimited.

Section 1.3 continues:

At the expiration of the last Patent to expire under the Licensed Patents in any country under the Territory, provided the Company at that time is not in breach of this Agreement, the Company shall continue to have a completely paid-up, royalty-free right and license to subsequently develop, manufacture, make, have made [… etc.] all the products deriving from the E-Cat IP in that country.

Section 3 is about price and payments.

3.1 The total price for the License and the purchase of the plant is …($100,500.00) 

(This is the description that could be confusing people. Interpreted as requiring the $89 million payment as crucial for a “paid-up” License, it conflicts with the explicit language elsewhere, as quoted.)

Payment terms:

$1.5 million on the execution of the Agreement, constituting payment in full for the Plant.

3.2(b) … on the date the Escrow Agent pays the $10,000,000 to Leonardo, the License will commence….

3.2(c) then describes the $89 million payment. There is no consequence based on it. The License is already in place, before the contingency of that payment. The license terms include no revocation rights. It is a “paid up” license, as Dewey repeated. The only mention of breach is in that provision about what happens after lapse of all the patents. This may possibly refer to trade secrets, I’m not sure. That would be way down the road, presumably.


Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


8 thoughts on “Blizzard of blogviation”

    1. Thanks. I thought it didn’t quite work. Perhaps we need a new word. Blogiation. Nah. The problem is the oh in blogiation vs aw in Blog, and then blogiation is pronounced most readily with aw, and the parallel is less clear.

    1. Sam, help us out. Why did you post that link? What about it? Acland says he has trouble understanding the legal stuff. How about pointing him here? I could do it, and have, but it helps if more help more. I notice that he doesn’t jump to the conclusion that this was Penon Final Report data. It probably is, though. At least Dewey indicates that — noting that the “cover page” is missing. Just one page? Sheesh! Penon has some ‘splainin’ to do. And he probably won’t. Acland misses that the Exhibit was really irrelevant, I think this Opposition was simply an excuse for Rossi to present some “supporting data,” though, in fact, the Report more or less confirms the infamous Exhibit 5, the Murray questions.

      1. Why did I post the link?
        Just thought there was some
        interesting comments.
        Dewey has apologized on
        Lenr forum and warned for
        a remark.
        Penon might help A.R.
        Still can’t believe that I.H.
        did not have there own EVR guy at Doral with $89 million on the line.
        I will direct Ecat world to
        your blog.

        1. Just, please, let us know why you post a link if it is not clear. Doral was set up by Rossi and was not presented as a Guaranteed Performance Test, i.e, as having $89 million on the line. The customer was “found” by Rossi and was clearly working with Rossi. IH reasonably believed that they could monitor Doral any time they wanted, according to the Term Sheet. In July, though, five months into the alleged Test, Rossi refused to admit Murray. If there was any possibility of IH accepting Doral as a GPT, it died right there. (Acceptance could have been retroactive, all it would have taken would have been the required signatures.) Rossi did not play it straight, and, as a result, twisted himself into tangled knots.

          All incoming links are appreciated. The Rossi v. Darden case resources here should be an essential tool for anyone studying or writing about the case.

Leave a Reply