Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump. Read that sentence over to yourself a dozen times or so. Eventually you'll realize you just logically said A !A. Jones analysis is essentially correct. It's very difficult to short Canadian pump and dump stocks. Most brokerages will not accept short orders for penny stocks. And in general, markets can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent. It doesn't matter if the stock crashes after you've already had to cover a margin call. On the larger topic, fraud in Canadian OTC/wildcat markets is rife, and the penalties are few. Canadian exchanges would be the ideal location for a fraudulent cold fusion enterprise, and the level of corporate disclosure and due diligence is not comparable to US exchanges. I doubt we will get to see many details of Defkalion's technology and customers, and I also highly doubt that their roadshow includes any actual technology demonstration beyond a Powerpoint deck. BRE-X is the most famous example of a Canadian stock fraud- a $6 billion mining company built entirely on elaborate faked test results. After the stock crashed, the RCMP eventually dropped all charges and other civil cases failed, so nobody went to jail over it. The founder was tracked down years later in the Bahamas by armed thugs and died shortly afterwards. It took well over a decade for the entire BRE-X story to play out. The recent sorry tale of Zenn Motors (and their claims for EESTOR) could be headed for a similar fate based on the postings at http://theeestory.com AF
RE: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to benefit from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have available. Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that they must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather keep silent about: books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070 Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the context of what we know to be historically true. We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate scam on top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and patented by someone else). Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in Italy was basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in November is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net negative for the rest of the field. It is called poisoning the well. DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much longer from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. No VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the energy is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on. If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe that they do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they should proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a University or Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead business plan, which is most of the problem. It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a scientist. From: Analog Fan There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump. Read that sentence over to yourself a dozen times or so. Eventually you'll realize you just logically said A !A. Jones analysis is essentially correct. It's very difficult to short Canadian pump and dump stocks. Most brokerages will not accept short orders for penny stocks. And in general, markets can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent. It doesn't matter if the stock crashes after you've already had to cover a margin call. On the larger topic, fraud in Canadian OTC/wildcat markets is rife, and the penalties are few. Canadian exchanges would be the ideal location for a fraudulent cold fusion enterprise, and the level of corporate disclosure and due diligence is not comparable to US exchanges. I doubt we will get to see many details of Defkalion's technology and customers, and I also highly doubt that their roadshow includes any actual technology demonstration beyond a Powerpoint deck. BRE-X is the most famous example of a Canadian stock fraud- a $6 billion mining company built entirely on elaborate faked test results. After the stock crashed, the RCMP eventually dropped all charges and other civil cases failed, so nobody went to jail over it. The founder was tracked down years later in the Bahamas by armed thugs and died shortly afterwards. It took well over a decade for the entire BRE-X story to play out. The recent sorry tale of Zenn Motors (and their claims for EESTOR) could be headed for a similar fate based on the postings at http://theeestory.com AF attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
How can you possibly know these things? 2013/8/13 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much longer from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well was poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept ANY patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided conclusion, both of which created a legal situation that doomed any serious study of CF. Now the expected and natural consequences are being experienced. Rossi may eventually be the last man standing because he found the secret recipe and used his own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this technology. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to benefit from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have available. Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that they must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather keep silent about: books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070 Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the context of what we know to be historically true. We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate scam on top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and patented by someone else). Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in Italy was basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in November is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net negative for the rest of the field. It is called poisoning the well. DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much longer from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. No VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the energy is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on. If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe that they do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they should proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a University or Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead business plan, which is most of the problem. It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a scientist.
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger problem. Since patent protection for the basic process is not possible, a patent for the best application is the only protection. This is similar to the situation in mature technologies. However, a great deal of money will be needed to apply CF in the best way, with no assurance that someone else might find a better way before any return on the investment can be realized. Consequently, no incentive is created for seed money from private sources to get involved. This means the seed money has to come from government, which has no interest in getting involved because of the threat to present energy sources. This leaves Rossi as the last man standing, i.e. until a big industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China, and solves the engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this happens, small companies will be able to get money to improve and patent the application to special markets, as is the case for the present mature technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated to a show of nonsense and irrationally. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his investors? I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having paid for a rocket engine patent's international filing. In my situation, there was no option but to obtain a patent in every jurisdiction in the world because it takes only one unprotected jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the profit stream from that technology: Set up a launch and manufacturing facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send their payloads to that jurisdiction. However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different. All it takes is one protected jurisdiction anywhere in the world to realize enormous profits. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well was poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept ANY patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided conclusion, both of which created a legal situation that doomed any serious study of CF. Now the expected and natural consequences are being experienced. Rossi may eventually be the last man standing because he found the secret recipe and used his own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this technology. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to benefit from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have available. Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that they must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather keep silent about: books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070 Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the context of what we know to be historically true. We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate scam on top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and patented by someone else). Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in Italy was basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in November is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net negative for the rest of the field. It is called poisoning the well. DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much longer from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. No VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the energy is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on. If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe that they do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they should proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a University or Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead business plan, which is most of the problem. It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a scientist.
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his investors? I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having paid for a rocket engine patent http://www.google.co.in/patents/US6212876's international filing. In my situation, there was no option but to obtain a patent in every jurisdiction in the world because it takes only *one un protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the profit stream from that technology: Set up a launch and manufacturing facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send their payloads to that jurisdiction. However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different. All it takes is *one* *protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to realize enormous profits. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well was poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept ANY patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided conclusion, both of which created a legal situation that doomed any serious study of CF. Now the expected and natural consequences are being experienced. Rossi may eventually be the last man standing because he found the secret recipe and used his own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this technology. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to benefit from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have available. Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that they must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather keep silent about: books.google.com/books?isbn=**1553672070http://books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070 Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the context of what we know to be historically true. We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate scam on top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and patented by someone else). Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in Italy was basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in November is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net negative for the rest of the field. It is called poisoning the well. DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much longer from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. No VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the energy is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on. If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe that they do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they should proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a University or Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead business plan, which is most of the problem. It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a scientist.
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to benefit from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. Bt. Wrong. I've sold call options on Interactive Brokers for penny stocks. You guys are presuming that there will be zero liquidity on these stocks. Sure, if no one buys any shares then you can't short.. That's kind of obvious though, right?
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication: First, I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic has laid to rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal conspiracy is blocking, even though its influence may pervade the much if not most of the world, and that we may, therefore and henceforth focus solely on obtaining backing for development of protected intellectual property -- protected even if in only *one* jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US patent office's criminal conspiracy. Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found and the patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing investors is identical to that facing *any* investor in *any *technology development. Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process reproducibly by those skilled in the art. The argument that someone somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such a disclosure is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given the enormous motive, there has been no generally accepted such replication. Therefore, the first such disclosure will be blocking and subsequent derivative patents must negotiate with the prior art. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger problem. Since patent protection for the basic process is not possible, a patent for the best application is the only protection. This is similar to the situation in mature technologies. However, a great deal of money will be needed to apply CF in the best way, with no assurance that someone else might find a better way before any return on the investment can be realized. Consequently, no incentive is created for seed money from private sources to get involved. This means the seed money has to come from government, which has no interest in getting involved because of the threat to present energy sources. This leaves Rossi as the last man standing, i.e. until a big industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China, and solves the engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this happens, small companies will be able to get money to improve and patent the application to special markets, as is the case for the present mature technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated to a show of nonsense and irrationally. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his investors? I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having paid for a rocket engine patent http://www.google.co.in/patents/US6212876's international filing. In my situation, there was no option but to obtain a patent in every jurisdiction in the world because it takes only *one un protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the profit stream from that technology: Set up a launch and manufacturing facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send their payloads to that jurisdiction. However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different. All it takes is *one* *protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to realize enormous profits. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well was poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept ANY patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided conclusion, both of which created a legal situation that doomed any serious study of CF. Now the expected and natural consequences are being experienced. Rossi may eventually be the last man standing because he found the secret recipe and used his own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this technology. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to benefit from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have available. Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that they must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather keep silent about: books.google.com/books?isbn=**1553672070http://books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070 Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the context of what we know to be historically true. We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate scam on top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and patented by someone else). Even if everything which DGT showed the
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not like any other. First of all, the basic explanation is not accepted. In contrast, the basic explanation is accepted about other technologies. This means that the patent office will not grant a patent based on the basic mechanism or for claims based on nuclear energy being produced by such a mechanism. Do you know of any such patent? All the granted patents seem to apply to a method without any proof that the method actually works. In contrast, Rossi does not even give the method. This opens the patent to challenge later when the technology starts making money for someone else. Second, a patent that actually describes a working device, such as what Rossi might attempt to get, would apply only to the method used. Yes, it would block use of that method, but nothing else. But, you seem to say that any method shown to reproduce the effect will be blocking regardless of whether this method is understood and the understanding is shown to apply. Presumably, Rossi could get such a patent now if he trusted the system to actually grant and protect. Do you agree? The electrolytic method can be reproduced by a person skilled in the art, but not every time. How often must this replication be accomplished for this rule to apply? Could this claim now be patented once a recipe is described that can replicate nuclear energy? So, the problem is what do the rest of us do who are trying to get money to support research? How does your propose approach help us? Rossi will do what Rossi wants to do. The rest of us need advice. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication: First, I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic has laid to rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal conspiracy is blocking, even though its influence may pervade the much if not most of the world, and that we may, therefore and henceforth focus solely on obtaining backing for development of protected intellectual property -- protected even if in only one jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US patent office's criminal conspiracy. Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found and the patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing investors is identical to that facing any investor in any technology development. Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process reproducibly by those skilled in the art. The argument that someone somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such a disclosure is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given the enormous motive, there has been no generally accepted such replication. Therefore, the first such disclosure will be blocking and subsequent derivative patents must negotiate with the prior art. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger problem. Since patent protection for the basic process is not possible, a patent for the best application is the only protection. This is similar to the situation in mature technologies. However, a great deal of money will be needed to apply CF in the best way, with no assurance that someone else might find a better way before any return on the investment can be realized. Consequently, no incentive is created for seed money from private sources to get involved. This means the seed money has to come from government, which has no interest in getting involved because of the threat to present energy sources. This leaves Rossi as the last man standing, i.e. until a big industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China, and solves the engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this happens, small companies will be able to get money to improve and patent the application to special markets, as is the case for the present mature technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated to a show of nonsense and irrationally. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his investors? I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having paid for a rocket engine patent's international filing. In my situation, there was no option but to obtain a patent in every jurisdiction in the world because it takes only one unprotected jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the profit stream from that technology: Set up a launch and manufacturing facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send their payloads to that jurisdiction. However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different. All it takes is one protected jurisdiction anywhere in the world to realize enormous profits. On
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
OK, so in addition to the conflation of the [criminally conspiratorial US --JAB] patent office with *any reasonable patent office*, we have the conflation of research with development. Clearly, in the context of patent funding, discussion of research funding must be separated from discussion of development funding. The purpose of research is to discover laws of nature and laws of nature are not patentable by *any* patent office*.* The purpose of development is to create useful techniques -- and techniques *are potentially* patentable by *any* patent office. To *any reasonable patent office* these techniques have *only* to be useful and non-obvious; they do * not* have to be scientific except in the broad sense that reproducibility (the operational definition of effective disclosure in *reasonable* patent processes) is the sine qua non of scientific phenomena. On the development funding side, Rossi and or Defkalion, assuming they have actually produced heat on the order they claim, could find *any reasonable patent office*, write a patent disclosure and obtain, within the jurisdiction of the reasonable patent office, protection for their investors. Given the high value of the technology, even a small jurisdiction would provide ample rewards for their investors and that is true even if the disclosure then allowed major players to, on the strength of the signal to noise ratio of the phenomenon, discover the (unpatentable) underlying laws of nature that, then, (possibly by being held as a trade secret for a time) recommended techniques to get around the original unscientific patent. On the research side, the critical event would be the disclosure and/or product which would motivate the major players to get off their butts. Everything would follow from that. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not like any other. First of all, the basic explanation is not accepted. In contrast, the basic explanation is accepted about other technologies. This means that the patent office will not grant a patent based on the basic mechanism or for claims based on nuclear energy being produced by such a mechanism. Do you know of any such patent? All the granted patents seem to apply to a method without any proof that the method actually works. In contrast, Rossi does not even give the method. This opens the patent to challenge later when the technology starts making money for someone else. Second, a patent that actually describes a working device, such as what Rossi might attempt to get, would apply only to the method used. Yes, it would block use of that method, but nothing else. But, you seem to say that any method shown to reproduce the effect will be blocking regardless of whether this method is understood and the understanding is shown to apply. Presumably, Rossi could get such a patent now if he trusted the system to actually grant and protect. Do you agree? The electrolytic method can be reproduced by a person skilled in the art, but not every time. How often must this replication be accomplished for this rule to apply? Could this claim now be patented once a recipe is described that can replicate nuclear energy? So, the problem is what do the rest of us do who are trying to get money to support research? How does your propose approach help us? Rossi will do what Rossi wants to do. The rest of us need advice. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication: First, I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic has laid to rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal conspiracy is blocking, even though its influence may pervade the much if not most of the world, and that we may, therefore and henceforth focus solely on obtaining backing for development of protected intellectual property -- protected even if in only *one* jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US patent office's criminal conspiracy. Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found and the patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing investors is identical to that facing *any* investor in *any *technology development. Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process reproducibly by those skilled in the art. The argument that someone somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such a disclosure is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given the enormous motive, there has been no generally accepted such replication. Therefore, the first such disclosure will be blocking and subsequent derivative patents must negotiate with the prior art. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger problem. Since patent protection for the
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
So that we are clear, James, research is a term used to describe the investigation of anything. The term research can be used to develop an application or to seek commercial use, all of which can be described as requiring research. The term basic research is generally used to describe your definition. Yes, a technique is potentially patentable unless the technique claims to do something the patent office thinks is impossible, which is the case with LENR. Consequently, the rest of the legal language does not apply as long as the claim is considered to be impossible. Let's assume a patent is obtained for a process that is considered by most people to be impossible. How is that patent enforced? I suggest a patent for LENR cannot be defended until the process has been proven to occur and be accepted by the major scientists, i.e. those who might be called on to testify in court. As to your second point, suppose a patent is obtained within the jurisdiction of a reasonable patent office, the information is now available to anyone who wants to make the effect work better. Now I, or other people, can discover how the process actually works, make a change not anticipated in the original patent, and market a better commercial device. This very likely possibility has to keep Rossi up at night. Yes, once the effect can be easy to reproduce, all the big companies will be working hard while the rest of us are ignored. Not a pleasant thought. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:47 PM, James Bowery wrote: OK, so in addition to the conflation of the [criminally conspiratorial US --JAB] patent office with any reasonable patent office, we have the conflation of research with development. Clearly, in the context of patent funding, discussion of research funding must be separated from discussion of development funding. The purpose of research is to discover laws of nature and laws of nature are not patentable by any patent office. The purpose of development is to create useful techniques -- and techniques are potentially patentable by any patent office. To any reasonable patent office these techniques have only to be useful and non- obvious; they do not have to be scientific except in the broad sense that reproducibility (the operational definition of effective disclosure in reasonable patent processes) is the sine qua non of scientific phenomena. On the development funding side, Rossi and or Defkalion, assuming they have actually produced heat on the order they claim, could find any reasonable patent office, write a patent disclosure and obtain, within the jurisdiction of the reasonable patent office, protection for their investors. Given the high value of the technology, even a small jurisdiction would provide ample rewards for their investors and that is true even if the disclosure then allowed major players to, on the strength of the signal to noise ratio of the phenomenon, discover the (unpatentable) underlying laws of nature that, then, (possibly by being held as a trade secret for a time) recommended techniques to get around the original unscientific patent. On the research side, the critical event would be the disclosure and/ or product which would motivate the major players to get off their butts. Everything would follow from that. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not like any other. First of all, the basic explanation is not accepted. In contrast, the basic explanation is accepted about other technologies. This means that the patent office will not grant a patent based on the basic mechanism or for claims based on nuclear energy being produced by such a mechanism. Do you know of any such patent? All the granted patents seem to apply to a method without any proof that the method actually works. In contrast, Rossi does not even give the method. This opens the patent to challenge later when the technology starts making money for someone else. Second, a patent that actually describes a working device, such as what Rossi might attempt to get, would apply only to the method used. Yes, it would block use of that method, but nothing else. But, you seem to say that any method shown to reproduce the effect will be blocking regardless of whether this method is understood and the understanding is shown to apply. Presumably, Rossi could get such a patent now if he trusted the system to actually grant and protect. Do you agree? The electrolytic method can be reproduced by a person skilled in the art, but not every time. How often must this replication be accomplished for this rule to apply? Could this claim now be patented once a recipe is described that can replicate nuclear energy? So, the problem is what do the rest of us do who are trying to get money to support
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
An idea came to me ? If patent were deposited early 2012, when will they be publicated, even if pending ? if one company have good patent which get public, what should they do ? what could they do ? what should they be afraid of? what should they do so ? who claimed to have filed patents in that period? Who was ready for test at that period? ;-) is that hypothesis less credible than a negative one? there is a moment where pessimism is fear. prudence OK,murphy laws OK, but tragedy is not my main hypothesis. 2013/8/13 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com OK, so in addition to the conflation of the [criminally conspiratorial US --JAB] patent On the research side, the critical event would be the disclosure and/or product which would motivate the major players to get off their butts. Everything would follow from that.
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
He cannot do such thing, fortunately. 2013/8/12 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Right now, given that Luca (the only known physics PHd with a track record in the bunch) has suspended biz in Italy due to inconsistencies on the testing, I'm betting incompetence / fraud, but I think a really good test by Defkalion with indie observers (especially a videotaped one) will turn that around significantly. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
Well, then fortunately it will be a great short selling opportunity! Always on the look out for such things. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: He cannot do such thing, fortunately. 2013/8/12 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Right now, given that Luca (the only known physics PHd with a track record in the bunch) has suspended biz in Italy due to inconsistencies on the testing, I'm betting incompetence / fraud, but I think a really good test by Defkalion with indie observers (especially a videotaped one) will turn that around significantly. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
Let me be clear though, I think Defkalion could turn this situation around. Go out strong with Luca (or someone with equal credibility, he's not the only physics PHD with a track record in the world) leading a *simple and clear demonstration* that proves the tech. Allow for a tear down afterwards of everything that shows all the stuff they showed in previous videos regarding the innards. Don't have to do chemical breakdowns of the 'confidential area', but at least let people see all the parts. And if that demo doesn't work perfectly, just do another one that takes into account the criticisms. I think a plan for 3 or 4 demos over a month or so, each addressing all the concerns from the previous is a perfect way to get the extraordinary evidence required. That way, when they go public, their stock price will rocket super high and they can use it invest / hire / acquire great talent and tech to make their company invincible. However, if they go with just what they have so far, I believe they will just end up attracting a lot of me tos who will see their weak demos and feel they will be able to do a better job. These competitors will get money for investment and once their companies start they won't be able to stop. They will write up patents as fast as possible. With a weak IPO, Defkalion will just end up creating a lot of competitors and not much else who will provide alternative investing opportunities and forever undermine their stock offering. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:42 AM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Well, then fortunately it will be a great short selling opportunity! Always on the look out for such things. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: He cannot do such thing, fortunately. 2013/8/12 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Right now, given that Luca (the only known physics PHd with a track record in the bunch) has suspended biz in Italy due to inconsistencies on the testing, I'm betting incompetence / fraud, but I think a really good test by Defkalion with indie observers (especially a videotaped one) will turn that around significantly. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
From: blaze spinnaker The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st...is that they will soon either provide extraordinary evidence or they are a fraud (and therefore an obvious short selling opportunity). Wrong. There is almost no stock market regulation in Canada. There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump. According to WSJ - Canada produces more stock market fraud than other countries and the penalties are light when you get caught. Unlike the major industrial nations, Canada has no national regulatory agency for securities - but leaves the task to the provinces, which pursue oversight with varying degrees of enthusiasm. And efforts at reform have been a joke. They would probably not extradite anyone from Europe, if and when this turns out to be complete fraud. Guess what? That lack of regulation in Canada could be related to the real reason these guys went to Vancouver in the first place - but never really set up a Lab there and instead did the demo in Europe. And has Alex not gone back to Greece permanently? That is the rumor. In effect - the whole thing about the move to Vancouver seems like it could be a ruse and a con - done solely to get the company listed on a largely unregulated stock market, but in an area where there is lots of investment capital due to the shale oil boom (unlike Greece). This ploy of DGT stinks - if that is really what is happening. I do not have the information to say for sure but it is clear that if DGT really have valid LENR technology- then they could not have handled it in a worse way. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump. Read that sentence over to yourself a dozen times or so. Eventually you'll realize you just logically said A !A. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: blaze spinnaker The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st...is that they will soon either provide extraordinary evidence or they are a fraud (and therefore an obvious short selling opportunity). Wrong. There is almost no stock market regulation in Canada. There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump. According to WSJ - Canada produces more stock market fraud than other countries and the penalties are light when you get caught. Unlike the major industrial nations, Canada has no national regulatory agency for securities - but leaves the task to the provinces, which pursue oversight with varying degrees of enthusiasm. And efforts at reform have been a joke. They would probably not extradite anyone from Europe, if and when this turns out to be complete fraud. Guess what? That lack of regulation in Canada could be related to the real reason these guys went to Vancouver in the first place - but never really set up a Lab there and instead did the demo in Europe. And has Alex not gone back to Greece permanently? That is the rumor. In effect - the whole thing about the move to Vancouver seems like it could be a ruse and a con - done solely to get the company listed on a largely unregulated stock market, but in an area where there is lots of investment capital due to the shale oil boom (unlike Greece). This ploy of DGT stinks - if that is really what is happening. I do not have the information to say for sure but it is clear that if DGT really have valid LENR technology- then they could not have handled it in a worse way.
