From: Eric Walker
Ø In other words, I don't think there is a need to presume that fraud involved. Eric, you are trying to gloss over unscrupulous conduct. It stinks no matter what name you put on it. If you admit that there was deceit of any kind, I have listed circumstance which would convert that deceit into serious fraud – possibly criminal fraud. However, “fraud” itself does not require that a crime has been committed and the fact is undeniable that thousands of dollars have been wasted by serious scientists trying to validate what turns out to be a dishonest report, one which was crafted to have the appearance of a scientific experiment. That is fraudulent in itself, but not criminal. Rossi’s conduct would amount to criminal fraud if 1) A falsified report was submitted to USPTO as evidence of utility or as scientific validation – in order to get a patent 2) The report was to serve as a milestone in a contract , such that money would be paid on successful completion There are other circumstances, such as: If other licensees were enticed, or if investment shares were sold or renewed based on the report … or if the deceit was used in furtherance of any monetary transfer.
