It could be that Rossi has received some US Government order associated with
the new patents he has been working on or one or more of the patents listed in
Exhibit B of the Agreement between IH, Rossi and others, making them secret.
That is the reason the complaint was filed in the Federal Court in Miami
instead of the local Miami Civil Circuit Court, which was the specified
location in the original agreement for resolution of disagreements between IH
and Rossi and others who are parties to the Agreement. The local Civil Court
could not handle such secrecy.
Rossi was probably advised that the local Miami court would not handle the
Civil suit or got the Courts advice to this effect.
IH does not want to pay because the good IP is now secret under US law, and the
provisions of section 13.4 providing for sharing IP stemming from the listed IP
in Exhibit B of the Agreement are moot.
I think the Agreement does provide for sharing new technology developed by the
“IH Team” which Rossi was part of—see Section 13.4 noted above. Note that
the Exhibit list includes a patent for conversion of photons into electricity.
However, it is not clear whether or not this patent is valid for conversion of
charged particles into a EMF or other source of electricity. It may be this
invention that is at the center of any secrecy order. In my mind such a
invention would have a lot of military significance and would probably become
the target of a US secrecy order.
Secrecy Orders can throw monkey wrenches into the best laid plans of inventors
and venture capitalists IMHO. IH may be in hot water with their backers. I do
not know what they can do to back away from facts they have provided such
backers when faced with a secrecy order. That concern may have been the reason
for the Dutch entity IH formed to transfer pertinent IP to it, which may be
outside the scope of a potential future order. It may have been that when the
Dutch company was formed there was no secrecy established yet under the US
invention secrecy act, which was written about 1951---and old liability for
inventors associated with new strategic inventions—especially those of
military significance and energy production.
All the above thoughts are merely my conjectures, and I have no knowledge of
their reality or budding reality.
Bob Cook
From: Teslaalset
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 1:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
It seems to me that the whole clash between IH and Rossi is not about patents
or test results but about progress that Rossi has been making (and probably
still is making) which is not clearly included in the agreements. The original
agreement was made when Rossi was concentrating on the so-called 'hotcat'
technology. In case the hotcat concept would work within the boundaries of the
agreement IH would pay Rossi the remaining millions. This included the trade
secrets to prepare the hotcat 'fuel' which is not described sufficiently in the
patent applications. All this includes a working concept based on hotcat
technology able to work with COP => 6.
Meanwhile Rossi has made significant progress in understanding how his hotcat
process works and can be improved. He calls this the x-cat technology, the next
generation e-cat technology. These insights and progression makes hotcat
methods probably obsolete because of x-cat superiority. In my view the whole
fight that emerged between IH and Rossi is not whether conditions have been
met, but whether knowledge of the x-cat should be included or not.
Rossi points out that the 'old' conditions in the agreement are still met
(implemented with hotcat methods) and that IH therefore should fulfil the
agreed payment. For IH this hotcat knowledge transfer is not profitable anymore
now Rossi has his x-cat technology in his pocket.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's your belief. If you are satisfied with it, then it's good. It doesn't
matter now. If what Rossi says is true, the technology will soon spread.
Otherwise, it's all a lie.
2016-04-09 22:56 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>:
Defkalion never responded to Gamberale. They never disputed the report, or
published a rebuttal. So I am confident Gamberale's version of events is
accurate.
- Jed
