The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms of the Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert judgement, the terms of the licence agreement were met. The Judge will then rule that the terms of the licence agreement were met and that 89 million must be paid to Rossi.
What Rossi thinks or does, if the e-cat works or not, if a teapot is used to make hot water, what IH thinks or does are all immaterial to this arbitration. The key to the legal case is the judgement of the ERV since he is the absolute agent of arbitration. All the other noise is immaterial to the legal case at hand. After the favorable ruling by the judge in favor of Rossi, if I were Rossi's lawyer, I would request an injunction to prohibit IH from selling any LENR based product until it is proved in court, that all these IH products contain no Rossi IP. On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now. >> > > IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have > any IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as > it stands now, and as it will always stand. > > > If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to >> pay Rossi the 89 million? >> > >> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the >> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products? >> > > As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I > cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well > be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure. > > It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW > reactor does not work. > > - Jed > >
