The only way to steal IP from a patent (other than producing and selling in secret) is to make changes, possibly ones that give you a superior technology that is not protected by their patent that you then patent. ' Patents are about giving IP freely, but protecting the rights.
Thinking about it, patents might become useless with advances in 3D printing, where a consumer can make a file, share the file (because it is not the thing itself) so others with no effort can print up the invention. But as we reach a robotopia we are again going to have to find different ways of distributing things. John On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > It would seem the only PHOSITA that was required by the agreement was for >> the low temperature E-Cat. Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers >> what was necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6. That >> is all the patent identified. >> > > I did not realize that. However, my point still stands. Assuming the 1 MW > gadget works -- > > If he gets a patent later for it, that will protect him. Neither I.H. nor > any other company will be able to "steal" the technology. They will have it > for free, but they will not be able to sell it. That is how patents work. > > If he cannot patent the 1 MW reactor for some reason, he will have no > protection at all. Something this important cannot be protected with trade > secrets. It will be reverse engineered. > > However, this is mere fantasy. Or alternative history. In fact, the 1 MW > gadget does not work, so there is no intellectual property, and a patent > would be meaningless. A patent for an invention that does not work is void. > > > >> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in >> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO. I think that is what >> is grating to IH . . . >> > > No, what is grating to IH is that they paid $11 million for something that > does not work. At all. As they said, they could not substantiate it. > > > >> The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant >> they produced to go above a COP of around 6. >> > > That is incorrect. The plant was made by Rossi. It never went above 1. It > is well below 1 in the fluid because of losses from the reactor. > > I have not heard that the I.H. engineering team ever made a plant. Perhaps > they did; I have only a little inside information. However, in their press > releases the only thing they discuss is the reactor made by Rossi. All my > comments about calorimetry pertain only to Rossi's device. I have no > knowledge of any other machine. > > > >> It would seem they want to be trained further to improve their PHOSITA. >> > > This has nothing to do with the ability or inability of the I.H. team to > replicate. The only issue is that Rossi is unable to make his machine > produce excess heat. He was given a year to do it, but he failed. > > At least, that is what I.H. claims, and what my analysis shows. Rossi, of > course, claims that it does work. You will have to see the data before you > can take sides. > > >> > >> I do not blame them for that want, but..... >> > > There is no such want. You misunderstand. What you think happened here *did > not* happen. > > > >> However, IMHO Rossi does not have any obligation to do that training. >> > > As I said, training is not the issue. I.H. has never mentioned it. Perhaps > Rossi did; I don't follow his blog, but I.H. is not contesting this. The > issue is, he cannot make his machine produce excess heat. > > - Jed > >
