Hi Bob, As I reread the relevant section of the license agreement, I am startled by how broad the language is. It covers the existing IP as well as any derivative works and future inventions. It is one of those paragraphs in a contract where, if I were the signing party, I would wonder how a negotiating party could ask for so much. See section 13.4 and take a moment to read through it:
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf Unfortunately I cannot copy and paste it here. Eric On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Lennart and Eric-- > > I see where Eric is coming from regarding the Hot Cat being part of the > E-Cat IP for which Rossi licenses use by the Company (IH). > > However, the only place it is apparently covered by a document (appendix > to the agreement) is as a patent application. The validation test in > Italy and the 1 year test were accomplished on the E-Cat. The Hot Cat > specifications I have not seen written anywhere. They may be in the patent > application. They are not specified in the Agreement unless its via the > Patent application. > > If you (Eric) think there is anything in the agreement that speaks of > providing IP associated with exceeding a COP of 6 (or an inference of > this), I would be interested in a paragraph reference. > > I think that by the definition of IP its scope only includes tangible > information—data, documents, pictures, drawings, recordings, etc. It does > not seem to include knowledge that is contained in ones brain and not > otherwise recorded. Such knowledge is not property IMHO. The only > reasonable obligation Rossi had, was to document operational procedures for > the E-Cat to achieve a COP of 6. The Patent for the control system for > the E-Cat may not have included details to allow exceeding the COP of 6. > > However, if the Company invents such improved controls that provide > operation at a higher COP they will own that IP and could obtain an > applicable patent it seems, all in accordance with the Agreement. > > I agree with Daniel that the Quark X invention is separate and would not > fall within the E-Cat IP defined by the Agreement. > > As noted in previous comments, I consider this may be the issue that is > upsetting to IH, since such a device would upstage the E-Cat and Hot Cat > alike. The Quark X may not even use Ni as a fuel. If as Rossi says, it > produces direct electricity as well as heat, it clearly would be a > different invention from the Cats. Rossi would be free to market the > Quark X in the US and the other areas licensed to IH for the E Cats. > > I would have guessed that Rossi was not too uncomfortable with the broad > scope of the agreement, given his ongoing research and appreciation of the > science behind the Rossi Effect. I think he was careful not to let the > scope of the agreement extend to the Quark X technology, which he knew was > around the corner and would make the E-Cat and Hot Cat inventions less > important. > > Bob Cook > > *From:* Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:17 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent > > Lennart, > > I said that with more confidence than is warranted. I am not a lawyer, so > I do not know how to interpret a license agreement, how the court will > interpret this particular agreement, or what IH and Rossi should have put > in it with the benefit of hindsight. But I suggest to anyone who is > interested in the question of what improvements to the E-Cat technology are > covered by the agreement to read through it for these details, as perhaps > you have done. One will see that the language is very broad. Perhaps > Daniel is correct that the QuarkX would not be covered by it; presumably in > that case the QuarkX is not a derivative work. > > One might speculate that if Rossi had anything at all he might have felt > very uncomfortable with the broad scope of the agreement, being acquainted > with his personality and temperament. > > Eric > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> > wrote: > >> Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is >> one of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not >> specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their >> shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:) >> IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the >> detailss then who to blaim.??? >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +1 916 436 1899 <%2B1%20916%20436%201899> >> >> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and >> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) >> >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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 read the license agreement quite differently. It had language >>> pertaining to all future improvements. The language sounded like it >>> readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X. The contract also >>> stipulated that Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to >>> make use of his technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they >>> would be interesting. Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the >>> license agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard. >>> >>> With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent >>> applications filed by Rossi. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >> > >
