Eric-- Yes. I agree that Agreement language is broad. I read it several times. I would note that the key to the scope of what is involved is the term “which relates to E-Cat IP.” The definition of the E-Cat IP comes out in the first “Whereas” in the Agreement. As you have noted it includes the Hot Cat IP as spelled out in the Hot Cat Patent Application in the US per an exhibit to the Agreement. It does not apply to the Quark X invention. I think that is where Rossi drew the line.
As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous patents for something—the Quark X IMHO. When this came out IH got upset I would imagine. They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for only the E-Cat IP license. And that is where it stands now. All this happened after Woodford’s contribution to IH. If they and IH decide to give up on the E-Cat IP development, that is surely a reasonable investment decision. I do not think the IH and Darden were cognizant of the future developments when recruiting Woodford. It was merely ignorance of the technology possible, associated with the field of LENR, as well as, the near term obsolescence of E-Cat IP. At the time of the Agreement signing, I doubt that IH knew the Quark X was in the offing. Or else it would have certainly been included in the scope spelled out in 13.4. The Agreement did not address the idea that Rossi had to reveal all his knowledge—thoughts. This would be akin to revealing undocumented trade secrets for anything Rossi may know. That clearly is not spelled out and would probably not be enforceable, since the secrets were only ideas in Rossi’s head. It’s art knowhow as provided in patent specifications. However, IMHO the cost to IH for even getting Rossi to license the E-Cat IP was $100.5 M. In other places of the Agreement, there were limits on the time Rossi was obligated to help the IH team learn the art necessary to produce a COP of 6. I think that obligated teaching ran out half way through the 1 year test. In any case it did not IMHO apply to extra research Rossi was doing on his own time to perfect the Quark X invention. Early on Rossi noted the great IH team. This language stopped when his team work ended about September 2015 I think. About that time Rossi may have initiated the complaint that was ready to go at the end of the 1 year period, knowing full well from the periodic ERV reports that the testing on the E-Cat with 4 modules and 52 separate reactors would work out positive. Rossi never started work on an E-Cat factory. I think it was because he realized the Quark X direct electricity production was what would work best in society. I think he is right. It seems he is not proceeding along the better option in Sweden where he perceives his efforts will be least resisted and maybe even encouraged by the Swedish government. He seems to have the ear of the Royal Academy and the Nobel Association, which may give him some sway there, more so than elsewhere. As Lennart will probably agree with, a good business climate with government support is pretty important. >From my standpoint, it is too bad that the United States has not been more >supportive, particularly in advising of the overall acceptance of LENR >technology. However, I understand that such a progressive position would not >be liked by the established financial interests, since it would hasten their >“oxen getting gored”. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent 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 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 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
