On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
It is not that clear. Rossi maintains IH have not fulfilled the terms of > the agreement and his lawyer has issued a public statement saying that IH's > license has been withdrawn for said reason. So who owns what will be > income for lawyers for a long time I imagine. There maybe IP in the new > 250KW E-Cat's for example. Weren't IH complaining that he didn't use the > original E-Cats that were on standby? It is a stretch to argue that ownership of the physical 1MW plant, obtained with the first 1.5 million dollars, is mixed up with the licensing of the E-Cat IP, obtained with the subsequent 10 million dollars. Whatever IP or trade secrets went into the 1MW plant, presumably their physical embodiments are now the property of IH, prior to any licensing question. Perhaps Rossi has a case that IH have not satisfied their side of the licensing agreement with regard to the IP, in which case they just have a 1MW plant. I do not see how Rossi could argue that they have not paid up for the 1MW plant. Perhaps these two things are tied up together. That is something a lawyer will know more about. But pending such a clarification, one is strongly tempted to conclude that IH have more than adequately satisfied the terms of the actual *acquisition* of the plant. They *may* have a basis for claiming damages from Rossi for switching out the original modules that were purchased with the plant and replacing them with others later on during the test which IH had not purchased and did not approve of. I suppose that would depend upon the details, e.g., whether the original modules are still around, and how irritated IH get with Rossi's ongoing miscalculations. Eric
