Higgins-- A key question is what constitutes “Intellectual Property” legally. The IP identified in the contract did not spell out the “art” of operating a plant built in accordance with the design described in the patent and the other documents listed in the contract that were transferred to IH. And furthermore there was no requirement for Rossi to relate to IH everything he kept in his head, undocumented. For example his ideas about further development of the Quark-X invention.
I thought at the time when the miracles that the Quark-X was demonstrating per the reactor operators was what caused IH to have second thoughts as to the worth of the technology represented by the E-Cat really was in light of potential competition from the Quark-X in the future. Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future inventions and related IP to IH. The E-Cat control system, to my knowledge, has not been specified very well. IMHO the control system operation requires substantial “art” involving a complex integration of various parameters that Rossi has not documented, but has come to be able to manipulate in an effective way by trial and error learning, which he has kept to himself. (The science of Rossi’s Ni-H LENR+ would be revealed by how control is accomplished.) Is this undocumented “art” required to be taught to IH by the contract? I could not find such a requirement in the contract. I think the reason for the absence of such a requirement was IH’s lack of understanding as to the LENR technology, not unexpected from a venture capitalist with a minimum of technical staff on hand to advise as to technical provisions in the contract. Due diligence may not have been accomplished by IH. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 3:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow. Perhaps someone could remind me of the terms of the GPT. I thought I remembered that the GPT had to achieve at least a COP>=4 for 250 days continuously. I don't think it required anything like the 1 MW output. Perhaps Rossi created the 1MW array of devices as a "reactor" to give himself the flexibility under computer control to swap out non-functional or marginally-functional units so as to maintain his COP over the reliability period. That would be a shrewd way of maintaining his claim of continuous reliability. So, not making 1MW is not a problem for the GPT (I think). Even having a COP << than what was reported is not a problem, as long as it is found to have a COP of at least the minimum requirement of the GPT. The very high reported COP could be a ruse to have the real, much lower COP (but greater than the GPT requirement), come out by independent analysis as a surprise twist in the case. Perhaps the validity of the "customer" may be a sticky legal point, but it may be just a semantic and the court, particularly a jury, could overlook it. There is the other sticky point for Rossi - he has not lived up to his end of the bargain in usefully transferring the technology into IH so that they can make a product. That's what they paid $11M for. Technology transfer would seem to be a prerequisite to beginning the GPT. If Rossi is making a case for having a COP of at least 4 (to use that number for the GPT), how can he not have transferred that technology to IH before the GPT? Had he done this, everybody would be happy today. This is certain to weigh in a jury's decision.
