dear Bob, I want publish this as an OPINION PAPER.. OK? best wishes, Peter
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:53 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric— > > > > I have reviewed the entire Agreement and Amendments between Rossi etal. > and IH etal. > > > > The definition of E-Cat IP at paragraph 16.1 and the listing of E-Cat IP > in the Exhibit A make it clear that IP does not include intangibles. Only > documents, records and other forms of documented data and information are > included. And training agreed to be provided by Rossi relates to the IP > and procedures listed in Exhibit A. > > > > I see nothing in the Agreement and Amendments that would require Rossi > somehow to inform IH of the art associated with the plant operation. As I > noted in my earlier comment, I think this was a major mistake and omission > from the standpoint of IH and/or their technical and legal advisors at the > time of the agreement. > > > > If I were IH, The agreement would have required a lengthy training period > for my operators and maintenance crew on a smaller prototype reactor that > would be produced for sale. Operation and maintenance procedures would > have to be validated as satisfactory per rigorous testing at the end of the > training. This training would parallel the reliability testing for the > 350 days specified in the agreement. > > > > The scope of what would constitute “related E-Cat IP”, a term used in the > agreement, is so vague as to be meaningless IMHO. This is particularly > true since the theory/science of the E-Cat are not accepted. How could the > idea of a related technology have any common understanding within the > context of the agreement. Thus, I found nothing that could obligate Rossi > to give IH cart blanc information on any invention he developed after > initiation of the Agreement. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Eric Walker <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:37 PM > *To: *[email protected] > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. > Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is > blunderingwith.Seebelow. > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future > inventions and related IP to IH. > > > > These obligations were spelled out in the original License Agreement and > its amendments, i.e., docs. 1-2 through 1-4. I recommend reviewing these > when you have a moment (here titled 001-02, 001-03 and 001-04): > > > > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk > > > > I think the Second Amendment is in dispute. But most of the details are > in the License Agreement, doc. 1-2. > > > > Eric > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
