Re: [Vo]:National Instruments signs to do E-Cat controls Mary Yugo Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:44:09 -0800
>> The deal with Rossi sounds much more like an OEM contract, and they are >> very >> likely to have done some diligence on it. Just the risk of adverse PR >> (which they are already experiencing, >> I suspect) would require a reasonable return on the cost of the perceived >> risk. >What due diligence do you think they did? And how do you know? And whose >word are we relying on about the need to label the panel with the maker's >logo? Yes, I read the peswiki.com statement that NI approved their >writeup. Maybe they didn't read it as carefully as they should have. >Peswiki.com also endorses, promotes and tries to actually raise funds for >UFO stories, conspiracies, and free energy perpetual motion schemes that >can't possibly be anything other than rank scams. They (and Sterling Allan >and Hank Mills) are not usually a reliable source of information. >If the contract with NI is the best available evidence that Rossi's kludge >works, that's a pretty sad commentary. On the other hand, if NI conducted >independent tests of it, that would be very interesting. However, nothing >I read remotely suggests that. Mary -- I don't know they did diligence: as noted above, I said I thought it likely. We have Rossi's comment in public about the labeling clause, which NI can take exception to if not true. I've done OEM deals: ones which allow, let alone require, public branding typically have required approval from management (read: director or VP level), and press releases will require approval, passing legal, and importantly, _making business sense_. If NI were concerned about risk, they could have offered a deal prohibiting any publicity. I've seen my share of those, too. :-( This proves nothing, of course. But personally, I'm not demanding proof. I'm interested in information and data. I can draw my own conclusions ...
