Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: Complete nonsense. That issue is easily solved by black box testing using > a reliable and trusted friend of cold fusion or a university laboratory > with secret clearance. >
You misunderstand. The technical issues would be resolved, but this would probably not help resolve his patent and intellectual property problems. It would probably make them worse. As McKubre says, Rossi is trying to keep things ambiguous to fend off the competition. Without a patent he will have nothing. He needs time to get a patent, get more funding, and pull ahead of his competition. > Why not trust a university to do a quick test with proper safeguards for > the IP? It happens all the time. > Because there would be no business advantage to doing this. > The explanation also does not explain why Rossi did not take the advice of > sympathetic people like Jed Rothwell to improve his test methods. > It does explain this. I agree with Mike McKubre and others about his motivations. Look, I do not think this is a good business strategy. I admit he faces a tough situation with few good choices. However, you are completely wrong when you say this is crazy behavior, or there is no reason for it, or it is unprecedented. It makes sense as a business strategy. You may not like it, but it makes sense. You apparently have little understanding of business or intellectual property, so you probably do not understand why this make sense. > Equally relevant, there is no protection of IP whatever if Rossi really > sold a system as he claims. > Yes, there is. Or there could be, anyway, with a patent pending and a good sales contract. If he sold the reactors to the U.S. military he has nothing to worry about. Those people are scrupulously honest, in my experience. In that instance, the customer can easily take apart the devices and > submit them to analysis and reverse engineering. If there are written > agreements, it's low risk to break them, especially if it's done in a > foreign country and far away. > This may be the case, but Rossi needs money. He has no good choices here. It is between bad and worse. The rest of us are in no position to second-guess his business strategy. > The idea that secrecy motivates Rossi because of a need to protect IP is > way less likely than that the motivation is simply that he's committing > fraud. > You think that because you do not understand intellectual property and you are predisposed to think it is fraud. There is no evidence of fraud here. None whatever. - Jed
