We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication: First, I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic has laid to rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal conspiracy is blocking, even though its influence may pervade the much if not most of the world, and that we may, therefore and henceforth focus solely on obtaining backing for development of protected intellectual property -- protected even if in only *one* jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US patent office's criminal conspiracy.
Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found and the patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing investors is identical to that facing *any* investor in *any *technology development. Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process reproducibly by those "skilled in the art". The argument that someone somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such a disclosure is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given the enormous motive, there has been no generally accepted such replication. Therefore, the first such disclosure will be blocking and subsequent derivative patents must negotiate with the prior art. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger > problem. Since patent protection for the basic process is not possible, a > patent for the best application is the only protection. This is similar to > the situation in mature technologies. However, a great deal of money will > be needed to apply CF in the best way, with no assurance that someone else > might find a better way before any return on the investment can be > realized. Consequently, no incentive is created for seed money from private > sources to get involved. This means the seed money has to come from > government, which has no interest in getting involved because of the threat > to present energy sources. This leaves Rossi as the last man standing, > i.e. until a big industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China, > and solves the engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this > happens, small companies will be able to get money to improve and patent > the application to special markets, as is the case for the present mature > technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated to a show of nonsense > and irrationally. > > Ed > > On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his investors? > > I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having paid for a > rocket engine patent <http://www.google.co.in/patents/US6212876>'s > international filing. In my situation, there was no option but to obtain a > patent in every jurisdiction in the world because it takes only *one un > protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the > profit stream from that technology: Set up a launch and manufacturing > facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send their > payloads to that jurisdiction. > > However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different. All it > takes is *one* *protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to realize > enormous profits. > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well >> was poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept ANY >> patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided conclusion, both >> of which created a legal situation that doomed any serious study of CF. >> Now the expected and natural consequences are being experienced. Rossi may >> eventually be the last man standing because he found the secret recipe and >> used his own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy >> by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this technology. >> >> Ed >> >> On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to >>> benefit >>> from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that >>> they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. >>> >>> It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have >>> available. >>> Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that >>> they >>> must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to >>> Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather >>> keep silent about: >>> >>> books.google.com/books?isbn=**1553672070<http://books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070> >>> >>> Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the >>> context of what we know to be historically true. >>> >>> We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate >>> scam on >>> top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and >>> patented >>> by someone else). >>> >>> Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in Italy >>> was >>> basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in >>> November >>> is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net negative >>> for the rest of the field. It is called "poisoning the well". >>> >>> DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much >>> longer >>> from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to >>> infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. >>> No >>> VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the >>> energy >>> is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on. >>> >>> If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe that >>> they >>> do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they should >>> proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a University >>> or >>> Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead business >>> plan, >>> which is most of the problem. >>> >>> It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a >>> scientist. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
