On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> He claimed that DGT learned Rossi's trade secret. He did not say DGT >> "stole" it. He stated this publicly because he wanted to persuade people >> that DGT could build a working reactor without Rossi's help. >> > > He said they examined the powder with a mass spec in violation of > agreements with Rossi, and without Rossi's knowledge. That is theft of > trade secrets. Some of the people negotiating with him were appalled, as > was I. Maybe you do not think this is theft, and maybe Xanthoulis does not > think it is, but by the standards of U.S. business ethics, it is theft and > will surely mean Defkalion is not free to sell the product and they will be > tied up in civil suits for years if they try to sell it. > > I am pretty sure there will be no civil suit for trade secret theft, > because as far as I know they do not have a working product. Maybe they > tried to steal the secret, but they failed. > > This was the press release from Rossi when he severed ties with DGT: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3228357.ece/BINARY/Defkalion+EFA+breach+press+release+(pdf) If Rossi was right then DGT has never known the secret. Rossi said elsewhere that DGT was just peddling a mock-up which they were going to later fill with one of his e-cat units when they became available on the market. Harry > The people at Defkalion Europe (DE) declared themselves out of business as > soon they discovered the claims were false and the machine does not produce > excess heat. I and others have praised them for doing this. In point of > fact, they had to do that. Any other course of action would be criminal > fraud. Once you know your product does not work, you have stop selling it. > They deserve praise for doing this quickly and decisively, and for warning > their customers. They deserve praise for telling Defkalion, and for > publishing the report. > > Defkalion has known their claims are wrong at least since the day after > ICCF18, and probably much longer. Yet they are still in business, and they > still claim it works. If it was was not fraud up until ICCF18, it surely is > now. > > (It might have been an idiotic mistake up until ICCF18, but I think that > is very unlikely, given all the times I and others warned them to do > reality check tests.) > > - Jed > >
