Article: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Rossi-IH Case

Thanks to an ECW reader for forwardig to me a link to an article that appeared on the legal research website Law360 on May 17 2017, reporting on the decision by federal judge Cecilia Altonaga who is presiding over the Rossi-IH ase to deny requests by both legal teams to decide the case on summary judgment. This decision sets the case up to go to jury trial.

Only a portion of the article is available without registration but it gives the essence of the story. The judge stated that it was not the court’s prerogative to review the disputes of fact in the case.

The article is here: https://www.law360.com/articles/925215/energy-cos-denied-quick-wins-in-89m-ip-licensing-dispute

The trial is scheduled to begin near the end of June and to last about two weeks.

  • Bill

    If You want to read more, goooogle the artikles headline and view “in cache” under the arrow . Works with quite a lot of those paywalled artikles….

    • Chapman

      Nice, concise article, but your trick to VIEW the article is AWESOME!!!

      THANKS! That is one neat trick!!! 🙂

      • You can also Google the article’s headline and click directly on the link in the search result. This is perfectly ok and depends on an agreement between Google and a number of publishers that have paywalls (forcing people to pay for a subscription to read content) but still want to let people google content and read what they found since clicking on a link and not being able to read creates frustration.
        If you copy the exakt same link you got from Google and paste it in a new browser window, however, you will not get the full article.
        In cases when the Google link won’t give you the full article there are other workarounds that are less ok, formally.

        • Chapman

          I love keeping up on the news from Britain, and it gets frustrating following articles at The Telegraph for that exact reason.

          I understand sites needing to provide content on a paid basis, but it is a pain in the butt when you are following a published link, only to be told that access is restricted to subscribers.

          Again, I am a capitalist pig, so I am not complaining that they have no right to generate revenue! I say God Bless them, and wish them all the best. I am only expressing annoyance at being teased with content they are not willing to share openly.

          The relationship you describe that they have with Google is very interesting, and seems like a honest attempt to address the issue. Thank You for pointing it out.

    • Eyedoc

      Nice work around, Bill !!

      • It must be browswer specific. I don’t see “in cache” anywhere on Chrome

        • cashmemorz

          Go to a tab or window where you have specified “Google Search”. When you are there, input the wording for the site as shown in the main text of this thread:

          https://www.law360.com/articles/925215/energy-cos-denied-quick-wins-in-89m-ip-licensing-dispute

          Copy and paste that into the place for inputting your query and press enter or the search character at the end of the line where you input the address. When the display shows a list of possible answers look the one that looks most like the one you want. At the end of the top line, usually in blue, you will find a downward pointing triangle. That is the arrow mentioned. Put your cursor on that arrow and click your mouse or tap tour screen at that point. A drop down menu will appear below that point. In that menu you will see several choices. One of the choices has the word “cache”. click or choose that. When the display shows the article you want, it will be overlaid almost immediately with a pop up ad that asks you to register etc. That pop up has an x at the top right corner. Click on that and the pop up disappears. Then the whole article can be read normally.

  • Bill

    If You want to read more, goooogle the artikles headline and view “in cache” under the arrow . Works with quite a lot of those paywalled artikles….

    • Chapman

      Nice, concise article, but your trick to VIEW the article is AWESOME!!!

      THANKS! That is one neat trick!!! 🙂

      • You can also Google the article’s headline and click directly on the link in the search result. This is perfectly ok and depends on an agreement between Google and a number of publishers that have paywalls (forcing people to pay for a subscription to read content) but still want to let people google content and read what they found since clicking on a link and not being able to read creates frustration.
        If you copy the exakt same link you got from Google and paste it in a new browser window, however, you will not get the full article.
        In cases when the Google link won’t give you the full article there are other workarounds that are less ok, formally.

        • Chapman

          I love keeping up on the news from Britain, and it gets frustrating following articles at The Telegraph for that exact reason.

          I understand sites needing to provide content on a paid basis, but it is a pain in the butt when you are following a published link, only to be told that access is restricted to subscribers.

          Again, I am a capitalist pig, so I am not complaining that they have no right to generate revenue! I say God Bless them, and wish them all the best. I am only expressing annoyance at being teased with content they are not willing to share openly.

          The relationship you describe that they have with Google is very interesting, and seems like a honest attempt to address the issue. Thank You for pointing it out.

    • Eyedoc

      Nice work around, Bill !!

      • It must be browswer specific. I don’t see “in cache” anywhere on Chrome

        • cashmemorz

          Go to a tab or window where you have specified “Google Search”. When you are there, input the wording for the site as shown in the main text of this thread:

          https://www.law360.com/articles/925215/energy-cos-denied-quick-wins-in-89m-ip-licensing-dispute

          Copy and paste that into the place for inputting your query and press enter or the search character at the end of the line where you input the address. When the display shows a list of possible answers look at the one that looks most like the one you want. At the end of the top line, usually in blue, you will find a downward pointing triangle. That is the arrow mentioned. Put your cursor on that arrow and click your mouse or tap your screen at that point. A drop down menu will appear below that point. In that menu you will see several choices. One of the choices has the word “cache”. click or choose that. When the display shows the article you want, it will be overlaid almost immediately with a pop up ad that asks you to register etc. That pop up has an x at the top right corner. Click on that and the pop up disappears. Then the whole article can be read normally.

  • f sedei

    This is a definite win for Rossi, and a worst possible scenario for IH. The compassion of the jury is the key to winning this case. An adept attorney will capitalize on that compassion to the hilt. Stay tuned. Really getting exciting, now.

    • nietsnie

      I dunno… I think Rossi has to contend against a jury giving an award to a company essentially claiming to have perfected cold fusion. IH will hammer that. To the average person that still goes against every instinct. It would be like siding with the guy who contends he knew because he reads minds, or for the one who claims he was abducted by aliens. I think Rossi had a very good chance in a non-jury trial. But, now…

      • HS61AF91

        If a tiny chip can hold a million photos, not so hard for the average juror to believe cold fusion happens, albeit it does, and it’s currently hard to hide that fact. A jury is a fickle thing that renders a judgement upon which truth descends like a cloak of honor. Only things contrary are the judge calls a mistrial, or the losing attorney appeals. Two weeks to validate 7 years of demonstration… amazing.

        • nietsnie

          It was not so hard for the average person to believe in 1989. NOW – it’s much harder because it has a rep.

          • US_Citizen71

            You are forgetting where this is being tried. Checkout the archives here: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/strange/floriduh-blog/

            Appeals to emotion will likely work in this trial. Evil corrupt lawyers that are trying to swindle a hard working man that will not play well for IH. Attacks on Rossi’s character may not have the effect desired either. One must remember NASCAR is big in Florida and NASCAR has it’s roots in running moonshine. Southerns have a special place in their hearts for the little guy standing up to the Man, no matter if the action is legal or not.

          • Chapman

            You may be on to something there.

            Rossi DOES bear a certain resemblance to Popcorn Sutton, and if he went in there pounding on the fact that “Darden is just some high-falootin’ yankee money man from New York City, thinkin he can come down here and swindle an honest man…” well, who knows WHAT might happen!

          • nietsnie

            Well… I hope you’re right. Rossi clearly believes a jury gives him an advantage – since he requested it. I just don’t see it, myself. All the facts are on his side. Why screw around with emotion?

        • I’ve seen a jury say that DNA evidence (which generated 8billion to 1 odds that it was incorrect) was ‘nuthin’ compared to a glove that supposedly didn’t fit OJ Simpson.

          And yet a few months later another jury found him financially liable for the deaths of his exwife and her lover.

          And even well educated congresscritters couldn’t follow the DNA evidence on a blue dress to prove perjury.

          Jurors sometimes follow Occham’s Razor, and other times don’t. I suppose it depends on whether a cultural icon is on trial.

      • GiveADogABone

        My advice would be to forget ‘cold fusion’; rephrase that as ‘mass destruction’ or ‘E=m.c^2’. The equation states explicitly that mass can convert to energy.

        Do you, and more importantly will the jury, believe that the sun[1:], nuclear power stations and atomic bombs work? Have the sun, nuclear power stations and atomic bombs ‘perfected’ mass destruction?

        IH state as their first sentence in their ‘Statement of the Case’ that ‘Plaintiffs claim to have invented a technology called the “E-Cat” capable of violating the law of conservation of energy by producing far more energy than it consumes.’

        I am sure Rossi can explain the Einstein equation E=m.c^2 and some of its consequences to the court, while leaving out the worst of the maths. ‘Hammering’ Einstein is one tough, self-imposed task for IH and Jones Day.

        [1:] http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/07/14/solar_wind_versus_fusion_how_does_the_sun_lose_mass.html
        The Sun loses 4 million tons of mass per second due to fusion.

        • nietsnie

          I’m sure it won’t be Rossi’s lawyers using the term ‘cold fusion’. It will be IH’s. And I don’t think Rossi’s lawyers will want to bring up Einstein because the standard model has trouble explaining LENR. Conventional nuclear physics has trouble supporting LENR. There will be no easy reference to what science already knows that will help Rossi. E=m.c^2 has nothing to do with the scientific doubt.

          My point is that this won’t be an issue if the case is left to the legal facts – which professional legal people would handle. But, if left to legally untrained jurors… they may well say, “There’s no way we’re giving millions of dollars to the man on the basis that he harnessed cold fusion. He might as well say he brought back moon cheese in his invisible space ship. You don’t have to understand the physics to understand the important point here: everybody knows cold fusion is a crock!”. That’s the problem.

          Also, as is stated in the article you link, that mass isn’t *lost* – it’s flung out as solar wind and energy. And I think IH’s take on LENR and the violation of conservation of energy is clearly wrong.

          • HS61AF91

            A lawyer worth his time would say, how come you all agreed to pay all those millions if you knew some theory of physics says it won’t work, or words to that effect to the defendants, in front of the jury, and then bring out the myriad of proofs that it works. Sheesh. The jury after all is not made up of encrusted academics, afraid of loss of stipends, grants, standing, and reputations if this stuff works.

          • GiveADogABone

            So, taking the logic a bit further, the raising of investment funds would have to have been a fraudulent act on the part of IH, knowing as they did that the E-cat was an impossible invention?

          • That is one of IH’s positions that I do not understand. The other is that they want to keep the IP even though Rossi agrees to refund them to relinquish it. Why would they want to keep worthless IP?

          • cashmemorz

            What IH has to do to be successful in their line of business, and is the only thing worth doing from their point of view, is to convince potential investors that they, IH or Cherokee, have something that has historically been shown to work, ie Lugano and even the one year test(the two and one half years of due diligence on the part of their partner is another point). As my own financial adviser did, was to show me a bunch of positive propaganda enough to hook me and I handed over the money. Cherokee knows that is all they need and they have that kind of propaganda. It doesn’t matter if there is no theory or even solid proof that LENR or the E-Cat works. Its about how they massage the “facts” for the benefit of the investor, that matters.

          • That doesn’t address their actions, trying to keep the IP. If it’s worthless, then they have no reason to keep it, especially since Rossi has offered to refund them. They can massage ‘facts’ all they want but to claim to perform due diligence means they know one way or the other whether or not the IP is worthwhile.

          • cashmemorz

            The point of what they are doing is not validity of the IP but what the investor percieves as a worthwhile investment. As long as the investor wants to invest, the IP validity is not an issue. That is why an investment house has a disclaimer in its investment agreement with their investors: ie. “Past performance of (insert particular investment IP here)…is no guarantee of future performance.”

            Buyer beware. In other words it is the job of the investment house to entice investors and it is the job of the investor to decide if the investment, here the IP, is valid or not. The investment house can do all the due diligence it wants or can. But that in no way guarantees what the long term outcome of the investment will be, win or lose. So, in fact, the investment house can offer totally worthless places or IP to invest in, as far as anyone knows.

            Given the way that the market works, IH or Cherokee have no need to justify why they are doing what they are doing. If it looks like they are after bad IP its nobodies business but their own . If they can foist bad IP on unwary investors, who is to stop them? Investors are never given a guarantee that they will all win. If an investor is savvy, they can take an investment house to court citing false advertising or false data was used by the investment house to incite them into investing. Some times that tactic will win in court but it will not guarantee that the investors money will be returned. Investment houses have been known to go bankrupt at the most inconvenient time.

          • Assuming everything you say is true, IH should lose this case handily. If I were on a jury and it was all about IP and who fulfilled what contract and I found out that that one side called the other side a fraud but still wanted to retain his IP even in the face of a refund offer, that would be all it takes. It is the biggest blinking light on the dashboard.

          • cashmemorz

            Ok. So if hat I say is true and IH/Cherokee only care about getting money from investors, no matter the worth of the IP invested in, then no matter if they lose the case, IH/Cherokee, if they have to pay a penalty to Rossi, a penalty for bad faith testing or things along that line, then they get to keep the IP. Presuming that they get to keep the IP after all. They get their money back by spinning it to show the investors that they paid in court according to law but that the law only takes into consideration the letter of the law and not the intent of what IH wanted to show as their side that the IP did not work but only because Rossi did not give them the secret sauce. After paying Rossi, in terms of a penalty, they can again spin that also as paying for the rest of the IP, or secret sauce, and therefore can claim to have the full recipe to show the investors. That is a win for IH/Cherokee. The outcome of the trial, win or lose can be spun any way that will convince the investors that IH gets a positive outcome in terms of future business capability.

          • The only problem with your scenario is that IH’s contract does not specify that they get the secret sauce. Rossi handed over a working demo and they couldn’t keep it working. Like a 21st century car handed over to troglodytes, it will work for a while but then something goes wrong, especially if you tweak a few items to make sure things go wrong.

            IH was trying to leverage their way into a $Trillion business with a minimalist investment. If they truly were to pay what such a development is worth (no shenanigans from Rossi, full help and disclosure, no handing over IP to Rossi’s competitors, etc.) then they would have to pay hundreds of $Billions.

            But we shall see. Trials have a way of going in directions that no one intended.

          • cashmemorz

            You don’t seem to get how investment works. The thing on which the investment is based, the E-CAT, does not have to work at all or even exist in any form. That is not what the investment house, Cherokee, is trying to sell to the investors. What they sell is a vision of possible future earnings on the money that the investor puts up into the hands of Cherokee. If the investment turns up to be bogus then the investor can try to sue the investment house on that point. If IH loses the IP for the E-CAT via the decisions of the trial or anything else it does not really matter. Most investors rely on the word of the investment house that “Look, our partner has done two and one half years of due diligence to see if the people making the E-CAT can be depended on to make the thing work.” Due diligence is is catch word for “everything is fine for this investment”. This is the part that the investor sees. If the investor does not followup that statement with their own due diligence to find out what is currently happening, whose fault is that? If the investor does not do their own DD and hand over their money to the investment house purely on trust then that is the game works. Kapeesh?

          • You don’t seem to understand how contract law works. If you breach a contract, you lose the lawsuit associated with it. Kapeesh?

          • cashmemorz

            As far as IH/Cherokee are concerned that is not the end of the world. They can act as if the law doesn’t apply to them. They pay a penalty then go their merry way of ripping off investors in the way I describe. I know that in theory the law applies to everyone. But, have you notices that Trump has “nearly 200 Democratic lawmakers have joined to bring a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, alleging he breached a clause of the Constitution that forbids federal officeholders to take foreign payments and gifts.”
            Then there are the many who Trump did not pay before he became pres. Those gave up on following up on getting payment via court. That is the kind of thing I am alluding to. Not that the guilty party must or must not get penalized. Sometimes penalties mean little or nothing to the “quilty” party.

          • LilyLover

            I was going to say the same thing!! Plus, this means Cherokee is a reckless investor, investing in scientifically impossible things out of sheer greed from patenting impossibilities.

          • nietsnie

            I think that is a very good point. And I hope that they will do that!

          • GiveADogABone

            1. As commonly stated there are two laws of conservation :-
            1: the conservation of energy, and
            2: the conservation of mass.
            For nuclear reactions of any description, the two laws must be combined and stated as the law of conservation of mass AND energy; the conversion factor between mass and energy being E=m.c^2 .

            IH’s second part of the first sentence in their ‘Statement of the Case’ that ‘Plaintiffs claim to have invented a technology called the “E-Cat” capable of violating the law of conservation of energy by producing far more energy than it consumes.’ is false. The combined law must be stated. The point being that no breach of the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is implied in the operation of the E-cat.

            2. You state :- ‘Also, as is stated in the article you link, that mass isn’t *lost* – it’s flung out as solar wind and energy. ‘
            I wondered if the solar wind would cause confusion. It has. The article deals with the energy loss and the solar wind mass loss separately. The stated 4 million tons per second mass loss is just for the conversion to energy that is radiated away.

          • nietsnie

            The problem, as far as nuclear science is concerned isn’t conservation of energy. It is that the energy invested in triggering the nuclear reaction (*fusion*, after all) is insufficient to overcome the strong force emanating from the nucleus. Rossi’s results indicate that neutrons are being added and removed from atoms – which would typically be believed to require *very* high energy – in particular: heat. Check out the excitation energy requirement of a Tokamak – you could light a small town with it. Nuclear scientists have dismissed LENR out of hand in the past as being beneath their effort to investigate because there isn’t anywhere near enough energy involved in the excitation to overcome the Coulomb barrier. There are a few theories here as to how that might be happening, but none of them are proven or generally accepted. And the expert IH will bring in will quote chapter and verse to the jurors about why it isn’t possible at all – which will agree with conventional nuclear theory. And he doesn’t have to be right to convince them – just convincing.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi does not claim to have perfected cold fusion.
        Rossi works with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.
        All things plausible to the layman as they will identify with nuclear bombs. It does not matter that it is not the same thing.

    • roseland67

      Don’t care who wins or loses, never did,
      Just want to KNOW, (not be told),
      the Ecat works as stated.
      And sadly, once this is over,
      we still won’t know

      • Steve D

        Me too. I’m hoping the trial exposes some truth. I’ll settle for LENR is endorsed (not that the trial is about this) and if Rossi’s got it to the extent claimed even better. He’s been using the word “suppose” lately. It’s a very indecisive word while on the home stretch. Steven N Karels June 1. Rossi. “I suppose the goal will be reached Oct/Nov”. Frank Acland June 8 “…can go to market with, without the need for a new improved version?” Rossi “Yes, this is what I suppose based on the facts we are observing”. And just to top off the uncertainty Ayam Serama June10 asks the pertinent question “I am afraid we will not have a presentation of the “QuarkX” this year…am I correct?” Rossi “I hope you are wrong”.

        I must say however, in Rossi’s defence that this is Rossi’s project are I for one (among many) choose to tag along. Every success Mr Rossi.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi is not running a scam. All the variables just don’t fit.

          Here’s what those variables do fit though. A product that’s not quite ready for market. It has issues. And Rossi is always about to overcome those issues. Over and over again. However, I think the Quark will ultimately fit the bill. Rossi’s suppose is just precautionary on his part. He also has been disappointed in the past.

          If you predict rain everyday, eventually you’ll be right. I think the Quark is that “eventually” arriving.

          • Steve D

            I’m sure Rossi would like to make presentation of a market
            ready product. Such a finalised design would immediately attract orders though meeting them is another matter. If this is the case he is putting unnecessary pressure on himself by being the perfectionist since many would be pleased to simply see an LENR demonstration and the QuarkX enter the history books. Rossi can then take the credit for the proof of technology and invention. Market offering will have to wait. Perhaps he should be doing this project behind closed doors as are other groups thus they are not subject to the same (time) expectations. Or to put it quite simply it’s called impatience!

          • Omega Z

            I believe Rossi sees it as a necessity to have most of the issues solved. He has to get it to market right the 1st time. I think you’d agree, if he has a misstep, competitors may quickly overrun him while he tries to do a redo. The money and manpower applied by the competitors would be overwhelming.

            As to being behind closed doors, that ship sailed when he did his 1st public demo at the behest of his friend Focardi. Focardi wanted the technology outed while he was still with us.(He new his time was running out).

            Quick- Who invented the light bulb without Googling it. Most would quickly reply T. Edison. They would be wrong. He merely made it work in a usable fashion. Rossi probably has the same concern.

            NOTE: Under our current educational system. Probably many would claim it was Al Gore. lol 🙂

  • nietsnie

    I dunno… I think Rossi has to contend against a jury giving an award to a company essentially claiming to have perfected cold fusion. IH will hammer that. To the average person that still goes against every instinct. It would be like siding with the guy who contends he knew because he reads minds, or for the one who claims he was abducted by aliens. I think Rossi had a very good chance in a non-jury trial. But, now…

    • HS61AF91

      If a tiny chip can hold a million photos, not so hard for the average juror to believe cold fusion happens, albeit it does, and it’s currently hard to hide that fact. A jury is a fickle thing that renders a judgement upon which truth descends like a cloak of honor. Only things contrary are the judge calls a mistrial, or the losing attorney appeals. Two weeks to validate 7 years of demonstration… amazing.

      • nietsnie

        It was not so hard for the average person to believe in 1989. NOW – it’s much harder because it has a rep.

        • US_Citizen71

          You are forgetting where this is being tried. Checkout the archives here: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/strange/floriduh-blog/

          Appeals to emotion will likely work in this trial. Evil corrupt lawyers that are trying to swindle a hard working man that will not play will for IH. Attacks on Rossi’s character may not have the effect desired either. One must remember NASCAR is big in Florida and NASCAR has it’s roots in running moonshine. Southerns have a special place in the hearts for the little guy standing up to the Man, no matter if the action is legal or not.

          • Chapman

            You may be on to something there.

            Rossi DOES bear a certain resemblance to Popcorn Sutton, and if he went in there pounding on the fact that “Darden is just some high-falootin’ yankee money man from New York City, thinkin he can come down here and swindle an honest man…” well, who knows WHAT might happen!

          • nietsnie

            Well… I hope you’re right. Rossi clearly believes a jury gives him an advantage – since he requested it. I just don’t see it, myself. All the facts are on his side. Why screw around with emotion?

      • I’ve seen a jury say that DNA evidence (which generated 8billion to 1 odds that it was incorrect) was ‘nuthin’ compared to a glove that supposedly didn’t fit OJ Simpson.

        And yet a few months later another jury found him financially liable for the deaths of his exwife and her lover.

        And even well educated congresscritters couldn’t follow the DNA evidence on a blue dress to prove perjury.

        Jurors sometimes follow Occham’s Razor, and other times don’t. I suppose it depends on whether a cultural icon is on trial.

    • GiveADogABone

      My advice would be to forget ‘cold fusion’; rephrase that as ‘mass destruction’ or ‘E=m.c^2’. The equation states explicitly that mass can convert to energy.

      Do you, and more importantly will the jury, believe that the sun, nuclear power stations and atomic bombs work? Have the sun, nuclear power stations and atomic bombs ‘perfected’ mass destruction?

      IH state as their first sentence in their ‘Statement of the Case’ that ‘Plaintiffs claim to have invented a technology called the “E-Cat” capable of violating the law of conservation of energy by producing far more energy than it consumes.’

      I am sure Rossi can explain the Einstein equation E=m.c^2 and some of its consequences to the court, while leaving out the worst of the maths. ‘Hammering’ Einstein is one tough, self-imposed task for IH and Jones Day.

      • nietsnie

        I’m sure it won’t be Rossi’s lawyers using the term ‘cold fusion’. It will be IH’s. And I don’t think Rossi’s lawyers will want to bring up Einstein because the standard model has trouble explaining LENR. Conventional nuclear physics has trouble supporting LENR. There will be no easy reference to what science already knows that will help Rossi. E=m.c^2 has nothing to do with the scientific doubt.

        My point is that this won’t be an issue if the case is left to the legal facts – which professional legal people would handle. But, if left to legally untrained jurors… they may well say, “There’s no way we’re giving millions of dollars to the man on the basis that he harnessed cold fusion. He might as well say he brought back moon cheese in his invisible space ship. You don’t have to understand the physics to understand the important point here: everybody knows cold fusion is a crock!”. That’s the problem.

        Also, as is stated in the article you link, that mass isn’t *lost* – it’s flung out as solar wind and energy. And I think IH’s take on LENR and the violation of conservation of energy is clearly wrong.

        • HS61AF91

          A lawyer worth his time would say, how come you all agreed to pay all those millions if you knew some theory of physics says it won’t work, or words to that effect to the defendants, in front of the jury, and then bring out the myriad of proofs that it works. Sheesh. The jury after all is not made up of encrusted academics, afraid of loss of stipends, grants, standing, and reputations if this stuff works.

          • GiveADogABone

            So, taking the logic a bit further, the raising of investment funds would have to have been a fraudulent act on the part of IH, knowing as they did that the E-cat was an impossible invention?

          • That is one of IH’s positions that I do not understand. The other is that they want to keep the IP even though Rossi agrees to refund them to relinquish it. Why would they want to keep worthless IP?

          • cashmemorz

            What IH has to do to be successful in their line of business, and is the only thing worth doing from their point of view, is to convince potential investors that they, IH or Cherokee, have something that has historically been shown to work, ie Lugano and even the one year test(the two and one half years of due diligence on the part of their partner is another point). As my own financial adviser did, was to show me a bunch of positive propaganda enough to hook me and I handed over the money. Cherokee knows that is all they need and they have that kind of propaganda. It doesn’t matter if there is no theory or even solid proof that LENR or the E-Cat works. Its about how they massage the “facts” for the benefit of the investor, that matters.

          • That doesn’t address their actions, trying to keep the IP. If it’s worthless, then they have no reason to keep it, especially since Rossi has offered to refund them. They can massage ‘facts’ all they want but to claim to perform due diligence means they know one way or the other whether or not the IP is worthwhile.

          • cashmemorz

            The point of what they are doing is not validity of the IP but what the investor percieves as a worthwhile investment. As long as the investor wants to invest, the IP validity is not an issue. That is why an investment house has a disclaimer in its investment agreement with their investors: ie. “Past performance of (insert particular investment IP here)…is no guarantee of future poerformance.”

            Buyer beware. In other words it is the job of the investment house to entice investors and it is the job of the investor to decide if the investment, here the IP is valid or not. The investment house can do all the due diligence it wants or can. But that in no way guarantees what the long term outcome of the investment will e, win or lose. So, in fact, the investment house can offer totally worthless places or IP to invest in, as far as anyone knows.

          • Assuming everything you say is true, IH should lose this case handily. If I were on a jury and it was all about IP and who fulfilled what contract and I found out that that one side called the other side a fraud but still wanted to retain his IP even in the face of a refund offer, that would be all it takes. It is the biggest blinking light on the dashboard.

          • cashmemorz

            Ok. So if hat I say is true and IH/Cherokee only care about getting money from investors, no matter the worth of the IP invested in, then no matter if they lose the case, IH/Cherokee, if they have to pay a penalty to Rossi, a penalty for bad faith testing or things along that line, then they get to keep the IP. Presuming that they get to keep the IP after all. They get their money back by spinning it to show the investors that they paid in court according to law but that the law only takes into consideration the letter of the law and not the intent of what IH wanted to show as their side that the IP did not work but only because Rossi did not give them the secret sauce. After paying Rossi, in terms of a penalty, they can again spin that also as paying for the rest of the IP, or secret sauce, and therefore can claim to have the full recipe to show the investors. That is a win for IH/Cherokee. The outcome of the trial, win or lose can be spun any way that will convince the investors that IH gets a positive outcome in terms of future business capability.

          • The only problem with your scenario is that IH’s contract does not specify that they get the secret sauce. Rossi handed over a working demo and they couldn’t keep it working. Like a 21st century car handed over to troglodytes, it will work for a while but then something goes wrong, especially if you tweak a few items to make sure things go wrong.

            IH was trying to leverage their way into a $Trillion business with a minimalist investment. If they truly were to pay what such a development is worth (no shenanigans from Rossi, full help and disclosure, no handing over IP to Rossi’s competitors, etc.) then they would have to pay hundreds of $Billions.

            But we shall see. Trials have a way of going in directions that no one intended.

          • cashmemorz

            You don’t seem to get how investment works. The thing on which the investment is based, the E-CAT, does not have to work at all or even exist in any form. That is not what the investment house, Cherokee, is trying to sell to the investors. What they sell is a vision of possible future earnings on the money that the investor puts up into the hands of Cherokee. If the investment turns up to be bogus then the investor can try to sue the investment house on that point. If IH loses the IP for the E-CAT via the decisions of the trial or anything else it does not really matter. Most investors rely on the word of the investment house that “Look, our partner has done two and one half years of due diligence to see if the people making the E-CAT can be depended on to make the thing work.” Due diligence is is catch word for “everything is fine for this investment”. This is the part that the investor sees. If the investor does not followup that statement with their own due diligence to find out what is currently happening, whose fault is that? If the investor does not do their own DD and hand over their money to the investment house purely on trust then that is the game works. Kapeesh?

          • You don’t seem to understand how contract law works. If you breach a contract, you lose the lawsuit associated with it. Kapeesh?

          • cashmemorz

            As far as IH/Cherokee are concerned that is not the end of the world. They can act as if the law doesn’t apply to them. They pay a penalty then go their merry way of ripping off investors in the way I describe. I know that in theory the law applies to everyone. But, have you notices that Trump has “nearly 200 Democratic lawmakers have joined to bring a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, alleging he breached a clause of the Constitution that forbids federal officeholders to take foreign payments and gifts.”
            Then there are the many who Trump did not pay before he became pres. Those gave up on following up on getting payment via court. That is the kind of thing I am alluding to. Not that the guilty party must or must not get penalized. Sometimes penalties mean little or nothing to the “quilty” party.

          • LilyLover

            I was going to say the same thing!! Plus, this means Cherokee is a reckless investor, investing in scientifically impossible things out of sheer greed from patenting impossibilities.

          • nietsnie

            I think that is a very good point. And I hope that they will do that!

        • GiveADogABone

          1. As commonly stated there are two laws of conservation :-
          1: the conservation of energy, and
          2: the conservation of mass.
          For nuclear reactions of any description, the two laws must be combined and stated as the law of conservation of mass AND energy; the conversion factor between mass and energy being E=m.c^2 .

          IH’s second part of the first sentence in their ‘Statement of the Case’ that ‘Plaintiffs claim to have invented a technology called the “E-Cat” capable of violating the law of conservation of energy by producing far more energy than it consumes.’ is false. The combined law must be stated. The point being that no breach of the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is implied in the operation of the E-cat.

          2. You state :- ‘Also, as is stated in the article you link, that mass isn’t *lost* – it’s flung out as solar wind and energy. ‘
          I wondered if the solar wind would cause confusion. It has. The article deals with the energy loss and the solar wind mass loss separately. The stated 4 million tons per second mass loss is just for the conversion to energy that is radiated away.

          • nietsnie

            The problem, as far as nuclear science is concerned isn’t conservation of energy. It is that the energy invested in triggering the nuclear reaction (*fusion*, after all) is insufficient to overcome the strong force emanating from the nucleus. Rossi’s results indicate that neutrons are being added and removed from atoms – which would typically be believed to require *very* high energy – in particular: heat. Check out the excitation energy requirement of a Tokamak – you could light a small town with it. Nuclear scientists have dismissed LENR out of hand in the past as being beneath their effort to investigate because there isn’t anywhere near enough energy involved in the excitation to overcome the Coulomb barrier. There are a few theories here as to how that might be happening, but none of them are proven or generally accepted. And the expert IH will bring in will quote chapter and verse to the jurors about why it isn’t possible at all – which will agree with conventional nuclear theory. And he doesn’t have to be right to convince them – just convincing.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi does not claim to have perfected cold fusion.
      Rossi works with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.
      All things plausible to the layman as they will identify with nuclear bombs. It does not matter that it is not the same thing.

  • Curbina

    So Rossi had it his way. Good for him. He lost me with The whole JM products scam, And I think he will have a hard time To explain that one away, but I still hope him The Best luck on the trial. I don’t believe a word of what he says now, but still harbour a glimmer of hope he Is not really another con man.

  • sam
  • sam
  • Thomas Kaminski

    Is there now a hard date for the trial to begin?

    • Originally it was scheduled for June 26 but Rossi recently told me it should start on June 29. I have not verified this information through.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Is there now a hard date for the trial to begin?

    • Originally it was scheduled for June 26 but Rossi recently told me it should start on June 29. I have not verified this information through.

  • wizkid

    Can somebody tell me please what document number the trial date is stated?

    This is my gift to you all:
    —————————————–
    Found in: 312 – Paperless notice

    PAPERLESS NOTICE Setting Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 6/13/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (wc) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

    [Nothing to download at this time. Eric]
    —————————————–

    Can somebody tell me please what document number the trial date is stated?

    Thanks!!

    • wizkid

      Found this finally on pacermonitor …
      Rumor has it that it might be moved from 06/26/17 to a few days later ..

      Friday, July 01, 2016
      23 order Scheduling Order Order Referring Case to Judge Order Referring Case to Mediation
      Fri 10:13 AM
      ORDER Setting Trial and Pretrial Schedule, Requiring Mediation, and Referring Certain Matters to Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan: Jury Trial set for period of 6/26/2017 in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Calendar Call set for 6/20/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Motions to amend pleadings or join parties due by 8/11/2016. All discovery due by 2/27/2017. Proposed order scheduling mediation due by 7/21/2016. Mediation Deadline 3/13/2017. In Limine Motions due by 4/18/2017. All pretrial motions due by 3/21/2017. Pretrial Stipulation due by 4/18/2017. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 6/30/2016. (ps1)

  • wizkid

    Can somebody tell me please what document number the trial date is stated?

    This is my gift to you all:
    —————————————–
    Found in: 312 – Paperless notice

    PAPERLESS NOTICE Setting Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 6/13/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (wc) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

    [Nothing to download at this time. Eric]
    —————————————–

    Can somebody tell me please what document number the trial date is stated?

    Thanks!!

    • wizkid

      Found this finally on pacermonitor …
      Rumor has it that it might be moved from 06/26/17 to a few days later ..

      Friday, July 01, 2016
      23 order Scheduling Order Order Referring Case to Judge Order Referring Case to Mediation
      Fri 10:13 AM
      ORDER Setting Trial and Pretrial Schedule, Requiring Mediation, and Referring Certain Matters to Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan: Jury Trial set for period of 6/26/2017 in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Calendar Call set for 6/20/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Motions to amend pleadings or join parties due by 8/11/2016. All discovery due by 2/27/2017. Proposed order scheduling mediation due by 7/21/2016. Mediation Deadline 3/13/2017. In Limine Motions due by 4/18/2017. All pretrial motions due by 3/21/2017. Pretrial Stipulation due by 4/18/2017. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 6/30/2016. (ps1)

  • John Littlemist

    Sorry about the off-topic, but MFMP’s ECCO India Plans document says following:
    June 10 – Fly to India
    June 12-24 – Test ECCO device

    Presumably ECCO testing has been postponed?
    Bob, could you please comment?

  • John Littlemist

    Sorry about the off-topic, but MFMP’s ECCO India Plans document says following:
    June 10 – Fly to India
    June 12-24 – Test ECCO device

    Presumably ECCO testing has been postponed?
    Bob, could you please comment?

  • Omega Z

    Rossi is not running a scam. All the variables just don’t fit.

    Here’s what those variables do fit though. A product that’s not quite ready for market. It has issues. And Rossi is always about to overcome those issues. Over and over again. However, I think the Quark will ultimately fit the bill. Rossi’s suppose is just precautionary on his part. He also has been disappointed in the past.

    If you predict rain everyday, eventually you’ll be right. I think the Quark is that “eventually” arriving.

    • Steve D

      I’m sure Rossi would like to make presentation of a market
      ready product. Such a finalised design would immediately attract orders though meeting them is another matter. If this is the case he is putting unnecessary pressure on himself by being the perfectionist since many would be pleased to simply see an LENR demonstration and the QuarkX enter the history books. Rossi can then take the credit for the proof of technology and invention. Market offering will have to wait. Perhaps he should be doing this project behind closed doors as are other groups thus they are not subject to the same (time) expectations. Or to put it quite simply it’s called impatience!

      • Omega Z

        I believe Rossi sees it as a necessity to have most of the issues solved. He has to get it to market right the 1st time. I think you’d agree, if he has a misstep, competitors may quickly overrun him while he tries to do a redo. The money and manpower applied by the competitors would be overwhelming.

        As to being behind closed doors, that ship sailed when he did his 1st public demo at the behest of his friend Focardi. Focardi wanted the technology outed while he was still with us.(He new his time was running out).

        Quick- Who invented the light bulb without Googling it. Most would quickly reply T. Edison. They would be wrong. He merely made it work in a usable fashion. Rossi probably has the same concern.

        NOTE: Under our current educational system. Probably many would claim it was Al Gore. lol 🙂