Eric,
It is not worth my time to rehash it all. It is all covered in this
thread that you can read again if you want to.
When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your
comments. Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents,
as explained, that was the only way to get a patent in this
circumstance. Mentioning cold fusion would ensure it was rejected.
AA. I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's
technology adding the name of one of their employees as inventor.
Eric. Others have noted that it was within IH's rights under US patent
law, as a presumptive licensee of Rossi's technology, to do this.
AA. You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't invent it.
AA. So the situation is murky to say the least. It seems strange to me
for IH to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet apply
for patents saying that it does.
Eric. We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work;
perhaps they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in
a court document of some kind. What we know for sure of their position
is that they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In hindsight,
knowing Rossi, this is not a surprise.
AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work? You
might let Jed know that.
On 6/5/2016 10:52 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Most of this stuff has been covered already and as you say it is a
matter of opinion.
I'm starting to get some energy back. Please enumerate what you've
already gone over that I've overlooked, and what I've said that is
simply a matter of opinion, so that together we can correct the record.
Patents have not come up before. I presume you know the Patent
Office has a special procedure to stop or delay patents on cold
fusion as they have taken DOE's word for it that it is like
perpetual motion and impossible. The one patent Rossi has
obtained in the US carefully avoids mentioning LENR/cold fusion in
order to get passed. Hence some details about the LENR side of it
are missing.
Patents have come up many, many times, before, in connection with
Rossi. I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I do not claim that
there are difficulties at the US patent office getting LENR patents.
But this has no bearing on whether a generically worded patent is
enabling. If the patent is enabling, a person having ordinary skill in
the art (the art, here, is presumably engineering and materials
science stuff relating to the building of nickel hydride reactors)
will be able to reproduce what is described in the patent. I know of
not a single replication of one of the embodiments in one of Rossi's
patents. I know of several attempted Lugano replications, which in
hindsight are of questionable quality. But they were working from the
Lugano test and not a patent of Rossi's. To compound matters, Rossi
has done things like referring to a "catalyst" in a claim of a patent
and then omitted to describe the catalyst. In drawing up these patent
applications, has either been (1) acting on bad legal advice, (2)
ignoring good legal advice, or (3) writing a patent application for
something that doesn't exist. This is not the kind of reasonable
behavior that I would expect, e.g., from a reasonable engineer working
at Intel who came up with a new process and wants to benefit from this
invention. It's some other kind of behavior, systematically carried
out over years.
I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's
technology adding the name of one of their employees as inventor.
Others have noted that it was within IH's rights under US patent law,
as a presumptive licensee of Rossi's technology, to do this.
Also have taken out patents in countries where they are not
licensed to operate.
IH address this point in their reply to the complaint.
So the situation is murky to say the least. It seems strange to
me for IH to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet
apply for patents saying that it does.
We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; perhaps
they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in a
court document of some kind. What we know for sure of their position
is that they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In
hindsight, knowing Rossi, this is not a surprise.
Eric
