Thank you Jones! However may I have a few simple questions to you:
0) have you really read about *wicked problems* in the Wikipedia? (they are not what we say in the usual language- see Rittel et al) a) who is focusing now on replication? How can you replicate without reverse engineering and copying? b) have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with soo many critical parameters? c) have you accepted my idea that a *process patent* is missing the critical facts and know how, has a lot of false data, and is in no way sufficient to replication? Or not and do you believe that story with "those skilled enough"...? d) not question- the last thing Rossi or an other inventor wants is that somebody should replicate the generator- they don't want confirmation- they want to sell and make money, they sell 10 units- thse work well OK, then 100 and so on. if they don't work- finita la commedia! e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? g) In my understanding naive is an euphemism for stupid- OK, I have to admit that I am not infailible- but where exactly is my naivete manifest? h) in case we have both forgotten, I repeat my questions -who wants to replicate, and why should Rossi at co be happy for the replication of their precious process? I have worked 40 years in the industrial practice, many times we have bought a process have read the patents - and then after we havae payed- have learned the know-how, have discovered some things, got experience, made errors, corrected them and have used the process trying constantly to improve it. Best wishes, Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Everyone now seems to be looking ahead and focusing on replication. Good. > If anyone thinks that replication of this device is a “wicked problem” now, > or in an abstract way, then they will learn soon that it becomes diabolical > … why? > > > > The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. > Rossi say this himself. > > > > My colleague asked Focardi directly “do you know what the catalyst is?” He > said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi > knows. > > > > How can the device be replicated successfully without that detail, and do > you really want to see a lot of null results ? > > > > The patent rejection notice from the WIPO for the original filing states > that he must disclose the catalyst or drop the reference to it, yet in his > revised filing he did not disclose. This indicates that it will remain a > “trade secret” and that the patent is essentially worthless except as an > threat of litigation. > > > > I think Peter’s wishful solution to the wicked problem is therefore naïve. > Who will attempt a meaningful replication without disclosure of relevant > details? > > > > Rossi (LTI) cannot have it both ways; and he is free to keep the catalyst a > “trade secret” or to patent it, but replication could be impossible without > that detail. More likely, the risk to Rossi is that someone in an attempted > replication will discover it, or find a better one, and they will patent it. > > > > Jones > > > > *From:* Peter Gluck > > > > Dear Jed, > > > > You are right. I am working out- in the frame of my blog a system for real > life problem solving. The painful puzzle of CF's bad reproducibility seemed to > be a "*wicked problem" (*see Wikipedia etc- it is an fundamental concept) > Now it has one solution. > > >
