IAAL, does that stand for "I am a lawyer", anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product.
Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 3, 2012, at 3:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > From James, > >> An executive has fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders. >> This means he must pursue due diligence regarding the protection >> of the assets of the company. Since the USPTO has made the >> patentability status of "cold fusion" claims unclear, for Rossi to >> expose his trade secret in a patent disclosure could be viewed >> as a breach of fiduciary responsibility. >> >> Snipers who aren't under this sort of responsibility who demand >> that Rossi trust the USPTO to act in a rational manner are not >> to be taken seriously. > > Daniel, I know you've already said that you've said everything you > want to say on this topic, but do you have anything more you might > like to add to Jame's commentary? I seem to recall that you have some > first-hand knowledge of how a patent office works. > > As for me, INAL either, but I would speculate that Rossi's current > patent would be defined by a gaggle of lawyers as having been written > so badly that it would offer little or no protection against all forms > of "illegal" attempts to reverse engineer the Andrea's work. > > James, you seem to be saying that under the current climate Rossi is > in a catch-22 situation. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. > > Did I miss something here? > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
