It is easy to get the idea that this battle is about the Rossi IP and money. Of course this is what the license agreement covers, as those things always do.
My take is that in reality that is not what it is about. Basically because there is no real way to protect this IP in the long run. The entry-barrier is to small, to cheap. And there is probably no way Rossi is going to get the money from Darden. You do not even need to have read a Grisham novel to realize that there are to much establishment power at stake here for this game not to be rigged and for them to hand acknowledge the IP to one person. They will simply not do it.
As I written before Darden probably believed he could frontrun Rossi on the IP. The one year delay and the one year test period was the agreement constraints he managed to negiotiate. It was not enough and Rossi got suspicious some months ago, probably not telling IH absolutely everything he knows. This the lawyers will argue about I guess.
What it enables though, is for Rossi to be free to speak his mind. He certainly represents the “openness” here, while IH represents the “put-the-lid-back-on” philosophy. Up until two days ago, Darden had Rossi under control (by NDA and threat of lawsuit). Now the game has changed and Rossi out of control from Dardens point of view. When raising capital from Woodford Rossi was THE ASSET, now he is a HUGE LIABILITY.
What it also enables is for Rossi to free himself from Darden et al. and possible the license agreement covering more 50% of world GDP. As I have understood this means that Leonardo and Hydrofusion together have 100% of the world market of E-Cats, including all IP, and know-how. This “know-how” is really important I believe and shines through in the IH statement.
Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success.
This is interesting. They use the term “substantiate”, not “replicate” — get it … This is much broader and could possibly include a lot more claims than actually replicate the effects of the E-Cat at COP>6 for a limited time. They possibly do have the knowledge of details in COP>50 plant but possibly not the complete knowledge of how to actually make it work for a year.
It is reasonable to believe that this performance would not have been possible without Rossi running it 24/7 by more or less living in the container. That kind of IP is impossible to “substantiate” since it is more like athletics. I mean; I can tell anyone, how to run a marathon in 3 hours (and some minutes) and I can show how to do it. That however does not mean anyone can do it.
So at this point only Rossi and his Leonardo team has the complete skillset to actually do it.
I also believe this is a matter of implementation philosophy. It is about control vs. freedom. About the status quo vs. a major disruptive technological break-through.
In this game IH and ApcoWorldwide represents the old school status quo agenda as shown in the recent Apco pressrelease and this one. They are in it to delay and control the implementation.
Industrial Heat continues to be focused on a scientifically rigorous approach that includes thorough, robust and accurate testing of promising LENR technologies. Our goal remains to deliver clean, safe and affordable energy.
While Rossi, even though he states integration is important, says.
My personal view is that if an inventor thinks his work can be useful has the duty to make everything necessary to make it massively produced. Only this way the invention can give all its contribution to Mankind. This means defense of the intellectual property, defense of all the rights, defense against whomever wants to reduce it to a financial speculation. I am talking in general, of course, not related to specific situations. An invention must produce jobs and products, not papers and must enrich all the people, not few smart finance wizards. Still talking in general.
We must produce massively the E-Cats. This is the sole issue that really counts.
This is the difference between a top-down approach of implementation and a bottom-up approach of disruptive innovation.