Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6488
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #201 by Slartibartfast » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:47 pm

Suranis,

Thanks for the summary. One thing that's puzzled me about this is how much they've spent on lawyers. Rationally (not that there's much evidence of rationality on either side here), the amount you're willing to spend on a lawsuit should depend on what you stand to gain (be it financially or some other way), what it will take to get to a decision, and what the chances of success are. We don't know the details of this calculation for either side, but we do know both parties are asking for $7.5 million in attorney's fees. This would be the lion's share of what Rossi got from IH or pretty much the rest of the $20 million that IH had raised to spend on this project, which seems ridiculous given that neither side seems to have a slam-dunk case. Now maybe Rossi is a overly optimistic true believer and IH wasn't going to be bullied by someone they saw as a charlatan and things got out of control of either party, but it still seems like someone should have done a reality check before a combined $15 million in legal fees were racked up.

Anyway, maybe your reading can shed some light on this. Thanks again!
:thumbs:


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 7576
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #202 by Notorial Dissent » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:36 pm

Whatever is going on, what it will all eventually come down to is WHAT IS IN THE CONTRACT, NOT what they think is in the contract, or what they think it means, or what they meant it to mean. Sloppy in little details in the contract means sloppy in the big details in the contract. It sounds to me like there was a whole lot of sloppy going on here.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
tek
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #203 by tek » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:53 am

When I read of the previous adventure with a trash reactor the obvious image came to mind..

Image



neeneko
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #204 by neeneko » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:56 am

Mikedunford wrote:Abd's theory, which I'm still not totally sure I'm tracking, seems to be that IH's willingness to sign an atrocious contract was actually a brilliant strategy because #reasons. As far as I can tell, some of the reasons have to do with wanting to know if his stuff worked because they were highly suspicious, or something to that effect, so they just signed whatever he wanted in order to learn what he had.


I am mostly in the camp that thinks IH's parent company was doing its own grifting, and having Rossi's stuff in their (temporary) portfolio was a good way to get more investors on board. Rossi, after all, has spent a great deal of time self promoting and this would be a good way for a 3rd party to capitalize on the momentum he built for himself.

Thus the quality of the contract was not all that important, esp if the capital they did raise was shielded from the dispute.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 39812
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #205 by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:42 pm

Image

Why don't you want to invest in the play company, Mrs. Silverstein? We've just bought the rights to a machine that makes free energy!



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 7576
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #206 by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:05 pm

neeneko wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:Abd's theory, which I'm still not totally sure I'm tracking, seems to be that IH's willingness to sign an atrocious contract was actually a brilliant strategy because #reasons. As far as I can tell, some of the reasons have to do with wanting to know if his stuff worked because they were highly suspicious, or something to that effect, so they just signed whatever he wanted in order to learn what he had.


I am mostly in the camp that thinks IH's parent company was doing its own grifting, and having Rossi's stuff in their (temporary) portfolio was a good way to get more investors on board. Rossi, after all, has spent a great deal of time self promoting and this would be a good way for a 3rd party to capitalize on the momentum he built for himself.

Thus the quality of the contract was not all that important, esp if the capital they did raise was shielded from the dispute.

You have a VERY valid point, IMHO, and I would very much like to know a good deal more about IH. This reminds me all together too much of some things I saw in the Penny industry at its prime, and it reads just like several I remember. The decimal point has moved, but it still comes out the same way. If you quit looking at the actual $$$$'s and look at what is going on it is all to familiar. I'm not saying it is, just that it really really reminds me too too much of the bad old days. In other words Stern, I still agree with you.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

tjh
Posts: 2878
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #207 by tjh » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:38 pm

On the fourth day of trial (after a 2-day mistrial due to juror-availability problems) the parties settled:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on July 5, 2017 for trial, and upon the parties’ ore tenus notice of settlement and stipulation for dismissal. Being fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. All parties shall bear their own fees and costs. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case forthwith, and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 6th day of July, 2017.

Rossi-says : The terms of the settlement will remain under NDA for ever, as per request of the Attorneys of both Parties.

It is unknown who keeps the billion/zero-dollar IP.

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net for boots-on-the-ground reporting by Abd.

Thanks to all who contributed, here and on lenr-forum.com



neeneko
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #208 by neeneko » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:53 pm

tjh wrote:On the fourth day of trial (after a 2-day mistrial due to juror-availability problems) the parties settled:


Wait, so the trial started, got several days in, and they just sorta gave up and settled?

I am picturing the various parties just sitting in the court room, looking around, and all at once saying 'crap.. I just don't want to do this anymore'



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #209 by Mikedunford » Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:10 pm

neeneko wrote:
tjh wrote:On the fourth day of trial (after a 2-day mistrial due to juror-availability problems) the parties settled:


Wait, so the trial started, got several days in, and they just sorta gave up and settled?

I am picturing the various parties just sitting in the court room, looking around, and all at once saying 'crap.. I just don't want to do this anymore'


They did jury selection and opening statements, then had jurors drop like flies and a mistrial day 2. Did jury selection again day 3, and opening statements again. Then had 4 day weekend for Fourth of July. Worked out most of settlement over the weekend, settled just before start of Day 4. (As in minutes.)


1 Cranch 137, 177

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 39812
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #210 by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:53 pm

Didn't someone predict it wouldn't last? :sterngard:

Probably a walk away. Only the attorneys won.



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 18605
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #211 by TollandRCR » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:43 pm

If there were talented scientists and engineers involved in this mess, I wish that they would turn their attention to the sun. It provides all the energy the world will ever need. Some skilled work on solar panels would be most welcome.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5309
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #212 by RoadScholar » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:33 pm

I'm optimistic about developing technologies like artificial photosynthesis or engineered algae... any process that can pull CO2 out of the air and build big useful non-gaseous molecules out of it that is achievable economically must be explored. All possible with a little help from that lucky ol' sun.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6488
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #213 by Slartibartfast » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:01 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Didn't someone predict it wouldn't last? :sterngard:

Probably a walk away. Only the attorneys won.


If what I understand is correct, they really won though. To the tune of $7.5 million for each party and $1.5 million for the third party if what we've been told is true (unless those numbers include trial costs which will no longer occur). Maybe both sides realized that if they continued fighting there would be nothing left for the winner. With all of the red flags thrown up on both sides I'd be surprised if the deal were anything but a walkaway wrapped in NDAs. But at least they discovered a way to turn money into attorney's fees.

I'm sorry we wont get to see Abd's boots on the ground reports. What he posted on his blog was interesting and informative.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 2528
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 5 dogs, 2 cats, the neighbor's cat, and 1 horse

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post #214 by Tiredretiredlawyer » Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:54 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Didn't someone predict it wouldn't last? :sterngard:

Probably a walk away. Only the attorneys won.

If you have the Tardis did you really predict this?


“I’ve been hooked since my first smell of C-4.” Linda Cox, first female Air Force Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician, first to lead her own unit, go to war, be awarded a Bronze Star, and hold the highest enlisted rank of chief master sergeant.


Return to “Science & Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests