Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:19 pm

vic wrote:I suspect that someone's understanding of the definition of "Troll" is approximately the same as their understanding of Physics.
Yabbut Abd thinks people are agreeing with him. :lol:

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 18879
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:29 pm

We have rules about discourse on TFB. abd has broken those rules. I say that he should be in FEMA camp.
“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

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:58 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote: Clearly there is dispute and more in this case. Even if the judge could theoretically resolve it by deeper investigation, that's not the point: motion fails. I suspect Abd is misunderstanding the judge's essentially reactive role in respect of evidence, argument and analysis.

Real lawyers may disagree with my folksy interpretation... go on, you know you want to!
I am not a "real lawyer," for sure, but I'm in regular consultation on these issues with one, and others are chiming in.

The Order dismissing the motions for summary judgment clearly did not examine or consider the evidence and arguments presented at all. I've read quite a few similar Orders and they normally address evidence and argument and state why it was sufficient or insufficient. Above, it is argued that facts must be "undisputed," but the point I have made is that simply declaring a dispute does not create one. A declaration of a dispute is conclusory, not substantial in itself. "They are wrong" does not create a dispute when there is admissible, attested, uncontradicted evidence showing the necessary facts for summary judgment.

It is correct that a party opposing an MSJ need not necessarily present opposing evidence, if the evidence and arguments presented by the moving party do not establish the conditions for summary judgment. But that a judge would dismiss a motion without considering the evidence and arguments, only making a blanket claim that there was essentially nothing the parties agreed upon (which is clearly false, as can be seen in the joint pretrial stipulation) I found quite odd and unexpected.

The idea that this judge has probably seen a cold fusion case before is very strange to me, as well, as such a case would probably be well known in the field, and there hasn't been such a case for a long time, and never one like this, i.e., an inventor suing his investors.

Rossi's Italian history, was not about patents, and the fact that he served jail time there is irrelevant to the case. That he had "tax issues" is relevant, though only peripherally, because the Agreement between Rossi and IH required that he pay all taxes due, and IH claimed he had not done this, thus creating a technical breach of the contract. Rossi's full history establishes an understanding of the man, that's all.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:09 pm

Abd wrote: I am not a "real lawyer," for sure, but I'm in regular consultation on these issues with one, and others are chiming in.

[Discussion]
:daydream:

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 12417
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:47 pm

:sterngard: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :pickle:

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:00 pm

TollandRCR wrote:We have rules about discourse on TFB. abd has broken those rules. I say that he should be in FEMA camp.
Thanks. Please point to the rules. Looking around, I see only http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/app.php/page/geninfo

Wow. I identified and immediately handled that particular unique user, avoiding massive waste of time and extensive useless discussion.

If there are other rules, again, please let me know. Otherwise I generally respect polite requests and even some impolite ones. And I don't need this forum for anything in particular, I posted here Just Because I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet, and this discussion was mentioned elsewhere. I've been funded to cover the trial, and I have multiple places to publish that coverage.

As to FEMA Camp, I've been isolated before and it was always a blessing, leading me to far more productive activities than arguing with Someone Who Is Wrong On The Internet. I don't see, though, from reading that information page, that I meet the qualifications. Still, I assume it is not up to me.

User avatar
vic
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by vic » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:04 pm

Abd wrote:
TollandRCR wrote:We have rules about discourse on TFB. abd has broken those rules. I say that he should be in FEMA camp.
Thanks. Please point to the rules. Looking around, I see only http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/app.php/page/geninfo

Wow. I identified and immediately handled that particular unique user, avoiding massive waste of time and extensive useless discussion.

If there are other rules, again, please let me know. Otherwise I generally respect polite requests and even some impolite ones. And I don't need this forum for anything in particular, I posted here Just Because I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet, and this discussion was mentioned elsewhere. I've been funded to cover the trial, and I have multiple places to publish that coverage.

As to FEMA Camp, I've been isolated before and it was always a blessing, leading me to far more productive activities than arguing with Someone Who Is Wrong On The Internet. I don't see, though, from reading that information page, that I meet the qualifications. Still, I assume it is not up to me.
Uhhh... from app.php/page/geninfo:
For many years, birthers and other trolls would join Fogbow to hassle us. They would post the same old lies over and over, and were generally obnoxious. Also, the main rule here is that you can't insult other members of the forum, but a lot of us really wanted to insult the birthers and other trolls. Meanwhile, others here didn't want to see anything written by birthers or trolls, and didn't want to see us insulting them.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5633
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:05 pm

You are not allowed to insult a member. You openly insulted Stern. Foggy makes exceptions sometimes, such as for newbies or (as in my case) when our sarcasm governors fail momentarily.

I don't think you've yet earned banishment to FEMA camp personally, but I'm not in charge of such things.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:23 pm

RoadScholar wrote:You are not allowed to insult a member. You openly insulted Stern. Foggy makes exceptions sometimes, such as for newbies or (as in my case) when our sarcasm governors fail momentarily.

I don't think you've yet earned banishment to FEMA camp personally, but I'm not in charge of such things.
Thanks for the explanation.

Let me get this straight. (And this is not about Stern, but about the interaction, and if I'm in error, please let me know.) Stern can use an avatar showing a child making a very rude gesture. He can demonstrate by his questions that he has contempt (but without using a Bad Word). He can use a standard trolling practice of drawing conclusions from No Answer As Quickly As He Wants and expressing his contempt, providing insulting conclusions about my motive for "not responding." But if I call this what it is, it's an "insult." Just getting clear what the alleged offense was. I have not been warned by site administration.

I have no plan or desire to continue to comment on Stern. I foed him precisely to avoid interaction. (And when I do that on a forum, I will always explain it, I consider that fair, and rude to set a forum to ignore a user without notice, though it is certainly everyone's right. Without that notice, Stern might waste his time addressing me, and asking questions as he did.

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Estiveo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:52 pm

You can say another member's ideas are stupid, but not that the member is stupid. Stern does not subscribe to your ideas. I dare say most of us here don't. You called him names; that's a no-no. As to Stern's avatar, he's been using it for 8 years. As far as I know you're the first person to think the gesture was aimed directly at himself. That's just silly.

I don't think you qualify for the FEMA camp yet, but you need to play within the rules now that you know them.
"Moths are velvety-soft abominations attracted to light." --Puck, reporter from Breaking Cat News

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:56 pm

Wow. Abd thinks I created my avatar just for him.

For those who have been here for less than 8 years I will explain my avatar.

When I joined the predecessor site (Politijab), lots of members used pics of themselves as kids. Riker had the most adorable avatar. Him in a sailor outfit at about age 6.

Since cameras had not been invented when I was 6, I found the angry soccer boy and used him. It was to express my contempt of birthers, primarily the one in Orange County, who were spreading lies about our President. I changed it a couple of times after that, but people complained, so I put back the angry soccer boy. (Mario Apuzzo hated the avatar and obsessed about it. Good enough reason to keep it!)

I do appreciate Abd's recognition of his violation of the rules and his heartfelt apology, though.

Finally, while Abd will miss it, I do cherish his comment: "I don't need this forum for anything in particular, I posted here Just Because I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet, and this discussion was mentioned elsewhere."
Edit: Ninja'd by estiveo.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5633
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:58 pm

To clarify: (again, I'm not the authority here) insulting, ridiculing, denigrating an idea is different from insulting the member stating it.

"That theory is idiotic" allowed. "You are an idiot," not allowed.

Mods please correct me if I've misstated the rule.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

User avatar
vic
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by vic » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:02 pm

RoadScholar wrote:To clarify: (again, I'm not the authority here) insulting, ridiculing, denigrating an idea is different from insulting the member stating it.

"That theory is idiotic" allowed. "You are an idiot," not allowed.

Mods please correct me if I've misstated the rule.
I quoted the exact rule one minute before your earlier post, and to me your description matches the intent of the rule.

User avatar
vic
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by vic » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:04 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Wow. Abd thinks I created my avatar just for him.

For those who have been here for less than 8 years I will explain my avatar.

When I joined the predecessor site (Politijab), lots of members used pics of themselves as kids. Riker had the most adorable avatar. Him in a sailor outfit at about age 6.

Since cameras had not been invented when I was 6, I found the angry soccer boy and used him. It was to express my contempt of birthers, primarily the one in Orange County, who were spreading lies about our President. I changed it a couple of times after that, but people complained, so I put back the angry soccer boy. (Mario Apuzzo hated the avatar and obsessed about it. Good enough reason to keep it!)

I do appreciate Abd's recognition of his violation of the rules and his heartfelt apology, though.

Finally, while Abd will miss it, I do cherish his comment: "I don't need this forum for anything in particular, I posted here Just Because I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet, and this discussion was mentioned elsewhere."
Edit: Ninja'd by estiveo.
Regarding the highlight - an ego is a terrible thing to waste.

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

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by tjh » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:21 pm

vic wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote: "I don't need this forum for anything in particular, I posted here Just Because I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet, and this discussion was mentioned elsewhere."
Regarding the highlight - an ego is a terrible thing to waste.
I'm the one who created this topic, and referenced it on https://www.lenr-forum.com -- which might be why Abd came here.

But I will endorse his comment "I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet".

Rossi's and IH's attorneys may know more about the law ... but they know (and care) little or nothing about the technology. Read the depositions. (From the technology end I would love to cross-examine ALL of the "technical experts". How to do it legally ... no idea. I do know that major cases can hinge on ONE question, eg "Is there any possibility you MIGHT have seen the microcode?")

Lots of people (with whom I have corresponded on forae and by email) know lots about the technology. (eg Rothwell, Storms) ...
Edit: : but little or nothing about the law.

Abd has an excellent technical reputation in this the technical area (I met him first online on vortex, but he got thrown off for rationally defending a religious attack).

So ... ONE person (though not an attorney) who knows BOTH the law AND the technology? My vote's for Abd.

(He sure ain't modest, he sure ain't polite -- he's dinged me for posting some hignorant stuff. )

AND I'm still not going to defend Cold Fusion / LENR here.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:05 am

I find it fascinating how quickly bad blood can arise from a failure to understand each other's position (and grumpiness too, also1). In an effort to get an interesting thread back on track and prevent someone who seems to me to be making a worthwhile contribution from getting turned off, let me see if I can help explain... or at least make things worse.
:towel:

Stern,

I don't think Abd is trying to peddle woo, I believe he is just someone who, based on his own informed opinion, believes that cold fusion is real4 and hopes that, one day, it will result in commercially viable energy production. As such, this trial is of interest to him just like many other trial threads on the Fogbow are of interest to you and the rest of the boogle2. You might find cold fusion to be nonsense, but Abd doesn't and seems willing to discuss LENR on the merits. Which is perfectly reasonable from a scientific point of view3. Anyway, I think Abd is adding value to the discussion (and certainly a lot of knowledge about the particulars of the case) and, at the very least, isn't doing any harm. In any case, I don't think he really deserves all of the scorn you've leveled at him. Certainly not because he chose not to answer a hostile comment on Saturday afternoon by Sunday morning7. Just my opinion.
:towel:

p.s. I didn't know the story about your avatar, so, if nothing else, I'm grateful to Abd for getting you to share that.

Abd,

Please correct me if any of my suppositions above are untrue. You seem very forthright and write long, detailed comments (see below :towel: ) and you're arguing the counter-orthodoxy5 without, in my opinion, crossing the line, all of which gets my sympathy, but I think you've made some (very understandable) blunders due to circumstances you aren't aware of.

This forum, while having long ago branched out, started as an anti-birther forum. Conspiracy theorists in general6 are still a major focus. As such, two things are true: first, some of the people, especially those who have been here for a long time, have a very quick trigger when they think people are supporting frivolous arguments or woo, and, secondly, while the membership here is very diverse, it is still skewed heavily towards lawyers.

Unfortunately, you happened to run afoul of one of the most well-respected8 and grumpy of those lawyers, who seems to have thought that your comments implied beliefs that were frivolous or unscientific and, as you pointed out, he trolled you about them. Now, you're certainly right that he showed contempt for your ideas, and while the motivation for your insult was certainly understandable, you are the one who broke the rules.

Now that's certainly not a cardinal sin and, even if you do get thrown in the FEMA camp (and I don't believe you should or will), you probably wouldn't even notice the difference (except that people would be free to insult you and vice versa), but, if you're going to hang around here9, I would suggest that a sincere apology to Stern for the insult would probably go a long way towards getting people to take the time to look at who you are instead of who they think you are. It's a small matter and everyone knows you didn't violate the rules intentionally (and that Stern is a expert at walking the line without crossing it -- not to mention really grumpy), but it would be a show of respect for the community and probably enough to let the matter die and return the discussion to the case (or cold fusion in general), which I believe is what you would like.

You said:
Abd wrote:I am not a "real lawyer," for sure, but I'm in regular consultation on these issues with one, and others are chiming in.
You clearly want the respect that you think you are due for your knowledge and expertise, but, in trying to convince us that you deserve respect you unknowingly disrespected the knowledge and expertise of this community. Roughly half of the people that are engaging with you are real lawyers (and good ones).

In particular, in your exchanges with Mike Dunford it is very clear that you don't understand that, even in a group of outstanding attorneys, Mike is special. When he gives his opinions, everyone listens carefully, because after over 7,000 posts demonstrating his knowledge and insight he's earned enormous respect. When he says, "I'm relieved to learn that my years of legal education have not been entirely in vain.", everyone here is quite aware of just how erudite a legal scholar Mike is.

Which is not to say that your knowledge and insight into this case isn't welcome, but it is generally a good idea for IANAL types to be careful about asserting themselves as legal authorities, especially when in discussions with actual lawyers (which is pretty much every thread here). If you do a little listening and then ask some questions, I'll bet you will learn some new things about the law yourself. I certainly have11.

and:
Abd wrote:I posted here Just Because I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet, and this discussion was mentioned elsewhere. I've been funded to cover the trial, and I have multiple places to publish that coverage.
Okay, so you've been trolled and scolded and talked about and you're probably thinking, "why should I bother to stick around?" What you just said is why. I don't believe you can find a more discerning audience to which to publish your coverage or a more knowledgeable group with which to discuss the merits of the case. There's a long standing tradition on the Fogbow of having BOTG (Boots On The Ground) for trials of interest. Members (both lawyers and non-lawyers) post their notes and then the ask questions and start speculating on the meaning and significance of what happened. There is much popcorn and good times all around.

So here's my challenge to you: stick around long enough to post some coverage from the trial and answer the questions you get from Stern and the other lawyers and then see if the analysis they give is correct. I bet it will be. And I bet you will find it a worthwhile experience too. also. What have you got to lose?

Questions, I haz some. You say you are being funded to cover this trial, by whom and what is their (and your) interest? What are your relevant credentials and experience? I assume from your name that you are (or were) a graduate student, is that correct, and if so, what did you study? You referred to later work (after P & F) verifying LENR. Could you give us a layman's summary of that work and the strength of those results? It might help if you could give us a clear statement about what you think is established science and what you believe that hasn't been demonstrated yet.

On an unrelated note, do you know anything about Steven Jones, former colleague of Pons and Fleischmann? I'm curious as to the quality of his earlier work given what he did later13.

Anyway, sorry your welcome to the Fogbow has been a little rough, but know that your comments have been appreciated and I hope that you will persevere and discover the quality of this group. I may be a wee bit biased, but I think the Fogbow is quite simply the best community on the internet.
:bighug:


Mike,

It has been bugging me for a while now and I gots to know... WTF is "1 Cranch 137, 177"?
:confused:


tjh,

Thanks for starting this topic! I'm really enjoying it.
:thumbs: :popcorn:


  • 1. To Abd: "Too also" is a common Fogbowism, not some kind of speech impediment.

    2. To Abd: a collective noun used to refer to the membership of the Fogbow. I believe it is the name for a group of weasels or some such.

    3. So long as a hypothesis isn't falsified (and no one has proven LENR can't happen), a scientist is always free to argue for it on the merits.

    4. Which is to say that it will be scientifically demonstrated one day.

    5. Which I know is hard.

    6. Such as sovereign citizens.

    7. I've certainly done much, much worse myself... :towel:

    8. For good reason.

    9. And I sincerely hope that you do.

    11. I can cite 4 centuries of jurisprudence making President Obama a natural born citizen.12

    12. Which is now, of course, totally irrelevant. :crying:

    13. He completely abandoned his scientific integrity to become a 9/11 truther.
"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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:34 am

Abd's vituperation and personal animosity directed to me after my questions have made me suspicious. Perhaps someone could ask him the following questions,without of course, attributing them to me:

1. Abd, do you have any economic interest in the outcome of the lawsuit?
2. Abd, are you planning to testify as a witness in the lawsuit? If so, percipient, expert or both?
3. Abd, do you have any ownership interest, as inventor, co-inventor, assignee or otherwise in the invention the subject of the contract the subject of the lawsuit?

I'd sure like to hear the answers.

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

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by tjh » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:57 am

1,2 : For sure, no.
3. You mean any interest in Rossi? IH? No! Cold Fusion ... not sure.

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

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by tjh » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:10 am

tjh wrote: AND I'm still not going to defend Cold Fusion / LENR here.
Ok, OK ... I'll give you ONE paper. Disclaimer : I've been in email communication with at least one of the authors.
The paper is 2008, but still valid.

The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Cravens and Letts
<http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf>

One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of
heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD
for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were
correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the
Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to
researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian
studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with
the criteria and that production of “excess heat” is a real physical effect “beyond a
reasonable doubt.”

[ Note 1: This concentrates on "wet" Cold Fusion, not Nickel/Hydrogen "dry" Cold Fusion.
Note 2 : CF is still a "career killer" , so the "best" minds are not working on it.
Update : one of the Cravens/Letts criteria is the loading of hydrogen/deuterium .. which in this paper is presumed to be the loading at the time of the experiment. More recently it has been shown that the loading must have been achieved at some time before the run probably resulting in a chemo/physical "nuclear reaction environment" condusive to excess heat.
]

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:38 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Abd's vituperation and personal animosity directed to me after my questions have made me suspicious. Perhaps someone could ask him the following questions,without of course, attributing them to me:

1. Abd, do you have any economic interest in the outcome of the lawsuit?
2. Abd, are you planning to testify as a witness in the lawsuit? If so, percipient, expert or both?
3. Abd, do you have any ownership interest, as inventor, co-inventor, assignee or otherwise in the invention the subject of the contract the subject of the lawsuit?

I'd sure like to hear the answers.
Those are reasonable questions, but since Abd said that he was being funded to cover the trial, I suspect that the answers tjh gave were accurate. The more interesting question, to me, is who is funding him and why. The use of the word "funding" might suggest that the money is coming from some sort of academic organization (perhaps a LENR journal?), but it is certain that if someone is giving him money they are doing it for a reason. I can see why his reactions made you suspicious, but I think Ockham's razor favors a mixup in net etiquette as an explanation.

Anyway, as Phoogie says, more will be revealed, I reckon.
:towel:
"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
Mikedunford
Posts: 7767
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:48 am

Slartibartfast wrote: Mike,

It has been bugging me for a while now and I gots to know... WTF is "1 Cranch 137, 177"?
:confused:
Off Topic
It's a citation for a Constitutional Law quote - one that gets used a lot. And has been getting even more of a workout than normal since January. I'll leave identifying the precise quote as an exercise for the reader. :towel:
1 Cranch 137, 177

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 7767
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:32 am

tjh wrote:So ... ONE person (though not an attorney) who knows BOTH the law AND the technology? My vote's for Abd.
Mine isn't.

Abd's knowledge of the law is clearly substantially weaker than Abd thinks it is.
1 Cranch 137, 177

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 7767
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:29 am

Abd wrote:
Sam the Centipede wrote: Clearly there is dispute and more in this case. Even if the judge could theoretically resolve it by deeper investigation, that's not the point: motion fails. I suspect Abd is misunderstanding the judge's essentially reactive role in respect of evidence, argument and analysis.

Real lawyers may disagree with my folksy interpretation... go on, you know you want to!
I am not a "real lawyer," for sure, but I'm in regular consultation on these issues with one, and others are chiming in.
That includes some of the people chiming in here. I don't - despite Slarti's attempt to make my head swell - consider myself to be one of the "real lawyers." I'm licensed, but I'm not a practitioner and have no immediate plans of becoming one. What I am is an early-career legal scholar (who really should be working on a 20K-word dissertation instead of procrastinating here), with relevant degrees from a couple of places, a solid foundation in US law, and (hopefully) a better-than-the-average-lawyer understanding of global intellectual property law.

I mention that background because one of the most valuable lessons I've learned in during my legal education - a lesson that Sterngard helped teach - is the importance of being aware of your own strengths and weaknesses. It's a lesson which, to be blunt, I think you might need to work on a bit.

Following this lawsuit has probably given you a slightly better understanding of the law applicable to this particular case than the average person with a technical background. But there's a lot of daylight between "better than average person with a technical background" and a "good understanding of the law," and at the moment I think you're much closer to "better than average person" than "good understanding."

That was clear to me, by the way, as early as your second post here, when you critiqued Law 360 for calling it a licensing dispute rather than a contract dispute. A license is a contract; a licensing dispute is a contract dispute. Law 360 was, by using the narrower term, providing information about the type of contract at the center of the dispute. (In this case, a contract to license what seem to mostly be trade secrets.) Law 360 would only have been incorrect if the underlying dipute was over something other than a licensing agreement. Similarly, your critique of the fraud claim seemed to display something short of a full understanding of the underlying legal framework. There are multiple reasons why, even if the claim is a long shot, it's going to find its way into the complaint.

Your subsequent posts, as I've said several times, do not display an understanding of civil procedure. Your focus on the statements of material fact provides some evidence of that. The statements of fact are there to provide support for the motions, and get read in that context. If it's a fact that's on the list but not referenced in the motions, it's not going to get looked at. The motions for summary judgment are the most important documents; the replies are also important. You have not discussed the content of the motions at all here, and I don't see any attempt at an in-depth analysis of the motions (as opposed to the fact statements) on your own page. To me, that strongly suggests that you're not fully aware of the broader legal context.

You continue to insist that there were things that could (and should) have been decided on summary judgment, but so far you have not (despite my requests) attempted to identify any of them. I'm not sure you can, in part because you have not demonstrated that you understand either Rule 56 or the surrounding case law.

Here's my own view: my quick review of the summary judgment motions strongly suggested to me that summary judgment would be a no-go. I finally found (via hardcore procrastination) time to skim the order on the motion to dismiss. That further supported my impression that summary judgment would be inappropriate for most, if not all, of the remaining counts. Even at the MTD stage, for example, it looked likely that Count 1 will turn on how a number of events are interpreted, which isn't something that's resolved at summary judgment. One of the matters subject to interpretation involved whether the Second Amendment to the license was valid. That's something that, again, is going to be hard to determine on summary judgment, so Count III probably isn't going to go away. And so on.

Of course, I am genuinely not anywhere near as familiar with the docket as you are. It's possible that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of production for some of the counts. If you want to point to specific areas where you think this was the case, I'm happy to listen. But - like the court - I see no reason to go on an independent mission to sift through the entire mountain of paper filed in the case.
Abd wrote:The Order dismissing the motions for summary judgment clearly did not examine or consider the evidence and arguments presented at all.
The order did not discuss the evidence and arguments. That does not necessarily mean that the court did not consider them.
Abd wrote:I've read quite a few similar Orders and they normally address evidence and argument and state why it was sufficient or insufficient.
Correct. But this does not mean that the court is required to do so, or that the court always does so.
Abd wrote:Above, it is argued that facts must be "undisputed," but the point I have made is that simply declaring a dispute does not create one. A declaration of a dispute is conclusory, not substantial in itself. "They are wrong" does not create a dispute when there is admissible, attested, uncontradicted evidence showing the necessary facts for summary judgment.
1: You still have not shown that you understand what the necessary facts would be in this case. I've asked you to explain your views in this area in more detail; you still have not done so.

2: The defense - as I've said several times, and as you ignore - can sometimes get away with a conclusory denial. The evidence doesn't just need to be there for the plaintiff to win; the evidence must be believed. That means that, if the defendant contests the validity or veracity of some of the evidence, the court has to evaluate credibility. And evaluating the credibility of evidence is not what summary judgment is about; that's a matter for trial.
Abd wrote:It is correct that a party opposing an MSJ need not necessarily present opposing evidence, if the evidence and arguments presented by the moving party do not establish the conditions for summary judgment.
Can you explain what those conditions are? You still have not done so.
Abd wrote:But that a judge would dismiss a motion without considering the evidence and arguments, only making a blanket claim that there was essentially nothing the parties agreed upon (which is clearly false, as can be seen in the joint pretrial stipulation) I found quite odd and unexpected.


There's a difference between facts and material facts. It is possible to agree on many facts, but virtually no material facts.
Abd wrote:The idea that this judge has probably seen a cold fusion case before is very strange to me, as well, as such a case would probably be well known in the field, and there hasn't been such a case for a long time, and never one like this, i.e., an inventor suing his investors.
That was a bit tongue-in-cheek on my part. Lots of insane people file pro se lawsuits which are quickly and efficiently disposed of. Every judge has such cases cross her desk on a regular basis. As I'm sure you are aware, whatever the actual scientific merits of cold fusion might be1, there are lots of crazy people who make claims in this area; some of those people will inevitably file suit against someone.


1: I have no strong feelings about the matter. I'm generally of the belief that any such claim would be an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Beyond that, I'm not qualified to opine on the physics, so I'll simply wait and see what happens.
1 Cranch 137, 177

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:02 am

Slartibartfast wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Abd's vituperation and personal animosity directed to me after my questions have made me suspicious. Perhaps someone could ask him the following questions,without of course, attributing them to me:

1. Abd, do you have any economic interest in the outcome of the lawsuit?
2. Abd, are you planning to testify as a witness in the lawsuit? If so, percipient, expert or both?
3. Abd, do you have any ownership interest, as inventor, co-inventor, assignee or otherwise in the invention the subject of the contract the subject of the lawsuit?

I'd sure like to hear the answers.
Those are reasonable questions, but since Abd said that he was being funded to cover the trial, I suspect that the answers tjh gave were accurate. The more interesting question, to me, is who is funding him and why. The use of the word "funding" might suggest that the money is coming from some sort of academic organization (perhaps a LENR journal?), but it is certain that if someone is giving him money they are doing it for a reason. I can see why his reactions made you suspicious, but I think Ockham's razor favors a mixup in net etiquette as an explanation.

Anyway, as Phoogie says, more will be revealed, I reckon.
:towel:
"Funded to cover the trial" is suspicious to me. I think it's circumlocution for "being paid to testify" (as an expert). Or that he has a piece of the action; or both. My Occam's razor as to the invention itself is pretty simple (and spelled alternatively). If well funded industrialists in the field of power generation and storage are not chomping at the bit and getting in line to exploit the greatest invention in the history of the world, it's not.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5633
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by RoadScholar » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:29 am

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ld-exist1/

"One reason many people are having trouble believing Rossi is his checkered past. In Italy, he was convicted of white-collar criminal charges related to his earlier business ventures. Rossi says those convictions are behind him and he no longer wants to talk about them. He also once had a contract to make heat-generating devices for the U.S. Army. But the delivered devices did not work according to specifications."

Nonetheless, apparently Helium and excess (net) heat production have been reproduced repeatedly. So something new and interesting is happening. But hyping and marketing a phenomenon that nobody has explained and which has yielded only inconsistent experimental results still sounds like a fishy move to me.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”