XPost: sci.physics, alt.solar.thermal   
   From: martin_rid@verizon.net   
      
   "Morris Dovey"  wrote in message   
   news:j8uvf7$ti$1@speranza.aioe.org...   
   > On 11/3/11 3:09 PM, vaughn wrote:   
   >   
   >> OK, I take your point, but we are still a long way from that (lower)   
   >> standard of   
   >> proof; yet we don't need to be.  Rossi's stated excuse seems to be a   
   >> desire to   
   >> protect his industrial secrets. He doesn't want to give others access   
   >> to the   
   >> internals of his invention.  But once you sell the first unit of ANY   
   >> new   
   >> technology, that information is potentially "out there".  The   
   >> inventor must   
   >> choose between keeping his invention to himself forever, or marketing   
   >> it and   
   >> depending on the patent system and our justice system to do its job.   
   >> Now that   
   >> he has supposedly started marketing his device, his stated objections   
   >> quickly   
   >> begin to fail to hold water..   
   >   
   > I think you're right with all of the above - and he has some (for him)   
   > difficult choices to make. He recognizes that he's in a very   
   > vulnerable position - and it appears that none of the people he feels   
   > able to trust have marketing/sales skills.   
   >   
   > If he does have a process breakthrough, then /his/ problem isn't   
   > proving that it's real and it isn't selling devices that employ that   
   > breakthrough - the problem is finding someone he can trust who will   
   > underwrite his patent filings and honestly look after his interests.   
   >   
   > There're three words used to describe individuals who depend on the   
   > patent and justice systems to protect breakthrough inventions:   
   > "naive", "broke", and "disillusioned". Exceptions have been   
   > unfortunately few.   
   >   
   >> Going back to my example of the AirCar, we see exactly the same   
   >> behavior.   
   >> Pleading protection of his "secrets" the "inventor" has consistently   
   >> refused to   
   >> allow third-parties access to his prototypes to verify (or refute)   
   >> his claims   
   >> for them.  Proving the claims for the AirCar would be as simple as   
   >> handing a set   
   >> of keys to a few reputable members of the media and letting them go   
   >> for a ride,   
   >> yet it has never happened.     Guess why?   
   >   
   > I can see that the AirCar might be a hot-button issue for you. :-)   
   >   
   > --   
      
   He doesn't have a patent on the process does he?   
   If not then thats why he wont go public to disclose the inner workings.   
   For fear of it being stolen.   
   And he can't get a patent because he really does not know what is   
   exactly happening.   
   Or it could really be a hoax.   
      
   Cheers   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)