Replies

Regarding patents, it is tricky. First, a patent is only good in the country/region it is granted in. Europe, Russia, China are all independent. Unless you have patents granted in all these countries you still aren’t fully protected. And then on top of that, you do something a little different as in using slightly different materials, structures, etc. than the original patent and it may not cover it.

And...

Generally when issued a patent in the US you have to bring it to market within a couple of years or your patent can be challenged and protection lost.

Rossi doth protest too much. I can’t imagine a reputable scientist/engineer talking dismissively the way he does about technical criticisms of a discovery or new technology, let alone one that hasn’t passed any real scrutiny other than his staged events and testimony of close friends and associates. If he said “I’m not disclosing the manner in which it works at this time so I won’t entertain theories or criticisms until it goes online” then I might find it a bit more believable, but not this dog and pony public relations bs he’s been orchestrating over the last few months.

"His response to #2 makes it sound fake. He would get a patent and then be able to sue anyone that uses it."

With which statement, you reveal your ignorance, both of the patenting process and of the realities of high-tech business competition. Rossi does not yet have anything other than an Italian patent, others are "pending" and may or may not be issued. It is just prudent business to keep as many details confidential as possible UNTIL patents are actually in hand.

Personal note, I've got 24+ patents, and in spite of those patents, I have had technology stolen by people I thought were trustworthy. With good enough lawyers, you can pretty much sneak past any restriction via loopholes in contracts or altering the technology "just enough" to get past the specific claims in a patent.

His response to #2 makes it sound fake. He would get a patent and then be able to sue anyone that uses it.

Your response makes it sound like you don't know the background of trying to get a patent on a device like this. For the most part it is summarily dismissed as being impossible. His approach is better. If what he has really works, getting large numbers of units in successful operation by a large number of clients will

a) give him all the proof he needs to finally ram through a successful patent that will protect all particulars of his device,

b) establish his dominance in the market and protect him against start-ups trying to reverse engineer his product or figure out a way around the specifics of the patent, and

c) provide him with sufficient revenue to pay the attorneys needed to sue them (especially since some attorneys may not consider taking the case on a contingency fee if they believe, like those who run some patent offices, his technology is impossible and his case, therefore, is a losing one--and he'd then have to wait until the competitors start producing devices in a large enough amount and under enough circumstances to be believable, after which point he may be able to sue, but would have missed out on dominating the initial marketplace).