Hi - I have read this tread, and I have read the web site, and I have done so because a friend of a friend is investing in this company. I am posting because I have currently 95% certainty that this company is a fraud. In other words, it is a con. And I will state why.
1. I follow the electronics industry very closely. Nothing on this.
2. The "White Paper" is drivel. It says nothing meaningful.
3. The "White Paper" follows the classic form of fraudulent information. I am surprised they didn't have a picture of George Washington and Christopher Columbus. Pics of Einstein and Maxwell? Come on. There is hype, but then there is way over the top.
4. The vaunted "demo" is easily repeated using off the shelf compression technology. To say nothing of the fact that publicity demos are notoriously easy to fake in toto. This is especially true when doing a staged demo to non-technologists. That claim means nothing really.
5. The friend's friend that I spoke of related the story that he was helping them to move into their office down there in San Diego. They told him about the company and he asked if they were public. They "offered" to "let" him invest even though it was a violation of the law since he had a net worth of less than $1 million and income less than $200,000 a year. But they said he would still have to come up with the $50,000. This last is CLASSIC con MO. CLASSIC. You hook with greed and let the mark convince himself. Then cognitive dissonance takes care of the rest.
6. The timing of the creation of this thread. By itself it would not be a red flag. But together with the rest? It fits.
7. I find it interesting that when I read through this thread its primary "technical commentary" is provided by the originator. That commentary is technical gibberish. If one examines the posts one also finds self contradictory statements over time. i.e. The posts of the originator are not consistent. To wit: The originator professes to a highly advanced level of understanding of physics. But the originator also states later that he is not an expert in photonics. But then how could he have been trying to convince someone to back him to "dry-lab" some advanced fiber optic technology as related later? Another example is that the originator posted a "response" from the chief "technologist" that within the italicized post contained statements that contradict the contention that it was a reposting of anything but marketing material. This excerpted discussion of sidebands from the technolgists was also NOT technically substantive in that mish-mash of rehashed statements from Mr. Gorman and others.
Then, the originator has a pattern of going to a fallback position of pointing imperiously to the demo. And yet, if he WERE someone who knew as much as he claimed at first about optical physics he would be quite aware that the demo has serious problems.
Altogether, this comes together in what is a familiar picture for me. I was taken big time by a con once. And I have seen 3 others come and go. Anybody remember that long con back in the 80's from that guy who claimed he could turn radioactive waste into nuclear batteries? I brushed with those satellite guys who advertaised on the radio, but then *poof* their offices were empty one day. There's a bunch of examples.
That is my judgement. I am morally compelled to give it. Maybe I'm wrong and this is just incredibly incompetent marketroid bullshit covering up something real. But when I grasp for the real, there is no there there.
Be careful folks! (And no, I am in no way associated with any other company in this industry. I have closed my position in Ciena, which technology I understood.) |
