Richard X Roe

Long/short equity
Richard X Roe
Long/short equity
Contributor since: 2011
Rochester,NY: What street will they beat? What are your expectations for Q4 revenues?
Q4 and 2016 will be both unmitigated disasters. And the imminent equity offering is just the icing on the cake. A 52-week low is coming.
Rochester,NY: How come? You wanted to educate us about Apple's communication antenna patent, Ms. Shruthi's clickbait employer, and AWM's selling of WATT in January. Why did you stop? You got scared of the 5W of WattUp radiative power frying the iPhone?
Cheydako: Nope, it is you that claimed that AWM increased its WATT ownership by 618k shares. Now you learned that you were looking at the reported AWM holdings as of December 31, 2015, which was 34% percent ago - clearly an outdated information. Since December 31, 2015 the stock has fallen dramatically, even below $4, due to liquidations by a large "long," and AWM (most likely to be that "long") has surely sold a few of those shares at a loss - how much, you should ask him - it is not his first time! You are welcome - who taught who?
Cheydako: What link do you want? Can't you read SEC filngs?
Cheydako: Since you have volunteered for the teaching position, can you teach me what happened to the 1,471,919 shares reportedly held by AWM on December 31, 2015 (when the stock was at $7.91)? How many shares did AWM own yesterday, when he made the filing, and what was the stock price?
Rochester,NY: Naah - it has not. That was last year, when the stock went from $7 to $8 in the December quarter. But this year the stock tanked to below $4. Who do you think was selling? Yes, Austin W. Marxe, who likes to lose money in stocks he does not understand.
Rochester,NY: What a nice patent about an antenna for communications in several bands. Note the word COMMUNICATIONS. Why would that be of interest to us here? Don't you know that iPhone 6s already communicates in several bands?
Oh, and how would you prevent that antenna from picking up 5W from Energous eye-cooking transmitter beaming at 5.8GHz and frying the phone device electronics?
Rochester,NY: Say hi to Shruthi PK, the Indian author of that article. She starts reading a story on Macrumors and when she comes across the word "possibly," she immediately writes "will be seen" in her ad-generating bitbag.
Rochester,NY: All the "new" devices exhibited on the floor booth by Vuzix at the CES in January were fake (non-functional plastic) and Vuzix admits that it is selling "smart glasses" to the the enterprise market that run outdated operating system and are a security risk. In the consumer space, it pulled its product from Amazon after selling only 2 units. The company is lying about its partners, and some of Vuzix "partners," including a related party, were actually promoting Vuzix competitors at the CES. Vuzix is just another scam, and you know it.
I can back each and every one of my statements (otherwise you would have sued). Which one of my conclusions, specifically, are you prepared to challenge?
Thomas Garrity: You mean the tables in sections 8.1 and 8.2 showing 5.549W (1 measurement) and 6.053W (computed average of 2 measurements) at 0-5 ft. But is it 0 or 5 ft or some other distance in between?
Page 11 in the UL report provides the answer. The measurements (at least the two in section 8.2) were done at 2.5 ft. Not 0 ft, not 5 ft, nor any other distance (other than 2.5 ft) in between.
Thomas Garrity: I don't see either "5.59" or "6.0f" in the UL report. I see one single measurement of 5.549W (distance not specified, but between 0 and 5 ft) in section 8.1 and two measurements that averaged 6.053W (distance 2.5 ft, specified in diagram on Page 11) in section 8.2. The last two measurements were individually 5.44W and 6.66W, which indeed average to 6.05W which is 6.053W rounded to the second digit after the dot (per press release: http://mwne.ws/1TOzxC7 )
Thomas Garrity: Of course I can prove it. Here is an example from the January 20 call that was supposed to "to provide a company update and address misinformation about the company's technology and direction:"
"As people can read from our UL report, we achieved a variety of power over a variety of distances, including 5 to 6 watts at 5 feet." ( http://bit.ly/1W7tpn8 , page 5)
This is an outright lie. The UL report ( http://bit.ly/1Q94orU ) shows on page 11 that the measurements that resulted in 5 to 6 watts (see page 14, Section 8.2 Multiple Devices Test) were done at 2.5 ft, not 5 ft, from the transmitter.
There are many more examples (from his interviews last month with Android Authority and IEEE Spectrum, for example).
Thomas Garrity: Yes, but the follow-on was not ill-advised - it exchanged stock that is worth zero for cash. DvineWave Holdings LLC, represented by Gregory Tamkin, are actually the holdings of Energous' CTO and Founder, who has started lying outright in the past month.
Jeb Walport: Apple has patents in the near-field wireless charging technologies, such as "inductive" or "resonant" charging, both supported by the Wireless Power Consortium (Qi) and Airfuel Alliance (Rezence), which count companies like Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Foxconn, and Toshiba among its members. The Apple Watch, for example, uses a slightly modified Qi technology. Near-field, by the way, does not mean near-distance - it is something like up to 40 or even 1000 ft for the frequencies used by the technologies promoted by those two wireless charging groups - unlike Energous' and the FCC-approved Powercast "technology", which use much higher frequencies and are radiative (basically, far-field).
Rochester,NY: Which claim, specifically, can't I back up?
Weren't you complaining about some harm done to your account by the truth? Where is the lawsuit?
PIRATE-WHYDAH: Well, Energous "technology" cannot be used to charge an iPhone 7 at home. That's a fact, not a rumor, sorry.
PIRATE-WHYDAH: Good for them! Did they also share that the rumor came from Energous? The iPhone 7 will not feature any wireless charging solution from Energous, that's a fact that is so easy to verify (iPhone 7 is due to be released this year and Energous admits that it won't have a commercial solution this year). Oh, and Energous "technology" cannot be used to charge a smart phone at home, that's another easy-to-verify fact.
Rochester,NY: No need to pretend about who you aren't. What documentation and what link do you want, specifically? You found the link to the WiTricity video by yourself, why can't you find the links to the rest?
Rochester,NY: What documentation are you looking for, specifically? Apple's patent is available from USPTO's website. The FCC approval is available on FCC's website. FCC's safety limits are available from the Code of Federal Regulations. UL's statement regarding the system came from UL's lab (their contact number is widely available). A former Vuzix employee should be literate enough to find all these very quickly, because even Vuzix has managed to get through at least one FCC approval. Oh, wait...
Antares29: Yes, they distort loudly with intensity, but they are also so easy to see through.
Antares29: Under what alias did Apple obtain a Part 18 approval? Lou B has shown no such an example.
Antares29: Nope, not all coil-free wireless charging is a scam. But Energous, Ossia, and uBeam definitely are obvious scams. And uBeam does not even need any coils.
Antares29: Uhmm, and Apple (in Apple Watch) and Samsung (in the Galaxy phone) adore the coils!
ER Capital: MDB Capital "underwrote" UNXL, too - how is that going? FCC approval of the Energous system tested by UL will never happen (UL knows that the system was unsafe to humans and harmful to communications). FCC approval of a 1W transmitter with up to 200x "gain" can be done on Monday, unfortunately, this means microwatts (or a few milliwatts, at best) at the receiving device. Whether Apple is Tier 1 or not will have to be disclosed by March 30 (in the 10K) - however, the actual text of the agreement will have to be disclosed, too - and it will be become evident that the agreement is immaterial (or Rizzone violated the securities laws in 2015).
There won't be any third-party validation - the FCC safety rules are pretty clear.
Rochester,NY: Apple did take a look at that video and the near-field wireless charging technology shown in it, and promptly issued its own patent. Oh, and the FCC also took a look, and APPROVED it last year.
On the other hand, Energous' far-field system, as tested by the UL, will never be approved by the FCC as it is unsafe and harmful to communications. Even UL knows it.
Cesar Bracho: Nope, you are confused. In August 2012, STM acquired "the intellectual property and talent" of laser pico projector technology developer bTendo. bTendo (now STM) is a direct competitor of Microvision and its laser-scanning display engine is SMALLER, CHEAPER, and BETTER than the outdated, inferior, and overly expensive Microvision technology. As evidenced by the Lenovo "prototype."
Cesar Brach: Microvision's CEO often goes to microcap investor conferences to pump up his stock. All his presentations are projected on the white screen with DLP projectors. Most recently, I saw it with my own eyes in September 2015 at the Rodman and Renshaw Investment Conference.
Non Compos Mentis: Using lasers with DLP is one way to circumvent the safety limits imposed on a single-beam display engines.
Cesar Bracho : Yes, the laser power is limited by safety regulations, not by choice. That is why Microvision's display engines are inappropriate for real-world projectors.
Regarding the patents: Nope, I don't think so. Specifically, I don't think STM pays a cent to Microvision for the laser-beam scanning chip it sells to Intel.
JP-VK: Nothing personal against Leabman. He is simply a habitual liar, and that's a fact. Here is one of his obvious lies, straight out of the January 20 call transcript:
"As people can read from our UL report, we achieved a variety of power over a variety of distances, including 5 to 6 watts at 5 feet."
The UL report he is referencing shows on Page 11 that 5 to 6 watts were achieved at 2.5 ft, not 5 feet.
JPNow: Really? If the tech were so great, why is it losing money?
A low-end smartphone has a screen that is GREENer than Microvision, has a better life, has a better resolution, and is less bulky. Sorry.