Richard X Roe

Long/short equity
Richard X Roe
Long/short equity
Contributor since: 2011
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.
Christian Francoeur: Sekonix Miniray II, not Sekonix Miniray. You should have been at the CES in Las Vegas last month and talked to STM and TI and seen what they offer, then you would have learned why Microvision is going to zero.
Also, you should Microvision's CEO why he uses DLP projectors when he makes investor presentations, if his PicoP were so good!
surofchek: According to Louis Basenese:
--
Incidentally, a February 3 report on AAPL by Morgan Stanley analysts – citing “recent conversations with industry experts” – predicts RF-based WC will be one of two new “revolutionary features” added to the iPhone in the next 1-2 years. The analysts go on to say, “This technology could launch as soon as late 2016, pending regulatory approval.” Again, this is only possible with WATT
--
What Mr. Basenese fails to inform you is that RF-based wireless charging (far-field wireless power transfer) has been around for more than a century, and Powercast got an FCC approval for it in 2010 (which has resulted in zero sales, as far as I can tell).
Nanogear: Close. "The PicoP® Display Technology Integration Kit is a Class 3R Laser Product. Do Not Stare at the Beam."
User666: The Disruptive Tech Research report is full of intentional misinformation, specifically, Apple cannot be the Tier 1 if Energous CEO told the truth.
Energous CEO said on the November earnings call:
"...the fact that our Tier 1 strategic partner who has undergone literally hundreds of Part 15 and Part 18 submissions and approval..."
Apple, however, has no Part 18 approvals and Louis Basenese knows it because he did a search on FCC's website.
So, here you have it: Either Apple is the Tier 1, or Energous CEO is a liar. You pick!
Christian Francoeur: In all respects.
Christian Francoeur: Really, no more dangerous? ANSI disagrees. Why do you think Microvision's lumens are so limited?
Christies?
DFS TECH: Michael Leabman, Energous CTO and Founder, is a liar and Apple knows better than to do business with liars without a recourse. Apparently Energous' management team (and board) do not think the deal with the Tier 1 "partner" is material, otherwise they would have filed an 8K or an exhibit.
JPNow: Naah, Texas Instruments' Sekonix Miniray II is smaller and better.