The uBeam FAQ

[Cerebus]

It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.

It's exactly that kind of writing that gets you sued for libel. You take a quote that refers exclusively to a court direction on a motion to dismiss and conflate it with "a large judgement ... against one of the defendents". Whether you intend to or not, it looks like you're trying to find some way of ascribing guilt without having the facts available to support that. And that's what matters, at least in English law, that a piece of writing, taken as a whole is likely to be read as defamatory by a "right-minded person" - the appearance in the mind of the reader is what counts. I know wherewith of what I speak, I used to be a journalist and I've had formal training in libel law as my publisher, Felix Dennis, didn't like being sued (you may remember a little thing called the Oz trial).

You obviously don't understand the US legal system.  Don't worry, you won't be sued for that 

Hence the, "in English law", in there. BUT, the US legal system is the closest to the English legal system on the planet outside of jurisdictions that still hold the English courts as their highest courts of appeal - e.g. Jamaica*. In point of fact, past and present precedents from English courts are still held as 'persuasive' in US courts. Both hardly surprising as the US legal system is descended from the English and both are what are known as 'common law' systems as opposed to 'civil law' systems. While the two systems may vary in detail, they have the same DNA and the concepts of jurisprudence in both are near identical.

The English courts have been the international venue of choice for libel claims for many years. (Like the Texas circuit is for patent claims.) It has been quite common for both sides of a libel case in the English courts to have been from outside the UK as long as the libel was 'published**' in the UK. Part of the reason for this was English libel law has allowed one to bundle all sorts of third parties into the action. So you might have the appellant, the writer of an allegedly libellous piece, his editor, his publisher, a printers and a chain of high street newsagents all involved in the action. The writer is penniless, the high street chain is not - thus damages awarded are likely to be actually recoverable. English libel law has recently undergone and is currently undergoing changes to modify this and you can expect less and less cases to make their way to the English courts.

What this adds up to is, if you're defaming someone on the international stage you'd better be prepared to be sued in England. And that means working to English legal definitions and precedents which are frequently not what the general public think they are. For instance, in English law strict factual accuracy is not necessarily a defense in a libel claim. So calling someone a "fat smelly glutton" when they are overweight, malodorous and eat more than they should is risky unless you can show there is 'a public interest' in these facts (which is not the same as 'the public finds this interesting'), or that it is 'fair comment', or 'a genuine and honestly held opinion' and that you didn't publish the facts maliciously. On the other hand calling them a 'motherf******  bloody son of a whore' is OK, because you have a defense that it is merely 'foul mouthed abuse' and it is immaterial whether their mother actually engaged in prostitution or not, whether they used her services or not or indeed whether they were covered in blood.

Of course the latter would, in some US states, fall under 'fighting words' legislation and permit you to kick them senseless without recourse to a libel action. And there, you said I didn't understand the US legal system. 

Now we have to determine if, in a discussion between engineers "You obviously don't understand" qualifies as 'fighting words' and what the venue for the subsequent brawl will be. 


*No, she went of her own accord.

**Which word has a special technical meaning with relation to libel law in England. Essentially something is 'published' if it is written and the writer knew that *anyone* other than the person being libelled would or would be expected to read it. A 'private' letter, dictated to a secretary can libel the addressee, a handwritten letter shown to no-one else can't.

[Monadnock]

new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610

Same article I believe, no paywall, just a click-through box
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603

I don't seem to be able to click through on that page. I only get options to sign in or subscribe.

The trick with WSJ articles:

Open incognito window
Go to google.com it's self and paste the URL into the search box
Click through to the article from the search results page

Does that loophole still work? Just tried it and it didn't for me.

[georgesmith]

It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.

It's exactly that kind of writing that gets you sued for libel. You take a quote that refers exclusively to a court direction on a motion to dismiss and conflate it with "a large judgement ... against one of the defendents". Whether you intend to or not, it looks like you're trying to find some way of ascribing guilt without having the facts available to support that. And that's what matters, at least in English law, that a piece of writing, taken as a whole is likely to be read as defamatory by a "right-minded person" - the appearance in the mind of the reader is what counts. I know wherewith of what I speak, I used to be a journalist and I've had formal training in libel law as my publisher, Felix Dennis, didn't like being sued (you may remember a little thing called the Oz trial).

You obviously don't understand the US legal system.  Don't worry, you won't be sued for that 

Hence the, "in English law", in there. BUT, the US legal system is the closest to the English legal system on the planet outside of jurisdictions that still hold the English courts as their highest courts of appeal - e.g. Jamaica*. In point of fact, past and present precedents from English courts are still held as 'persuasive' in US courts. Both hardly surprising as the US legal system is descended from the English and both are what are known as 'common law' systems as opposed to 'civil law' systems. While the two systems may vary in detail, they have the same DNA and the concepts of jurisprudence in both are near identical.

The English courts have been the international venue of choice for libel claims for many years. (Like the Texas circuit is for patent claims.) It has been quite common for both sides of a libel case in the English courts to have been from outside the UK as long as the libel was 'published**' in the UK. Part of the reason for this was English libel law has allowed one to bundle all sorts of third parties into the action. So you might have the appellant, the writer of an allegedly libellous piece, his editor, his publisher, a printers and a chain of high street newsagents all involved in the action. The writer is penniless, the high street chain is not - thus damages awarded are likely to be actually recoverable. English libel law has recently undergone and is currently undergoing changes to modify this and you can expect less and less cases to make their way to the English courts.

What this adds up to is, if you're defaming someone on the international stage you'd better be prepared to be sued in England. And that means working to English legal definitions and precedents which are frequently not what the general public think they are. For instance, in English law strict factual accuracy is not necessarily a defense in a libel claim. So calling someone a "fat smelly glutton" when they are overweight, malodorous and eat more than they should is risky unless you can show there is 'a public interest' in these facts (which is not the same as 'the public finds this interesting'), or that it is 'fair comment', or 'a genuine and honestly held opinion' and that you didn't publish the facts maliciously. On the other hand calling them a 'motherf******  bloody son of a whore' is OK, because you have a defense that it is merely 'foul mouthed abuse' and it is immaterial whether their mother actually engaged in prostitution or not, whether they used her services or not or indeed whether they were covered in blood.

Of course the latter would, in some US states, fall under 'fighting words' legislation and permit you to kick them senseless without recourse to a libel action. And there, you said I didn't understand the US legal system. 

Now we have to determine if, in a discussion between engineers "You obviously don't understand" qualifies as 'fighting words' and what the venue for the subsequent brawl will be. 


*No, she went of her own accord.

**Which word has a special technical meaning with relation to libel law in England. Essentially something is 'published' if it is written and the writer knew that *anyone* other than the person being libelled would or would be expected to read it. A 'private' letter, dictated to a secretary can libel the addressee, a handwritten letter shown to no-one else can't.

Very exciting! Now I get a chance to brag about how great American laws are, that doesn't happen very often

The UK's libel laws are so extreme that, in 2008, New York responded by passing the Libel Terrorism Protection Act. (Yes, it was really called that.) This law makes foreign libel judgements void, unless someone can show the same result would have been reached under American libel law, which is extremely difficult. A few years later, the law was extended to the entire US via the SPEECH Act, which was passed unanimously by both houses of the US Congress.

Here in the US, such lawsuits would be instantly laughed out of court, and the plaintiff would then be forced to pay all the defendant's legal expenses under anti-SLAPP statutes. See, for example, this response to a libel threat brought by a dentist in response to a bad Yelp review.

[Cerebus]

Very exciting! Now I get a chance to brag about how great American laws are, that doesn't happen very often

I actually think the 'fighting words' laws are quite sensible, if they're applied sensibly. You could try very, very hard to get me to throw the first punch in a fight and you wouldn't normally succeed because my father taught me [you'll have to imagine a northern English accent here]: "Son, in this family the men never start a fight - but we always finish them". But, there are some things you could say to me, some of them in specific situations, that would make me see red and you see stars (and some tweeting birds if anybody from Hanna-Barbera or Warner Bros was handy). Some speech is so provocative that you should expect violence if you use it. The nuanced bit is understanding the speaker, the spoken to and the context.

The UK's libel laws are so extreme that, in 2008, New York responded by passing the Libel Terrorism Protection Act.

It's not that they are extreme. The basic law itself was well thought out and reasonable and that part of it hasn't changed. The problem was the traditional ability to attach moneyed third parties as respondents and that the law was sufficiently complex* that you had to have representation to defend yourself and that costs money. Hence it was often used for harassment by someone with money and easier access to lawyers against someone with 'lesser arms', as has been the case in the US. A notable UK case of this sort was McDonalds beating up on some animal rights activists leafleting against McDonalds. Recent changes to UK law have been very much along the line of SLAPP but in the opinion of some haven't gone far enough.

*The 'truth is always a defense' line that 99.9% of people believe to be the case points this up. It is quite possible to be 100% truthful and still libel someone if you publish that truth maliciously, that is, with the sole intent of harming the person and no other justification for it. Think back to when homosexuality was legal, but still not generally socially accepted - say 1968. If you published, truthfully, that a public figure (teacher, doctor, policeman, politician) was homosexual you could do them great harm. If you had no justification beyond 'outing' them that publication would be, rightly, considered libellous. God help the layman who has to handle this without professional help.

[georgesmith]

Of course the latter would, in some US states, fall under 'fighting words' legislation and permit you to kick them senseless without recourse to a libel action. And there, you said I didn't understand the US legal system. 

Can't tell if that was a joke, but it's certainly not accurate. The "fighting words" exception only ever allowed speech to be punished in court, it never justified initiating violence yourself. While it's never been officially repealed, it's also dead for all practical purposes:

The very next year, in Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972), the Court cited Cohen and stated that speech that is “vulgar or offensive…is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Then, the very next term, the Court reaffirmed this stance in Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) by finding that the pronouncement “we’ll take the fucking street later” did not constitute fighting words.
 
In assessing the fighting words doctrine at this point, it is important to note the speech involved in Gooding. While assaulting a police officer, Gooding shouted, “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” If this speech doesn’t constitute fighting words, one would be hard-pressed to think of speech that would qualify.

Gooding was the nail in the coffin—if the fighting words exception has any real vitality left at all (and many commentators, including Nadine Strossen, think it is essentially dead) the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction.

(Source: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)

[Zad]

Any chance you could continue this fascinating legal discussion in another thread, and we can get back on track?

[zapta]

Any chance you could continue this fascinating legal discussion in another thread, and we can get back on track?

Sue him.

[EEVblog]

Any chance you could continue this fascinating legal discussion in another thread, and we can get back on track?

Yes, please discontinue the legal talk in this thread and stick to the company and the technology.

[Chris Mr]

First post so please have a right old go!

I would like to throw into the pool that air is elastic rather than hydraulic.

When you pump up a bicycle tyre you can feel the elasticity; the pressure increases and then when it gets just above the pressure in the tyre, more air goes in.  Same thing happens in an air compressor.  The big difference between these examples and someone like uBeam moving power through air is that they are contained somehow.  Imagine the bicycle tyre scenario with a hole in the end of the pump - the air velocity would need to increase to overcome the pressure in the tyre and the air being lost through the hole before more air went in; the larger the hole the larger the velocity.

Take a microphone (or whatever pickup is involved), with zero load it will flap about in the air nicely.  As you increase the load the elasticity of the air comes into play (it already was in play, this is simplified) and air starts to go in any direction that's easier than pushing on the load.

Another example, but not connected in exactly the same way, is that of a wind turbine generator.  There is a fundamental limit to how much energy you can extract out of wind (which is different in two major respects as it is planar and DC) because the more you try the more the air goes another way.  Betz's law determines this.  Build yourself a turbine out of any old blades and then apply a power tracker.  Adjust the blade angle a bit and see if the power increases or decreases - then keep it in a feedback loop so the power is kept at a maximum.  Now start playing with the number and shape of blades and what do you get - the current design of wind turbine blades!

My 2p 

[mathieumatteomatthew]

By way of a short break in the thread, imagine someone went to a VC with a power transfer technology that has the following characteristics:

It has a negligible cost with respect to the price of the gadgets it charges.
It is a simple, passive component that does not require specific infrastructure other than power sockets.
It is very light and portable, you can always have one in your handbag or in your pocket.
It allows you to hold your device in any position while it's charging.
It doesn't mind obstacles between the power source and the device.

Despite and in addition to all these practical advantages:

It has negligible losses...
Its efficiency is nearly independent of the distance between power source and device.
Its efficiency is virtually independent of the position in which you hold your device.

Of course you know what I'm referring to: the power cable, unsung hero in this whole discussion, that sets the bar so high. I like to frame the debate in terms of elegant/ugly solutions to fundamental/trivial needs. While it is very old technology, a power cable is still an utterly elegant solution to a fundamental need - transferring power over a distance, as opposed to Ubeam, Energous and co that propose ugly solutions to a trivial issue - the slight inconvenience of having to spend a few seconds plugging a cable into a device, from time to time. Their solutions are ugly because they are complex and yet inefficient.

You might oppose that wireless data transfer supplanted wired data transfer in many cases, so why not for power transfer as well ? But in data transfer the needs are a big deal - you want to be connected all the time as you move around the house or around the street, while the drawbacks are negligible because efficiency is not an issue there - you're not emitting much power and need only a tiny fraction of it to recover your bits on the receiver side, so you don't need all these complex beam steering tricks. I might add that although I use a wifi connection to connect to the internet, I personally still prefer a good old USB connection from my device to my computer than bluetooth or wireless connections - the former is just more fundamentally trouble-free than the latter.

[EEVblog]

Some quotes from the WSJ article:

Scholars Doubt Ubeam Claims;
Pitch Deck Calls Tech ‘Commercially Viable’
Academics are questioning the technology behind Ubeam’s plans for wireless battery charging, which the company said in a pitch deck is “commercially viable.”

Investors went “gaga” over the story of a young [Mark] Zuckerberg-like personality of uBeam’s founder, Meredith Perry, but other entrepreneurs would likely have faced more due diligence, said Vivek Wadhwa, a fellow with the Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University.

“This is the flaw in Silicon Valley. They think that young kids with no experience can do amazing things,” said Mr. Wadhwa.
Andreessen Horowitz and Founders Fund didn't respond to requests for comment.

Mark Suster, general partner at Upfront Ventures and a director on uBeam’s board, published a blog post last week in response to Mr. Reynolds’ critical posts. Mr. Suster acknowledged that the company was behind schedule on delivering products and yet expressed confidence in uBeam’s team. He didn’t address technical criticisms directly.
“Meredith has made claims that she will deliver a working product and I believe her whole heartedly,” he wrote. He also said Ms. Perry has been prone to “hubris,” but he added that any “claims of falsifying information” are “abjectly false.”
Mr. Suster declined to further comment.

Based on physics and known techniques, uBeam’s claims are difficult to justify, said Bernhard Boser, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science and a co-director of the Berkeley Sensor & Actuator Center and the UC Berkeley Swarm Lab. “In particular, it appears that the power level required to meet their claims would be well above accepted and legal safety limits for humans.”

UBeam was big on promise but limited on technical details in a pitch deck it sent to investors in 2014, according to the documents seen by The Wall Street Journal. In the pitch to prospective investors, the company said that “uBeam is the only commercially viable true wireless power technology that can charge consumer electronics remotely, economically, safely, and without enormous transmitters and receivers.”

Several venture investors who often invest in hardware and science-based technology startups were pitched by uBeam in the past few years, but quickly passed because of fundamental questions about the startup’s claims, they said. One of the prospective investors said that uBeam emphasized that it already has a number of prominent backers behind it and urged the investor to make a quick decision.

In its pitch deck, it listed three executives, Ms. Perry, Sean Taffler, then vice president of products and systems, and Mr. Reynolds, the person who has since left and written the series of negative blog posts about the company recently.
The deck said, “imagine a single device that can remotely power electronic devices, communicate with every electronics device in the uBeam environment, collect real-time data about each device. And also locate devices precisely within the uBeam environment, detect -motion -smoke -carbon monoxide, real-time 3-D imaging of the uBeam environment.”

A Ph.D. recipient who studied under Mr. Boser said such a technical undertaking had many questions. “The math just doesn’t work out. It’s not that it’s impossible per say but it’s impractical,” said Richard Przybyla, a Ph.D. in electrical and electronics engineering from the University California, Berkeley.
Mr. Przybyla said the size of the transmitters and receivers would be hard to make for a consumer product to charge and receive for mobile devices, among other problems. In its deck, uBeam said that an individual model transmitter to power five to 10 devices within a range 0.5 to one meter, would be a square with sides of 10 to 15 centimeters. The receiver, meanwhile could be “nearly any size, shape or color.”

Lux Capital had looked at the company in 2014, according to Josh Wolfe, managing partner at the firm that is focused on science. Mr. Wolfe didn’t say why the firm decided
“I follow the ‘Feynman rule’: Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature can’t be fooled,” Mr. Wolfe said. He was referring to a famed report by physicist Richard Feynman on the space shuttle Challenger disaster, where he concluded that NASA management underestimated the probability of failure by a thousand times, in part, to secure more funds.

[Danseur]

There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.

Paul, it's great that you exposed Energous too
http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/those-other-guys-pt-1.html

You linked to this story on Energous.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811296-energous-buy-companys-story-stock

"Using the 1 watt as our transmitter power translates to 0.000507 watt (0.507 milliwatts or 507 microwatts) at the receiving end."

But it's far worse than this!  The FCC does not permit any product to transmit at the full 1 watt if the antenna gain is greater than 6 dBi.  If you want to use a phase array to get 21 dB gain from constructive interference, you must drop your transmit power to 25 dBm or 0.316 watts.  Every 3 dBi gain must be accompanied by a 1 dBm TX power decline.

Energous is wasting a ton of energy through destructive interference in most directions they transmit. They get 21 dB of gain through constructive interference on the angles they choose to form their peak beams. It would be far more efficient if they used a 21 dB directional antenna because that reflects the energy from a single transmitter rather than trying to using brute wattage and cancelling most of it. But a more efficient antenna gain design still wouldn't improve their max power delivery. They'd still be limited to 0.316 watt transmit power and there would be a lot of dispersion and they'd only get a tiny fraction of the 0.316 watts.

It's also funny that Energous no longer talks about getting their FCC certification and now they're saying it is up to their licensees to get the certification.  It is absolutely comical that Energous expects their "partners" and licensees to get their own FCC certification.  The media is absolutely incompetent that they do not understand this and call him out.  The company that creates the reference design always handles the FCC certifications because it makes it that much easier to license.  Once the reference design is licensed, the licensees only need to do a simpler faster cheaper certification process.  You only need to get the $1,000 "unintentional transmitter" FCC certification and not the $20,000 "intentional transmitter" FCC certification.

Also, this article says they faked the demos and their 10K admits multiple device charging is not possible now.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3960298-stunning-admission-energous

“On a side note, the diagram above shows that the distance to each of the receivers was 2.5 ft, but Energous press release falsely claims that the distance was 5 ft:”

[mathieumatteomatthew]

Interestingly, Mark Suster's latest post is about another startup he's involved in that has many Ubeam/Energous/Theranos-like features:

https://bothsidesofthetable.com/why-solving-big-food-healthcare-problems-will-yield-spectacular-companies-2ba6e410c503#.av98u8ob0

It's a personal gluten sensor, surfing on the wave of the irrational anti-gluten trend we've seen in the past years (only 1% of people actually have gluten intolerance).
As in the case of Ubeam and Theranos, the founders had no experience in the relevant fields:

Shireen had been studying for her masters in business at MIT and thinking about her own food allergies and Scott was a graduate of the mechanical engineering school at MIT with an emphasis in product design.

Of course, there are grand claims. Like Ubeam, they are "on a mission":

We're on a mission to change living with food allergies, forever.

On their flashy website there is not a trace of peer-reviewed literature, just vague claims about beta testing the product. There is not a single health professional in the team, only two chemists that don't seem to have that much experience:

https://nimasensor.com/team/

It's difficult to find the opinion of a qualified person, probably because they aren't that visible so far, but I stumbled upon this:

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review/optimistic-coverage-of-portable-gluten-test-lacks-some-key-context/

which indirectly puts the claims in context by criticizing another press article on the startup.
What proof does Mark Suster have  that the company is trustworthy ? well... Techcrunch !

It seems that many others were impressed as well. Since our initial funding round the company went on to win the TechCrunch Startup Battleground in a head-to-head competition with some very impressive startups.

When Mark Suster points that the reception by the "industry" has been enthusiastic, he links to an article on... Techcrunch again !
What more is there to say ?

[DrTune]

Mark Suster's turning out to be an excellent bullshit detector! If he invests in it, it's highly likely to be a con.  :-)

[Raj]

Seriously, what's wrong people, we should learn to use our own reasoning and take bull$#!t as a pinch of salt (no pun intended  )

if you really want to implement, try thinking of expenses, a set of ultrasound speaker alone would cost equal to an ir transceiver along with irda encoding chip

ultrasound will be super-slow, will require a lot of encryption, will be no better than ir and have lots of interference problem, while irritating animals, possibly insects too

[EEVblog]

Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things 

[LabSpokane]

Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things 

I'm sure she's busy running the wire bonding machine and plumbing ASICs onto PCBs like there's no tomorrow.

[bazsa56]

Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things 

I'm sure she's busy running the wire bonding machine and plumbing ASICs onto PCBs like there's no tomorrow.

It's probably all over at this point. I don't see them getting another round of funding, at least nothing as big as they got till now.

[LabSpokane]

Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things 

I'm sure she's busy running the wire bonding machine and plumbing ASICs onto PCBs like there's no tomorrow.

It's probably all over at this point. I don't see them getting another round of funding, at least nothing as big as they got till now.

Sorry, sarcasm without emojis does translate well occasionally. That was not a serious comment.

[Delta]

She's probably to busy laying in a pool full of banknotes with the BatterBros and laughing at idiot investors.

[EEVblog]

It's probably all over at this point. I don't see them getting another round of funding, at least nothing as big as they got till now.

That was clear when they got desperate enough to crowd fund their last round, taking $10k+ from almost 100 suckers last year.
That made the VC press by being an almost unprecedented and desperate move.

[jurge24pez]

Perry hasn't tweeted or Facebooked since all this recent stuff went down...
She usually comes out from such things 

I'm sure she's busy running the wire bonding machine and plumbing ASICs onto PCBs like there's no tomorrow.

It's probably all over at this point. I don't see them getting another round of funding, at least nothing as big as they got till now.

Rumor has it that they are working on a new strategy since the old one didn't work.  Press has died down so she won't respond until it picks back up as she's only one to pick a battle out of arrogance.  They're money is bound to run out since they lost their finance head and engineers continue to leave and nobody can invest until they prove they work.

[EEVblog]

Rumor has it that they are working on a new strategy since the old one didn't work.

I get the impression she'll never give up, she'll go down kicking and screaming before she changes pivots direction on the product.

[l0rd_hex]

she'll go down kicking and screaming before she changes pivots direction on the product.

I think she'll protect her name at all costs but the new subject of "wireless data transmission" already seem like a potential pivot.

I'm holding out that she will announce lightening fast ham cooking with UBeHam (eat your heart out Ronco!)



 

[Fungus]

she'll go down kicking and screaming before she changes pivots direction on the product.

I think she'll protect her name at all costs but the new subject of "wireless data transmission" already seem like a potential pivot.

Yep, because nobody has "wireless data transmission" covered.

It's a huge gap in the market and a great opportunity for early investors.