H3Tec Challenge

[Jim]

The whole reason I decided to post all these emails is because Chuck is deliberately spreading... er... fabrications about what's been said. Ferinstance, he has said:

In fact, you have contacted our independent testing laboratories, illegally misrepresented yourself as our authorized vendor, and attempted to obtain company-confidential and proprietary information in the form of our lab tests.

This has been repeated to his dealers and posted on forums. As anyone can see from the actual emails, I did no such thing. I was completely honest in my inquiry. If the test results really supported Chuck's claims, then there should be no reason to hide them.

The last nasty-gram I got from Chuck said:

Hi Jim,

Just a note, maybe for the wise. We have been following you and your talk about our company. It is less than informed, and more than unchallengeable. I’m sorry you have come out to purposely do damage to our company without even accepting an invitation to use the H3, come to our manufacturing facilities and test drive the H3. You have pushed this issue past the point of reason or reconsideration.


Sincerely.....yada yada


Reconsideration....eh? I've reconsidered H3's advertisement "H3 Treasure Detectors are scientific instruments, not toys"....and come to the same conclusion...not a scientific instrument

[Carl-NC]

Since the purpose of this thread is to publicly document my challenge to H3Tec and their responses, let's take a look at some more... err... "fabrications" that Chuck posted:

Carl ... has told the world that we do not manufacture a product stating "It has no board in it", "it can't work".

Ignoring the butchered English, I have never claimed the H3 device "has no board in it." In fact, I stated (THunting forum, 8/15/2010):

"It does have a real circuit inside (unlike so many LRLs that don't) but the circuitry doesn't really do anything, other than look high-tech and make the buyers feel they got more for their $10,000 than just a dowsing rod."

I also don't think I've ever said "it can't work," only that it's just a dowsing rod, and doesn't do what the manufacturer claims it will do.

We have invited Carl to Utah to see our production and assembly shop as well as test drive our products.

Chuck has never invited me to "see our production and assembly shop." He did say (Geotech forum, 4/11/2009):

"We would be more than happy to give you a full demonstration of our products as well as a quick training session."

I replied:

"Well, I just might take you up on that. Would you do the demonstration under randomized double-blind conditions?"

No answer. I repeated this question a few more times but Chuck kept dodging the question.

He refuses stating that he's offering us a 25K challenge.

I will gladly accept a demonstration of the device, as long as its executed using an acceptable scientific test procedure. I have no use for a typical sales demo.

Well it's a contract that can't be met, so he get's 5k for his efforts.

As I've stated, passing a scientific test is trivial if the device works, and impossible if it doesn't work. Sound like Chuck is admitting the device doesn't work.

In any case, the "5k" comment is blatantly wrong. There is no provision in the challenge for paying me anything. If the device works, I lose $25,000. It it doesn't work, I get nothing.

[Rudy]

Carl,

You might want to point out to the gentleman from HT 3 that you can not possibly be in breach of their confidentiality agreement since you never signed one with them.

Many years ago, I was being deposed in a patent infringement suit and as part of the discovery process, a letter from a competitor to a customer, that was in my possession was produced. The attorney for the other side tried to rattle me by pointing out that at the bottom of the letter was a paragraph stating that the letter contained company confidential information. The lawyer asked me why I had not returned the letter to our competitor since it contained their confidential information? I looked at him straight on and said that I didn't return it because I had never signed a confidentiality agreement with them. At that point he asked for a 15 minute recess in the deposition, probably to try and figure out another angle of attack.

[Jim]

Carl,

You might want to point out to the gentleman from HT 3 that you can not possibly be in breach of their confidentiality agreement since you never signed one with them.

Hi Rudy....the nasty-grams I get from H3 Tec are equally as ridiculous. According to the lead....they are sending me someone else's property. I have never signed a confidentiality agreement or a NDA with them. I have, however...been posting my opinion that their "scientific instrument" is fraudulant. Thus, the threatening nasty-grams


This messages is property of H3 Tec, as are all electronic, voice, or written communications: See notice below.


Jim,

Since you have no idea what you are talking about I’m going to wish you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving. I will at one caveat, You should well be aware of the rights of a patent holder and their property, you should know about slander and libel. You should also understand about industrial sabotage, and espionage. If you don’t, you should get very familiar with them in the near future.


Have a very happy Thanksgiving, and by the way, your website might be a reflection upon your professionalism.


Much luck and health to you in the future, and you will be seeing us very soon.


Sincerely,


Chuck


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. Do not read this email if you are not the intended recipient.
This email transmission and any documents, files, or previous email messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the addressee, please promptly destroy this email and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner, and notify the sender of the delivery error by email; or you may call H3 Tec's corporate offices in Ogden Ut, U.S.A at (+1) (602) 464.3832

[Rudy]

Hi Rudy....the nasty-grams I get from H3 Tec are equally as ridiculous. According to the lead....they are sending me someone else's property. I have never signed a confidentiality agreement or a NDA with them. I have, however...been posting my opinion that their "scientific instrument" is fraudulant. Thus, the threatening nasty-grams


This messages is property of H3 Tec, as are all electronic, voice, or written communications: See notice below.


Jim,

Since you have no idea what you are talking about I’m going to wish you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving. I will at one caveat, You should well be aware of the rights of a patent holder and their property, you should know about slander and libel. You should also understand about industrial sabotage, and espionage. If you don’t, you should get very familiar with them in the near future.


Have a very happy Thanksgiving, and by the way, your website might be a reflection upon your professionalism.


Much luck and health to you in the future, and you will be seeing us very soon.


Sincerely,


Chuck


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. Do not read this email if you are not the intended recipient.
This email transmission and any documents, files, or previous email messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the addressee, please promptly destroy this email and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner, and notify the sender of the delivery error by email; or you may call H3 Tec's corporate offices in Ogden Ut, U.S.A at (+1) (602) 464.3832

I wonder, has anyone with one of these "boxes" seen a label (or perhaps imprinted on the case), containing one or more U.S. Patent numbers? Companies afraid that their competitors will reverse engineer their invention and market it usually "mark" their equipment with such a label. The reason is that, if the item is so marked and they win their patent infringement suit against their competitor, they are entitled to recover treble damages as far back as competitor's unit #1 sold. Otherwise their damages are capped starting with the competitor's unit sold after the infringement suit was filed.

Yes, that boiler plate notice they tack on to emails is ludicrous. Our legal department would use it too on their emails. It was more of a CYA than anything else. And, since it is always at the bottom, how does one know it was there until after one reads the email?

[Carl-NC]

You should well be aware of the rights of a patent holder and their property...

This has been a recurring theme... I'm wondering if Chuck actually believes that a patent prevents anyone from dissecting his device and publishing the details of the design. If he does, he is either deluded or his attorney-of-the-same-name is giving him Really Bad Advice.

The irony, as I think I've mentioned before, is that his patent doesn't even provide protection against his product being copied and sold! Both independent claims begin, "A method/apparatus for detecting a substance, comprising..." This means, first and foremost, the device must be able to detect a substance. If, in the end, a device constructed according to the claims and teachings of the patent in incapable of detecting a substance, then there is no violation of the patent... the patent is junk.

Based on what I've seen of the H3 device, anyone can copy and produce it without violating the patent. Ergo, the patent is just for marketing purposes. That is, it's to impress people who foolishly believe patents are only granted for proven technology.

The reason is that, if the item is so marked and they win their patent infringement suit against their competitor, they are entitled to recover treble damages as far back as competitor's unit #1 sold. Otherwise their damages are capped starting with the competitor's unit sold after the infringement suit was filed.

Damage assessment varies, but typically the starting point is when notice of infringement is filed, typically in a company-to-company letter. Treble damages usually only result when there is willful infringement.

[Rudy]

This has been a recurring theme... I'm wondering if Chuck actually believes that a patent prevents anyone from dissecting his device and publishing the details of the design. If he does, he is either deluded or his attorney-of-the-same-name is giving him Really Bad Advice.

The irony, as I think I've mentioned before, is that his patent doesn't even provide protection against his product being copied and sold! Both independent claims begin, "A method/apparatus for detecting a substance, comprising..." This means, first and foremost, the device must be able to detect a substance. If, in the end, a device constructed according to the claims and teachings of the patent in incapable of detecting a substance, then there is no violation of the patent... the patent is junk.

Based on what I've seen of the H3 device, anyone can copy and produce it without violating the patent. Ergo, the patent is just for marketing purposes. That is, it's to impress people who foolishly believe patents are only granted for proven technology.



Damage assessment varies, but typically the starting point is when notice of infringement is filed, typically in a company-to-company letter. Treble damages usually only results when there is willful infringement.

Carl, has the US Patent Number been published in the forum (if so I couldn't find it)? If you don't mind posting it or sending me a PM with it, I'd like to take a look at it. I know quite a bit about patents having four of them and three others that were in process prior to my retirement.

[Jim]

Carl, has the US Patent Number been published in the forum (if so I couldn't find it)? If you don't mind posting it or sending me a PM with it, I'd like to take a look at it. I know quite a bit about patents having four of them and three others that were in process prior to my retirement.

Hi Rudy.....try this

http://tinyurl.com/y9f8e3w

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Rudy.....try this

http://tinyurl.com/y9f8e3w

In the application it states: "The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving an indication further comprises allowing an arm connected with the detection module to pivot in the direction of the substance to indicate presence of the substance".

It is difficult to see how this patent was even allowed. It's only value is to the Marketing Dept.. to trick the unwary into believing that the detection method has some value, when in fact it has none. I can only assume that the suggested embodiments do not affect the patent application so much as the claims being made.

Here is the full patent document (with graphics) ->

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7750634.pdf

This patent appears to have been granted, even though it states in the text, such things as:
"the arm aligning to the element or compound"
"having a rod that pivots within a handle."
"The rod is supported and allowed to swing on precision bearings inside the handle."
"the rod swivels allowing the arm of the rod to pivot, to point to the direction of the target substance."
etc., etc.

It is clearly a dowsing rod in disguise.

[Jim]

It is clearly a dowsing rod in disguise.

Of course it is.

Just a thought....does the patent cover the H3 Tec Tricorder series? That's the model that uses a dowsing rod to "excite" the atoms/molecule and a smaller dowsing rod that "listens" to the atoms talk.

There seems to be a difference between the item patented and the current H3 models

[Rudy]

Hi Rudy.....try this

http://tinyurl.com/y9f8e3w

In the application it states: "The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving an indication further comprises allowing an arm connected with the detection module to pivot in the direction of the substance to indicate presence of the substance".

It is difficult to see how this patent was even allowed. It's only value is to the Marketing Dept.. to trick the unwary into believing that the detection method has some value, when in fact it has none. I can only assume that the suggested embodiments do not affect the patent application so much as the claims being made.

Here is the full patent document (with graphics) ->

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7750634.pdf

This patent appears to have been granted, even though it states in the text, such things as:
"the arm aligning to the element or compound"
"having a rod that pivots within a handle."
"The rod is supported and allowed to swing on precision bearings inside the handle."
"the rod swivels allowing the arm of the rod to pivot, to point to the direction of the target substance."
etc., etc.

It is clearly a dowsing rod in disguise.

Thanks to both of you. I'll be taking a gander at these.

[Qiaozhi]

One other question that occurs to me:

Since the device contains an arm that pivots in the direction of the target substance, does "the dog wag the tail" or does "the tail wag the dog"?

As both Carl and Rudy have (or have had) one of these devices, they are the most qualified to answer the question. That is: Does the dog wag its own tail, or not?

[J_Player]

This has been a recurring theme... I'm wondering if Chuck actually believes that a patent prevents anyone from dissecting his device and publishing the details of the design. If he does, he is either deluded or his attorney-of-the-same-name is giving him Really Bad Advice.

The irony, as I think I've mentioned before, is that his patent doesn't even provide protection against his product being copied and sold! Both independent claims begin, "A method/apparatus for detecting a substance, comprising..." This means, first and foremost, the device must be able to detect a substance. If, in the end, a device constructed according to the claims and teachings of the patent in incapable of detecting a substance, then there is no violation of the patent... the patent is junk.

Based on what I've seen of the H3 device, anyone can copy and produce it without violating the patent. Ergo, the patent is just for marketing purposes. That is, it's to impress people who foolishly believe patents are only granted for proven technology.



Damage assessment varies, but typically the starting point is when notice of infringement is filed, typically in a company-to-company letter. Treble damages usually only result when there is willful infringement.

Hmmm...
This is getting interesting. If H3Tec decides to hire an attorney to take action against Carl/Geotech, they must have a legal basis for their demands. ie: libel, theft of intellectual property, patent infringement, etc. So when the H3Tec attorney informs them that Carl has never agreed to any nondisclosure, and the equipment he tested was not stolen, but sent to him by an H3Tec customer for performance evaluation, then the final avenue will probably be to pursue a libel claim. But in order to prove libel, H3Tec must prove Carl printed something which is not true and is defamatory. This is the problem for H3Tec... how to prove Carl published something that is not true.

The US courts will not accept hearsay claims that Carl printed something, they want to see the actual evidence. And when they read what is published here in Geotech as well as other forums and emails, they will discover that there are indeed many defamatory statements. Then they will look for the final test that proves libel. The final test for libel is to show that Carl published false information about the H3Tec's ability to locate a substance. This means H3Tec must prove their equipment successfully finds the substances it is advertised to find in order to prove libel.

Again, the US courts will not accept hearsay or anecdotal stories as proof the H3Tec performs as advertised. They will want to see real evidence from a third party independent test. (Do you suppose they will want to see a double blind test? Will they accept a test that Sandia Labs administers?)

If you look at the ongoing actions of the H3Tec administrators and what Carl has done, we see where the argument is leading...
If H3Tec decides to actually hire an attorney to pursue their demands, they will ultimately end up in a court which orders them to submit their equipment for independent third party testing, and makes their equipment available for the defense to examine and test. It seems this is exactly what Carl has been asking for all along and H3Tec refused to do.

So what do you think?
Will H3Tec start legal actions against Carl, or will they continue to send email demands and threats without taking any legal action?

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

So what do you think?
Will H3Tec start legal actions against Carl, or will they continue to send email demands and threats without taking any legal action?

Smart crime always tend to stay hidden.
Dummy crime can even go to court.
In this case I prefer dummy crime.

[J_Player]

Smart crime always tend to stay hidden.
Dummy crime can even go to court.
In this case I prefer dummy crime.

I doubt H3Tec will hire an attorney to go after Carl.
I think H3Tec is scared to death to go to court where their equipment can be tested by an independent testing lab and the results published in newspapers, and maybe on TV.

Best Wishes,
J_P