My Very Bad Euclid Discoveries Experience
Posted by Mark Nelson on 25th May 2006 | Permanent Link
There are a lot of so-called Angel Investors in Euclid Discoveries - the number is well over one hundred if my email inbox is any judge. Very few of these individuals fit the profile of actual Angels in the true sense - they bought their shares more in a tupperware party environment than in the high-dollar, well researched context we expect from a true Angel. And I don’t say tupperware party to insult the investors. These people purchased shares from other investors who bought large blocks, perhaps with the express notion of making a profit by reselling. (Note: every privately held startup I’ve ever been a part of exercises strict controls over who you get to resell your shares to. ED apparently didn’t do this.) Most of them bought from friends and associates who they trusted - just like tupperware.
Anyway, this results in a very large community of investors that are in my opinion being subjected to a cruel form of mushroom management. They are desperate for information on their investment, and the company is not particularly forthcoming, saying little and saying it rarely. And the poor folks that bought the tupperware shares are probably not even technically shareholders - they have no rights at all.
After a few very polite requests, I set up a board for these people - they said they wanted a place to get the news on ED.
Unfortunately, as the registrations poured in, there was no news to speak of. In two months the only real activity was
- A press release from ED announcing revolutionary technology, but no product timelines, releases, etc.
- A puff piece in the home-town Boston Globe.
- A non-puff piece in the Associated Press
Meanwhile, there was absolutely nothing on the board from the members - they had zero to say, so the only posts were from me. I posted a few judgment-free links to various articles and a few judgment-filled cricitisms of ED for their bad practices.
A small cabal of people in the in-crowd took strong exception to this, and went so far as to issue gag orders to the other investors. No problem, they weren’t saying anything anyway. There were also a few remarks questioning my motivation in the whole thing, often centering on the notion that either I wanted to steal ED’s technology or I wanted to grab some shares. (I did offer to try to be a seller of calls at 1 cent on the current dollar, but I think the logistics would be tricky)
In any case, one of the key members of the cabal, Tiny Angel, started a new board for the investors at http://www.euclidinvestors.com/. In the first week or so there was not really much news their either, it was similar to my board without my editorial slant. But Tiny Angel has taken the board private, so I don’t know what’s being posted now, although I can just about guarantee there is at least one post a week saying “be patient, why would ED show anything when they have the goods? People would only steal it.”
In any case, that’s cool, anyone who wants can start a bulletin board, and Tiny Angel can keep things on message this way.
As a coda, I’ll make a few comments about Euclid Discoveries, both of which are just my opinion. I have never seen any of their technology, and they have no products, so my knowledge is limited.
- The claims they make in their press releases are most likely gross exaggerations. Should they wish to disprove it, we can arrange for nice, unbiased tests that in no way risk giving away their technology.
- Watching the company in operation, I was applying an 80/20 guesstimate - meaning there was an 80 percent chance or better that the investors would get back 20% or less of their investment. Watching the last two months, I think that is optimistic, we’re moving into 90/10 territory.
- The most ominous thing about all this is the fact that ED doesn’t talk to anyone - investors, press, public, or even potential purchasers.
- Their notion that they will make a better mousetrap and then sell it to the highest bidder is not just laughable, but may turn out to be a critical error in judgment based on the Supreme Court’s latest actions.
- ED treats their investors like shit, which is particularly sad since there are a few “my life savings” folks in the pool.
Who knows, I could be proven wrong. But I’ve seen a lot of ducks over the years, and this one is quacking, laying eggs, and flying south for the winter.
May 26th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Mark,
While I respect your right to free speech and your own opinion, your “parting” shots in my mind come from an outsider who doesn’t have a clue as to what Euclid has or doesn’t have, a guy who doesn’t understand the difference between angel and institutional investors, and a guy who tried to parlay his distant relationship with current ED investors(via a blog) into his own gain with respect to trying to bring the company you currently work for together with ED. When that didn’t work out, you turned into quite the SourPuss!
Your tupperware comments couldn’t be further from the truth and is laughable at best. NOBODY got into this thing by re-buying units from current unit holders. You’re right when you say information to investors has been suspect at best in the ‘public” arena. If the people who are bitching are indeed bonefide investors and not part of an LLC, current information and status is and has been readily available. The founders have been as up front as possible with everything since the start, making no promises or “to market” dates. If that happened, that’s a shame and that person should’ve spoke to someone else who is more realistic as it relates to setting expectations. Where in the investment documents did it state that the company was required to give daily updates as to the status? I didn’t see it and don’t have that expectation and nobody else should either. This is where the difference between angels and institutional comes in. Moore’s Lore back in Sept 05, did an article on the fact that a small company has been able to keep the investors at bay because we are angels and not institutions. This model is an exception and not the rule. Software development of this nature is almost always hit and miss, as you should be well aware of. I personnally am glad there are no institutional investors as they would probably own a big percentage of the company by now relative to the time it has taken thus far. This scenario happens all the time! Small start ups get cash, miss deadlines, and the investor takes more and more of the company until when the company finally does have something, the founders have virtually nothing left.
What makes you think ED has to do all their work in the public eye? Are they any different than others that make claims of a new product, Microsoft? If CISCO developed a product that they didn’t necessarily want to bring to market and wanted to sell to someone else, would there be a bunch of public “hoopla”? I doubt it! What makes you think that you know what ED is doing currently, who they’re speaking with, etc? It will be sold to a private/public company and at this point those are the only folks that deserve a little looksy. Not you or the general public!
ED has ALWAYS kept me informed from the start! If other angels sunk their life savings into a “crap shoot”, yes a LONG SHOT, than that’s their problem and probably not very wise. ED owes me nothing! I went into this HOPING they would do something, NOT EXPECTING anything. That’s the nature of investing don’t you think!
I’m waiting patiently and so should you! It’ll all be over sooner than later, successful or not! Hopefully, the angels, founders, developers, and others associated with this will have the last laugh. Who knows! Calm down! You have no vested interest!
May 26th, 2006 at 10:52 am
So EDAngel, right now it is my understanding that the majority of the stockholders purchased interests in LLCs that were set up by initial investors.
Are you saying that this is not true? That there are no LLCs? That all shares in Euclid were sold directly to Angel investors and that no resale of interest in those shares ever took place?
If that is what you were saying, than at least a few dozen people who claim to have money in this game told me bald-faced lies.
>ED owes me nothing!
Interesting perspective. I bet more companies wish they had investors like you. You give them money, they owe you nothing. Makes one of you look shrewd, your guess as to who.
>a guy who doesn’t understand the difference between angel and institutional investors
Actually, I do, but I think what ED wants is not Angels, it is sheep. One of the key things any Angel does is due diligence - I see none of that here. Just as an example, any Angel investor spends an enormous amount of time working on determining an exact evaluation of their ownership. Tell me about how you guys did that.
Wait, don’t tell me. It went like this: “You’re all going to be rich!”
You might want to read something like this paper by people who actually know something about Angel investing - it’s nothing like what you are practicing. Read it. ED’s Angel plan seems to have had its greatest success in convincing people that they were angels and how angels were supposed to behave. Well done on their part!
>and a guy who tried to parlay his distant relationship with current ED investors(via a blog) into his
>own gain with respect to trying to bring the company you currently work for together with ED.
>When that didn’t work out, you turned into quite the SourPuss!
No.
I gave ED the opportunity to talk to a company with tens of billions of cash on hand and a long-time history of acquisitions. ED declined to demo or to talk. Considering ED’s professed business plan is to sell their IP to the highest bidder, dude, this speaks volumes. At that point I didn’t become a sourpuss, I just realized that they have nothing to sell. My sourpuss status is unchanged from 5 years ago when I first started hearing from people who where worried they had been scammed. Those people are still worried.
>It’ll all be over sooner than later, successful or not!
I’m skeptical about that. The way a deal like this normally ends is when they run out of money and fail to deliver a product. But Euclid continues selling shares to investors using the same mushroom model. I’m thinking they’ve developed a business model that can keep them going a long time.
The one thing I wish I knew more about was at what point the SEC decides a company has gone public by virtue of broad ownership. That would be an interesting angle of investigation for ED.
Finally, I understand your anger. As I repeatedly question whether the emperor is clad, you can’t help but feel I’m questioning your intelligence as an investor. It’s not much of a leap to understand that I’m saying you made a bad choice. That would make me mad too, and I might continue to fight back and defend myself in the face of overwhelming evidence that I was wrong. So I don’t take it personally. Keep taking your shots.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
While I have limited academic research experience in compression, I do try to keep up with various compression technologies, as ultimately, data compression is interesting from a computer science theory, mathematics, and even a statistical point of view (at least in regards to lossy compression).
However, I tend to agree with Mark in that the lack of a demonstration, of any kind, suggests a great big bottle of snake oil.
May 26th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Mark,
Thanx for your reply! Your bullshit and misunderstanding of the specifics continues and in my opinion will until this is finally decided, a great success? or a miserable failure and bad investment. This is like arguing politics or religion. So, stay true to your position(both of us), and let’s just let this thing play out. At this point, neither one of will have any affect on the final outcome. I’m going to cheer and your going to boo until the end. I’m actually looking forward to “the end”, and let’s wait until then to make further comments. At that point, we can initiate a new thread of posts that will either make you or me eat crow. I’m up for either! Have a great weekend!
May 27th, 2006 at 5:18 am
Mark and EDangle….It seems fair enough for anyone to make personal decisions regarding how they choose to spend their own money. We all make daily decisions concerning the distribution of our financial resources, and often these decisions are not conforming to those of the public in general, nor even amoung friends and family. Apparently several hundred individuals have made the decision to invest in the research of Euclid Discoveries. What I have not seen in the blog/board comments is much about “due diligence” vs “blind faith”. Most comments seem to support the later. I understand the funding activities began some ten years ago and continues, at least, until recently. I understand the company is privately held, therefore financials are not available to the public, but hopefully are available to the individual investors. I would think annual audited financial statements would confirm if the cash flows from investors are prudently spent in accordance with the objective of the investment, and not on the lifestyle of Mr. Wingard and Mr. Werner. If the financial statements confirm this to be true, critical opinion should stop. If the financial statements do not confirm (or have not been made available to prove) the cash flows supporting the proposed investment activities, one might wonder if the current objective might simply to be to maintain the lifestyle of the corporate officers.
May 27th, 2006 at 11:23 am
one might wonder if the current objective might simply to be to maintain the lifestyle of the corporate officers.
Yeah, FinanceGuy, I wonder the same thing. However, wonder too much, wonder out loud, and you might find yourself on the receiving end of some sort of civil court document, so I try to not go too deep there. They have had a nice ride so far, and of course, being private, we dont’ know what their comp package looks like.
I’m not a lawyer of course, but I did find this tidbit in reference to Google, who was more or less forced to start acting like a public company:
Now, I have personally heard from over 125 people who say they have shares of ED - although many of those people are actually probably indirect shareholders via LLC ownership. Could the real number be up to 500? If so, ED would be breaking the law if it didn’t start filing quarterly reports - but if I were in their shoes I would take the position that the tupperware owners are not shareholders, even though they think they are.
Unlike ED, I will go public with one prediction: In the year 2006, Euclid Discoveries will generate sales revenue of less than $5M, will generate patent royalty revenue of $0, will not go public, will not buy back shares from anyone outside the company, and will not sell rights to any patents or other IP. They will continue to urge their investors to be patient, and will state that they are very near some big deals.
Should I hit a home run on these predictions, I am going to roundly scoff at the ED apologists, and then we’ll work on predictions for 2007.
If I don’t hit a home run, we’ll have to evaluate crow factor. The ultimate crow factor would be a return to individual investors of say, 250% or better. (Some of them have been in for six or seven years, so 150% is like a balanced index fund - break even.)
May 27th, 2006 at 11:40 am
ED Angel, you called bullshit on me, but you didn’t answer some very specific questions that I raised in the first part of comment 2. Thus, I assume that you don’t have a good answer, and in fact your statement was false. That in fact there is a vast sea of people who have (or believe they have) ownership in ED via LLC tupperware parties.
So don’t pretend it’s just a case of us disagreeing over whether the company turns out well. The business practices I mentioned stink, anyone with any knowledge of investment would agree that they stink, and you are unwilling to answer.
You also didn’t answer any of the questions about the bogosity of angel investing in ED. And you know why? Because you guys aren’t angel investors. Angel investors by definition go through exactly the same processes of scrutiny that VCs do - they are in fact not much different than VCs. The big difference is that they fill a need for smaller investments. VCs don’t want to invest $100,000 for a potential $1,000,000 payoff - that’s not where they live. This is exactly where an angel investor lives. Your uncle can afford to invest $100,000, and a million dollar payoff would be sweet. Kleiner Perkins would have to hire an intern to manage that out of petty cash, and thus just don’t care.
You seem to think that Angel means deaf, dumb, and blind. In fact the ED community brags about it, talking about how institutional investors insist on a company hitting its marks, and when it doesn’t, squeezing them for greater ownership, etc.
Hey, you know what? That’s business! When a company doesn’t hit its marks, it means your valuation has gone done. The company OWES you something at that point, and it is completely normal practice to reevaluate. If you guys aren’t totally on top of this stuff, I will say again, the only thing you have in common with angels is your white outfit, because you are a flock of sheep.
In fact, I saw a public mention that ED sold some more stock just a while back to finance their payments to investment bankers. Tell me, did they dilute your shares? Do you know how many shares they are holding out? Did the board just vote to create more shares? Did the shareholders approve a new issue? Bet you don’t have clue. In fact, I bet the angel investors don’t even have voting rights.
Baa, Baa.
May 31st, 2006 at 8:18 am
Some food for thought, although perhaps not good food, or good thoughts, or even food. And some more.
Although these two articles are posted as comments to my ED article, they are truly just good things to keep in mind when trying to stay alive in this business.
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:55 am
Mark,
It may work out, it may not, but much of what you say regarding shareholder updates simply is not true. We do get regular updates. We know exactly how may shares are outstanding. We get lists of shareholders. There was a plan from the beginning on how the shares would be sold and it has been followed to a T. You mentioned that Euclid recently sold a few shares for the investment banker. Well, that sounds like great news. Typically, the investment banker is not going to waste their time unless there is something to sell. Maybe many of us are sheep, but we took a chance on a opportunity that we don’t often get access to.
Why would you think that Euclid would entertain your offer to refer them the Microsoft (as you know, there are not many companies with tens of billions of dollars)? I did some research on you I can’t figure out why you claim you are connected.
June 4th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
>Why would you think that Euclid would entertain your offer to refer them the Microsoft
>(as you know, there are not many companies with tens of billions of dollars)?
Well, Joey, I never said that, and you are in fact wrong, I did not offer to refer them to Microsoft.
But had I done so, let’s consider the question, why would they not entertaing the offer, or one similar to it?
The answers are simple and unarguable.
1) Because they said their goal is to sell their IP, and the implication has been that they expect the billions. Thus, a referal to one of the very few customers in the world would be accepted by any sane company.
2) Because it would be incredibly stupid not to.
and of course:
3) Because they have nothing to show and nothing to sell.
Take your pick, any of the three work for me.
>I did some research on you I can’t figure out why you claim you are connected.
I made no such claim, perhaps you need to reread the posts, or have someone check your work.
>Typically, the investment banker is not going to waste their time unless there is something to sell.
Who told you that? That’s just as foolish as saying a lawyer who gets paid by the hour won’t take a case because he doesn’t think he can win it.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
I was just browsing and stumbled over this blog and the Euclid issue. While I know from experience that people who desperately want to believe in something cannot be brought to their senses, my scientific mind cannot let this pass by. So I will just say this once and you will not hear from me again:
I’m a master of science and I’m fortuned to have a very good mind. I know quite a lot about data compression and I really have had much fun with the ludicrous claims of the likes of Jan Sloot and now Euclid. So read this and be wise:
What Euclid claims is fully and totally BULLSHIT. It cannot be done. No way, never.
That’s it. I will not waist my time on explaining why not because it would be a mission impossible.
Okay, just one little hint: A movie of 90 minutes would already need at least 50 MB for the sound alone (in bad stereo quality).
If you still don’t get it with this hint: Forget it, you’re just too stupid. If somebody wants to believe in this crap anyway and even throw away money on it: OK go ahead but don’t say you weren’t warned by people who knew what they were talking about.
Anyway, who cares. Even if it was possible (which isn’t, I know for 100% sure), by the time Euclid would have finished their product, everybody has much faster internet connections and each portable player has way more memory than now. Next generation optical storage can hold many movies anyway. Who will be interested then? It would be a niche market.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Sorry, Whiz, if you’re such a genius, why didn’t you learn to spell and not “waist” (the correct spelling for this usage would be waste, by the way) your expertise commenting on a technology about which you know absolutely NOTHING!
June 17th, 2006 at 5:35 am
Interesting battle of words. Some from a self-described Master of Science with questionable writing skills, and a rebuttal from a self-described liason with Euclid Discoveries who responds with phrases as “Whiz is a Dick” and “Screw U”. Is it just me, or is the weather a little chilly at home office?
http://www.talkingtree.com/gallery/USA/Massachusetts/Concord/December2005/index18.cfm
June 17th, 2006 at 5:46 am
No Euclid Discoveries sign. Is suite 212 is upstairs?
http://www.artemisia.no/arc/3/omraade/usa/concord/30.monument.sq.ii.html
June 17th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Hey, is that really their address? Kind of looks like a mail drop to me.
June 18th, 2006 at 5:26 am
I have no idea. I just “google’d” the Euclid Discoveries address and these pictures came up in the results. Maybe someone else knows?
June 18th, 2006 at 11:14 am
It’s an office building, you idiots! There are 3 stories — Euclid’s office’s are on the second floor. What else are you going to do to try to discredit this company? You know, if you keep this up you could actually find yourself in a libel or slander lawsuit!!!!!
June 18th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Woodford Reserve…(Isn’t this name trademarked?)…thanks for confirming the home office address of the company. Perhaps some have not had the opportunity to drive to Concord to personally visit the premises, and can now see what it looks like. I don’t know why you believe posting the picture discredits the company? The building is very stately, obviously historical, and apparently currently being used for some commercial purpose. So home office occupies space on the second floor, well good, if I had an office this would certainly be a nice place to conduct business. I also apologize for being an “idiot” and offending you.
June 18th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
You’re right….Woodford Reserve is trademarked — I ought to know — it’ my distillery!!!!!!! So………no problem with the name. I think you and Mark are a little too quick to jump to conclusions that Euclid is not on the up and up. I had my attorneys looking at their offering from the very beginning and not only are they on the up and up, they actually have what they say they have. And, trust me on this one, I have this on good authority from third party analysts who’ve been able to see and confirm that they have what they say they have. So, before you people take your next shot at Euclid, you might stop and think that perhaps they do have a legitimate claim to the intellectual property they say they have and also have the technology they say they have. Personally, I plan to laugh all the way to the bank!!!!
June 18th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Woodford Reserve…..my favorite brand of spirits. Have a bottle in my cabinet, and several collector’s bottles on display. I also much enjoy the tour and the lunches. You are not correct in associating my comments with those of Mark’s. I am very much “pro” Euclid and sincerely hope you guys are right. I anticipate sharing the eventual excitement of your success, but can not financially, because I am not an investor. I was late to the party, but am looking forward to my investor friends teasing me with their “I told you so” comments. I assure you I have no personal opinion regarding the company, nor the investment, and have no right since I don’t have a dog in the fight. I only dabble in this blog because of curiosity. So… I toast those with the nerve to take a chance, and may your risk be soon rewarded. And if sucess is not to be, it is your money and not anyone else’s business how you choose to invest it.
June 18th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Thank you sir…Ours is a small batch bourbon and we’re mighty proud of it. I hope you have the Kentucky Derby collector’s bottles as well as our Breeder’s Cup collection. We also have a VIP and a Master’s collection. Helps keep my kids in shoes!
June 19th, 2006 at 9:07 am
>It’s an office building, you idiots! There are 3 stories — Euclid’s office’s are on the second floor.
Yeah, it just looks kind of small - if Euclid is on the second floor of this building:
http://www.artemisia.no/arc/3/omraade/usa/concord/30.monument.sq.ii.html
it seems like their operation is by definition a little smaller than I expected. They must have all their research flung around the country instead of onsite and the building is strictly for business.
I don’t think I have ever defamed Euclid in any actionable sense (which would probably have to be libel, BTW). I try to clarify my statements as 1) uneducated opinion, 2) educated opinion, 3) observation of facts or 4) sheer speculation. In our country, all of these are usually okay.
And I don’t want to cause damage to Euclid. I encourage anybody who is going to do business with Euclid to charge into it full speed. If they have what they say the have, you have the opportunity to latch on to a great product, so by all means check it out!
Finally, I don’t think I really need to do anything to discredit a company that has been in “imminent release of the biggest thing ever” mode for almost five years. They really need no help.
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:04 am
Thank you Mark for the thought provoking commentary. I find this very interesting and at least your comments are something to think about. Not merely blind leading the blind.
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:46 am
Mark, it looks like Tiny Angel has opted for a private email system to promote his position as liason for Euclid. Investors have again been asked to refrain from posting to your message board, and critical comments by “Poodger72″ on the EuclidInvestors message board have been attributed to you. I guess we are in a quiet time until either the investors again become disgruntled, or have begun taking their checks to the bank and want you to know about it.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:23 am
The message board I created for Euclid investors is long gone, so nobody can post to it anyway.
But I can guarantee that I am not Poodger72 - Tiny Angel set up his board for a reason and I’m not going to rain on his parade.
He should have a pretty good idea who Poodger72 is, the board normally has a verification system for adding new members, and of course he can kick the person out without any trouble.
I’m not particularly happy about having somebody else’s messages blamed on me - sounds like somebody wants a straw man to kick around in the absence of anything interesting to talk about.
I might have to register with the board just so I can repeatedly deny that I am Poodger72!
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Mark for the record: Below are the two posts that relate to the Poodger, I fail to see how post #2 with a veiled reference be construed as blamed on you. Suspecting is not the same thing as convicting. It was meant more as tongue in cheek but if it offended you I apologize. Seems a little too sensitive for someone who has always been quick to challenge what ED has said.
1. OK Poodger, I am in charge of the E-mail group and all members of the group have to be confirmed as to who they are and if they are truly an investor. You may be a member of the E-mail group but have not revealed your Poodger screen name. So unfortunately unless you sent me an E-mail distinguishing yourself I am afraid I have to suspect you are not an investor and I am going to start to delete your posts as soon as they appear. If you truly are an investor and for some reason you want to remain anonymous to ED so you can take a more, shall we say less than positive stance, I don’t have a problem with that. So you must send me a PM or an E-mail to Kinsmang@aol and confirm you are in fact an investor or you are out. If you are an investor and can confirm to me I will keep your identity anonymous and you can continue to post. I will still have the right to remove any posts if I feel they are contrary to the goals of ED, its investors or becomes extremely negative. Unfortunately this is not a democracy.
2. Bye the way if you are who we suspect you, I may still let you post but you will have to reveal who you are and use your real screen name (MN) However you will be subject to stricter censorship rules. (Seems pretty fair to me)
Finally finance guy ED wants private dissemination of information so it goes only to the investors, Thus we are not always playing out our little drama in public. It is harder for people to attack if there is nothing to see. Ultimately it will come down to the investors whether they are happy or not.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Tiny, I agree with you. I am only here out of curiosity, not to express an opinion about the investment, and certainly not to “attack” the company nor the investors. I am not an investment analyst and know absolutely nothing about video compression. I simply thought that investors were the original source of blog discussions, and that they were seaching for dialog. Apparently you are speaking for them, in that they prefer to keep their comments “in house”, which is fine. I only speculated that comment outside your communication vehicle would appear in public if at sometime in the future the investors once again were looking for dialog outside your emails or corporate communications, or that they might simply wish to brag about their financial success. Oh…I suspect “poodger72″ actually is NOT Mark Nelson, but a disgruntled investor. I tend to believe you are the one in the “attack” mode at anyone not sharing your position, as evident by anyone chosing to express any concern to the current status of their investment.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Dude, tongue in cheek or not (absent smiley face) you said:
>I may still let you post but you will have to reveal who you are and use your real screen name (MN)
Sorry, the only MN around here is me, and you’ll find that people generally take exception to misattribution. Don’t do it.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
I thank each of you for the 15 seconds of fame provided by your commentary of my postings!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Euclid DiscoveriesPosts More Claims…
Euclid Discoveries continues with their modus operandi, talking big and showing nothing. Now it’s a 5X improvement in compression over standard MPEG-4, at least in a press-release-ware.
……
April 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
One of my family members has purchased a large amount of stock in Euclid. He is the businessman of the family. Im the technologist of the family, and it’s like trying to argue religion with my brother to explain to him how the Euclid claims are outrageous and unlikely in the extreme. I’ve had friends at the really big iron technology companies read the press releases and hear the claims, and everyone thinks vaporware. The most cynical part of me takes one look at the tacky website and thinks this is a large fraud, but, much like believing in god, the easter bunny, and santa claus, i know i want to believe because it would be great if it were true for my brother.
I really do hope that the investors get their return. Fingers crossed for these people, and well wishes for the “engineers” of Euclid.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:27 am
I couldn’t agree more with you. What they claim sounds so lucrative and it could have been great if only it was more probable to accomplish that.
Anyway, best of luck to everyone involved. Do keep us posted on any updates.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The rumor on ED is that they have signed a very nice bank with personnel that can make this sale based on the technology they have. Why would a investment bank put time and effort into something like ED if there is not light at the end of the rainbow. Can ED actually have the technology and be in the silent sale process. In today’s world were information is available at every corner can this be possible
April 26th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
It’s funny Taylor, that was the rumor in early 2006. The investors were getting antsy back then, and were assured that the whole thing would be wrapped up with a bow in just a few months. Euclid plays their investors very well though. The primary method of selling shares in the company made sure that most of the investors have no rights at all, so they get to sit and fret about their retirement money and life savings, but they don’t get to take management to task for lack of action.
>Why would a investment bank put time and effort into something
>like ED if there is not light at the end of the rainbow.
One good guess would be that the bank gets paid for their time regardless of what happens.
Hope you don’t have any money invested.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Mark- I personally know 6 Euclid investors, & they all couldn’t be happier with how things are playing out with their investment…one of the top investment banks in the world, that happens to specialize in technology co’s, is representing Euclid, & things are progressing quickly…it’s obvious from reading your posts over the past year-plus that you have a personal vendetta against Euclid. Why be a hater?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
David, I’m glad these investors are happy. Of course, they’ll be a lot happier if and when they see some of their money back in their own pockets.
I’m not a Euclid hater, just a disbeliever. Over the last four or five years they’ve consistently failed to deliver on anything they’ve ever talked about, publicly or privately. I see no indication that this is changing.
People who dump their money into a loser often remain cheerleaders right up to the end, it’s some sort of financial Stockholm Syndrome. So be it.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
It just seems like you’re a fairly smart guy…why not spend time on more fruitful pursuits? Unless of course your disbelieving rants are meant as some sort of public service..
May 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I don’t spend a lot of time on Euclid Discoveries. You can see that this was posted a year ago.
And yes, it is meant as some sort of public service. I had numerous inquiries for worried investors in Euclid, and thought it was worth responding to their concerns.
It seems odd that you would refer to this as a “rant”:
I don’t think there is really any strong emotion in it, and I don’t think I was pompous, bombastic, or windy. It’s a pretty simple statement of the facts.
What’s your connection with Euclid, “David”? You say you know some investors. Got any money in it yourself?
May 9th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Its not just Mark, you can talk to anyone who understands a little bit of technology behind compression and chances are you will hear almost the same thing. Euclid’s technology is not a secret, their patents and patent applications are published by USPTO and anyone can read them.
And Euclid is not the only company acting this way, there are a few more. Some may be well intentioned, but unfortunately thats not enough to get the investors the returns they expect.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Mark, I think I’ve figured it out…it’s really the only plausible explanation- you must’ve approached Euclid at some point & tried to get involved….only to be rebuffed. I am not an investor, just a casual observer who happens to know some people involved. I highly doubt that worried Euclid investors would approach you to help assuage their concerns regarding their investments. I know the bank that’s taken them on, & the only way they get paid is if Euclid gets sold. That’s a fact.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:14 am
No, I can honestly say I haven’t made any attempt to get involved with Euclid Discoveries. The closest that I’ve come to any involvement was making an offer to set up a show-and-tell with my deep-pockets employer, which oddly enough, they declined.
If you think there are no worried Euclid investors, dude, you aren’t paying attention.
However, those who are staying in have incredibly high expectations - they’re thinking the technology is worth billions and billions of dollars. Which just goes to show that a lot of people aren’t very good at math. Even if ED delivered everything they have promised at one time or another, their product just can’t generate enough cash flow to justify that kind of valuation.
David, for the past four (?) years, somebody like you comes along every six months or so and says “just you wait”. And I do. Example: 12/28/05:
>Euclid is hopefully getting ready to be sold …
>didn.t know if you had heard about the latest news !
And after my skepticism:
>Always thought the tech sounded “too good to be true”
>but if it’s a scam , why are they still hanging around
>and why is CRAI Charles Rivers and associates involved
>with it AND why are top notched scientist associatd
>with it … like Michael Kirby and now K. Roy-Chowdhury
If and when any Euclid investor manages to even get their original investment back, I’ll congratulate their management team on their good job.
But I don’t expect that to happen.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
It’s very obvious that you don’t expect that to happen. I’m sorry, I thought that their “product” (ie; intellectual property) carried with it infinite possibilities in terms of cash flow…the Boston Globe article from last year quotes a notable research director at Gartner in Philadelphia, Patti Reali, who says that EuclidVision could “change dynamics in the satellite industry”. She certainly doesn’t have a horse in this race, & the article was no home-town puff-piece. It’s clear that what Euclid is claiming to have is disruptive technology, & your “deep pocketed” employer doesn’t have it.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
What’s wrong cat got your tongue?
June 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Did anyone else notice that this thread was started more than a year ago and nothing has changed since then?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
The whole experience started almost five years ago for me, and it’s been the same tune ever since. Every six months a Euclid booster comes along and starts spewing bile, inventing clever reasons for me not liking the company, and promising a shiny, happy future with billions of dollars coming their way.
Some fanboy has even managed to slip them into the Wikipedia: Euclid Discoveries and EuclidVision. The article blandly asserts, without sourcing:
The submissions are from “CoolDude00″, who oddly enough only has four Wikipedia submissions, three of which are Euclidean! And I suspect the fourth is another privately held company looking for funding…
June 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Why don’t you put us out of our misery and ask JC if he know’s about ED. We have been told that NP of A&C and JC have had conversations. Told there will be talk about ED at SVC. Hope you don’t need the secret decoder ring to understand my post. So if you have access or you can get access, ask the question and then both you and the rest of us will know where we stand once and for all.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I first heard of Euclid through this article from the
Boston Globe and the only other information I can find is from blog postings. You mentioned the AP article. Can you post a link to it? I can’t find it online. Thanks.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Kevin, Euclid has a copy of the AP story on their web page:
http://www.eucliddiscoveries.com/news/wp_20060514.php
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Mark,
Please give some insight on what you see possible for ED by end of 2007. What is your expert opinion? Do you know Kevin O’Conner, is this the UTube guy? Please be ojective. Smiley “..”
………………($$)
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Smiley, any expertise I have is in the field of data compression, not business.
As far as data compression goes, Euclid Discoveries has no product, so the future for them in that area is bleak. Being objective is impossible, because there is no data.
I don’t have any insight into what goes on at ED, but by watching announcements and promises to investors, my guess would be that back in 2001 or so they thought they were on to some super-duper breakthrough in video compression based on perhaps one msiguided engineer’s poorly conceived ideas on how to improve basic video coding.
By 2004 they realized that what they had wasn’t going to work, so they jumped on this new object-based compression approach, hired some experts, and took off after that. After working on that and making progress through 2005, they had something they thought they could show to the press and maybe drum up some interest.
Unfortunately, what they had looked pretty bad, but they figured by 2007 they would have it polished and working well.
The fact that we haven’t seen any demonstrations of polished product might lead one to believe that object compression is much harder than they originally thought - maybe not commercially feasible. Maybe today’s CPUs are only up to Clutch Cargo levels of object compression.
So I think what 2008 will bring is either a) no news at all or b) an announcement of yet another direction, the third Great Leap Forward.
If they pick a third direction, it would be prudent to choose something they can succeed at. Problem is, everyone has been promised earth-shattering technology, and I don’t think they are going to be able to pluck that out of a hat.
However, I do know enough about business to know that there is an upper bound on the value of any video compression technology. Investors seem to think that the upside potential is unlimited, but in truth, the only way to make a lot of money off video compression is end-user consumer electronics. And manufacturers of these devices are only going to pay so much to license a codec. The cash flow is easy to analyze. Even the imaginary technology that ED investors believe in is not going to be worth a billion dollars.
Check out the pain threshold of the manufacturers of DVD players in China - what it took for them to start developing their own video standard. They pay a couple of bucks for MPEG patents - and that gives them heartburn. ED is not going to come in and suddenly add a $10 fee to the IP tab.
Sorry.
Ask again in 2008, I’m sure things will be the same - unless the money is all burned up by then.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:04 am
[...] Euclid Discoveries have been leading their investors on with tales of incredible video compression for years now. No doubt that somebody, someday, might make a quantum leap in video compression, but for the past [...]
November 11th, 2007 at 9:54 am
[...] in, are still hopeful that things might not be as bad as they look. Check out the comments to this post on Euclid Discoveries, more than a year has passed since this thread started and absolutely nothing has changed. Neither [...]
March 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am
It’s March of 2008 - what are you hearing?
March 17th, 2008 at 11:59 am
@Katdar:
As predicted, it is 2008 and absolutely nothing has changed - except perhaps for a decrease in the confidence of the Euclid investors - nobody logging in to announce that the company will soon be worth billions.
Euclid did issue a press release in 2007 announcing a new hire, but that’s been it.
Last year I did a little work to see if the company was running out of money. I contacted some of the people listed as part of their management team, and found out that in many cases, they had only done some very intermittent work for the company and currently had no connection. These are people listed as part of the management team:
http://www.eucliddiscoveries.com/keybios.php
These people in some cases have open consulting contracts, so they may still have a relationship with ED, but they aren’t doing any work.
A public example of that would be Anna Gilbert, PhD, (whom I have had no contact with) listed on Euclid’s “management team” web page as “Consulting Algorithmic Mathematician”. Well, she must not be doing too much work for Euclid, as they are not event mentioned on her publicly viewable CV:
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~annacg/
And of course, she seems to be fully occupied at Michigan.
It seems a bit disingenuous to list someone who is clearly nothing more than an occasional consultant as part of the “Management Team.”
But some of the people on the team are still full time employees, and say they are currently working for Euclid. So at least as of late last year, the doors are open. Maybe the small headcount means the cash will hold up for years and years.
I was also inadvertently bumped into the identify of Tiny Angel, one of the biggest ED boosters - he’s a chiropractor in New England. (In good standing and in practice at the time.) I’m not a detective, but I also think I possibly bumped into evidence of he and his wife liquidating an expensive asset in 2006, which would have raised a lot of cash. If he put that money into Euclid you can beat he’s drowning in flop sweat by now.
Euclid is still on the corporate listings of the state of MA, so I assume they are still in business, but they are definitely silent.
In addition to the comments on this post, you can get a sense for the boosterism of the ED supporters here:
http://mooreslore.corante.com/archives/2005/09/09/angel_investors_in_america.php#32297
And here:
http://www.c10n.info/archives/289
In the meantime, I suppose the investors are still seeing stuff like this from 2006:
April 14th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I don’t know anything in business field, but very interested in data compression.
First of all - why most of you are so pessimistic about new revolutionary technology?
I understand, if we are talking about random data compression or something like that, it makes me smile.
But (as I understand) we are talking about lossy compression technique, what makes possible great achievements.
Just imagine…
Let’s use some technique to store 3D objects, for example you can follow the link for video, to understand what I mean: http://movie.diginfo.tv/2007/07/11/07-0076-d.php
OK, now we have a bunch of objects. We can make it move and do any other morph operations.
Now it looks like cartoons and not realistic - that’s right. To fix this we could use relatively small amount of data to add some realistic effects (texture, some shadows e.t.c,), but even this effects could be calculated I guess.
Anyway, the bottleneck I see is that it’s work for some kind of AI, to encode/decode all this stuff…
Sounds philosophical, but still believable (-:
And I’m pretty sure there is no any significant reasons not to believe.
Regards,
Apo
April 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
@Apo:
I think the primary reason for skepticism centers around the business practices of Euclid Discoveries.
Obviously there are possibilities in object-based compression - in fact, the recent clarinet story shows just what one can do with a very accurate model - but much of ED’s behavior is reminiscent of behavior seen in other companies that have turned out to be duds, or worse yet, frauds.
This doesn’t mean Euclid Discoveries is a fraud, or is doome to failure, but given their claims, I feel the bar is set rather high for them to achieve any sort of legitimacy, and they really haven’t done *anything* to accomplish that.
Let me put it this way. If you had invested $100K of your retirement money as an ED Angel five or six years ago, and had been hearing hints that untold riches were just around the corner - but still had nothing to show for it, would the tone of your post be so reasonable and accomodating?
- Mark
April 15th, 2008 at 2:30 am
I’m not investor, but as any normal person I would like to see some working results for sure.
At least this “talking head” of news speaker could be nice demo (-: (ED mention this as an example)
Such king of projects could waste a lot of money (even if it’s possible to realize somehow). I think such projects could succeed like Open-Source. With several hundreds enthusiasts without interests on money but focused on the goal.
By the way - is there any company with revolutionary promises ever show some results to the public?
Apo
June 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I’ve heard that this things about to pop. Anybody out there know anything?
June 9th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Hey Bardo, define POP. Moving forward, or ending?
June 9th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
My guess is that someone is trying to get their money back, and the con-artists are dropping hints to try and change their minds.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
E.C.P,
You guessed wrong! There are no con-artist at ED, and there is no investment out there that will “give your money back” LOL ???? But most significantly ED is live and well and continuing.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
@2Tech:
Like so many other people associated with ED, you appear to have a startling lack of understanding of the basics of this type of investment.
ED has actively positioned their investors as “angels”. In general, angels are going to turn their money over to the company, and will either get a big payoff some day, or kiss it goodbye. They don’t own an exchange-traded stock that they can easily sell, and they don’t have the right to ask the company to buy it back.
So yes, they are in a situation where the company will not “give your money back”. Like you said, “LOL ?????”
As for “ED is live and well and continuing”, I guess all that we know for sure is that they’ve had their investors money for quite some time (going on on seven or eight years?) and have produced nothing of value. If they keep the cash flow down to paying salaries to just a few key executives, they may be able to keep it up for another ten years without producing anything.
- Mark
June 10th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Mark,
Oh but I do know the difference, infact I have a very diversified portfolio. Perhaps it is you who is startled and lacks understanding of the basics of this type of investment. Have you ever been in an angel investment group? Do you speak from experience? “LOL” Have you ever invested big bucks in a high risk venture in your whole life? LOL …seriously… have you?
June 10th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Meanwhile anyone can go and read comp.compression and notice that from the time a new method of compression is first discussed till time that a working test program usually run from three to six MONTHS tops!
2Tech, you are a fool! I may not know that much about about investments, but I do know about development of ‘DEMO’ code … and the fact that there is NONE after all this time means they had nothing from the start and they still have nothing now.
Meanwhile computer tech moves on and one by one the reasons they claim the tech is worth so much money becomes less and less important. Worse, even in the areas where compression is still important the code that is out there works and works today.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:06 am
E.C.P.,
Wow, I have been a fool! Your insight is amazing, now I know where I went wrong. Rock on friend, your on top of your game. You won’t get any details out of me no matter how hard you try to POP my bubble.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
The saying is: “A fool and his money is soon parted”.
Well, if you are not a fool then where is your money that you invested years ago?
I notice that you had no comment on the development cycle of compression software. But unlike Euclid’s ‘claimed’ software I can get the other compression code that have been developed in the last year run on my computer today.
Likewise I see no comment from you about software/hardware developments that are eroding any claimed value of Euclid’s software.
Examples:
Videos? Why would I care about *PAYING* for Euclid’s software to compress videos to fit on a floppy? DivX has replaced MPEG for video files and increases the compression enough to fit the video on my flash-drive. A drive that is easier/faster/smaller/cheaper to use then any floppy drive - and works with anyone’s computer *WITHOUT* them needing Euclid’s software.
General Storage? Hello, your local Staples/Business Depot are selling 500 GB and bigger stand-alone drives to the general public today. People are not fighting to fit all their data into a 100 MB drive anymore.
Data Transmission? Look around, the percentage of people using high-speed internet keeps increasing
Who needs Euclid’s compression software three years from now?
The relatively few customers who want high compression in the future are *NOT* going to be paying out the billions that Euclid claims it’s software is worth.
June 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Read my last sentence in the previous message again.
Who will want Euclid’s software? And how much are they willing to pay for it?
Multiple the two numbers will get you the possible total value of Euclid’s ‘claimed’ software.
Your problem is the first number is not growing fast and probably is heading down now-a-days.
But you real problem is the second number is falling like a rock, there just too many ‘WORKING’ alternatives for anyone to risk big bucks on a magic compressor that no-one has ever seen a working copy of.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
E.C.,
Im not going to comment on the technology. I will say your not even close with your assumptions. Maybe its 2hightech4u. Nice chatting with you, there will be no more post from me. One suggestion tonight look up at the stars and think in light years not last year.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
@2Tech:
>One suggestion tonight look up at the
>stars and think in light years not
>last year.
Pretty much confirms that you have no clue.
Let me know when you cash the check, okay?
I’ll let you know when a) the dissolution papers are filed or b) principles do the perp walk.
I don’t think a) or b) are going to happen until the money runs out though, and that will probably be a while.
- Mark
June 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
>The relatively few customers who
>want high compression in the future are
>*NOT* going to be paying out the billions
>that Euclid claims it’s software is worth.
This is definitely a real problem for Euclid. Even high-def video becoming a big thing, the cost of transmitting and storing bits is going down steadily.
For most storage, there is aboslutely no reason to worry about storing video in anything more compressed than H.264. Apple or Roku can ship a set-top box with enough space to hold dozens of videos for $99 or $199 - who cares if the dozens turns into 100? It’s not worth worrying about.
Likewise, even the sad US is getting high bandwidth penetration to the point where most subscribers have enough stream HD in real time. Any reason to pay extra for *more* than that? Hard to see it.
It’s kind of silly doing a what-if exercise that supposes Euclid can really do what they say, but even if they did, I’m afraid the window has closed. By the time the commoditize their product, it’s Game Over. Fail.
- Mark
June 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
The ‘What-If’ is useful to realize the worth of any new compression schemes that develop in the near future.
I have not problem with the idea of someone developing compression tech that is better than some of those in use today. But even a little knowledge of the compression field suggests any such break-thru will compress only one type of data well (ie. sound vs video vs text data).
Any new compression company coming online will find it hard to collect revenues in the millions, much less tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Those numbers only make sense if you are thinking about licensing fees collected over decades of use.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
i think most investors i know are sick of euclid and their claims of riches.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Investors do have options. They can file complaint with SEC, contact atty general in their state, check with bbb, make demands of mgmt or even file a class action. Thats what euclid investors should do if they feel it necessary. Euclid sounds like something the SEC would like to hear about.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:13 am
Euclid does a pretty good job of managing the expectations of their investors. I don’t think any of them are going to complain until it’s way too late.
Although at least some of them are concerned about where their money has gone, I think they know that an SEC inquiry for a company that small would be a huge burden, and they would rather have the company working on products than dealing with the lawyers.
From what I have heard from individual investors, many have not actually invested in Euclid directly - they own shares in LLCs that then purchase shares of Euclid. I’ve often wondered if this would be viewed by the SEC as an attempt to avoid various reporting requirements. But not having access to the books, I have no way of knowing if they really do have LLCs as shareholders, and if so, how many hidden investors actually exist.
- Mark
July 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Guess what I’ve heard again that it’s about to POP
July 31st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Wow, Bardo that is what you said a month ago. And what developments did we see?
NOTHING!
Must be fun trying to keep the rumor-mill going so the investors don’t ask for results/return on all the money they gave Euclid.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
PS. I went to Euclid’s website. Are they still stuck in 2005?
They boast about viewing HD video on a PDA! Have you seen the size of a PDA screen or the hardware resolution? What good is HD on a 2-4 inch screen?
Second they talk about storing movies on your IPod. In 2005 with < 1GB memories maybe. But this is 2008, next week I go camping with a friend, and she already has told me that she has all her Oprah videos and a number of movies saved up to view while camping. Plus she will bring her laptop to stay at the cabin to swap in others if she changes her mind.
PS. My video folder contains 83 movies/episodes and is 16GB in size. Here in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada 16GB USB sells for $39.95, a 8 GB for $29.99, a 4 GB for $14.99 and a 1 GB for $9.99. Prices are less elsewhere.
Why would I want to spend big bucks on vapourware?
July 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
>Guess what I’ve heard again that it’s about to POP
Does *anyone* see a message like that and actually take it seriously? Seems hard to believe they would.
My q. is why would Bardo even be bothering to try to pump when there’s no way to dump?
- Mark
September 11th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Relevant phone numbers for Euclid investors.
Massachusetts attorney general 617-727-2200
Kentucky attorney general 502-696-5300
Securities Exchange Commis. 800-SEC-6585
October 17th, 2008 at 5:50 am
What a relevant date for ‘helpisontheway’s’ message.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I would just like to point out in reading their latest flyer that Business Depot is now selling 1 TB size external drives now.
And I only have 360 GB in files on my computers, why did I need Euclid’s software again?
October 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Apparently Euc. has sent out new hype investor letter trying to settle investors. Obvious that a select few are giving the co.s talking points for the week or month.Others are to chime in how great euc. is.If thsi pos fails pumpers will have to answer for it from state,fed authorities.
October 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Oh,yes. I would also like to add, my main OS is BeOS/Haiku, my girl-friend’s OS is XP, my ex-girl-friend’s OS is Vista, my best friend’s OS is Linux.
At any time I can plug this TB drive into any of these systems to read/write files for exchange and sharing with ZERO SOFTWARE issues.
All of these so-called super compressors claim support for only a limited number of OSes and expect one to pay for a copy for each OS. Not to mention all the possible software conflicts to deal with.
So again, who needs these sky-in-the-pie systems when we have workable plug and play systems right now?
December 21st, 2008 at 8:40 pm
http://www.corista.com/bios.htm
another corporation - same players
December 21st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Corista looks like it’s just a short 3 mile drive from Euclid. Handy.
It’s been a while since I’ve heard anything from any Euclid investors. Both the company boosters and unhappy group haven’t had much to say.
All I see on Euclid’s site is that they were granted some patents. Nothing about business, products, revenue.
No reason for the status quo to change until the money runs out.
- Mark
December 28th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I recently was brought to the light of the great euclid discoveries and decided to do some research on it since a share cost 12,000 dollars!!! And so far things aren’t looking as good as they were when i was convinced that this investment would be a definite payoff. Does anyone have any clue about the company? I’m not looking to argue with anyone i was just really curious. I’ve read every post and the opinions are mixed. When i first heard of investment it sounded great, when i was told i could invest 12,000 dollars in this company and it was suppose to sell for around 1 billion dollars, which then i was told i could walk away with ten times my original investment if this was true and company sold for 1 billion. I’m just really nervous about this, its very tempting but when something sounds too good to be true it normally is. Could someone with please just give me some kind of information on this euclid company. And once again i’m not a share holder just a possible share holder looking for some helpful information on Euclid. Thanks Guys Please help me with any information, im just looking for some kind of idea of what exactly this company is and some mixed opinions. Thanks again!!
December 28th, 2008 at 9:58 am
@Brandon:
Something strikes me as a little odd about your email.
Regardless, my personal opinion is that this would be a bad investment. Euclid has not demonstrated that they have any sort of product or technology that will support the valuation of $1B that you say you have heard.
Incidentally, how did you decide that one share would be worth $120K? Do you have a complete breakdown of the ownership of the company?
- Mark
December 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I was told about euclid discoveries from a close relative who has shares in the company. And he was the one who told me if it sold for around 1billion at the so called auction i could possible earn around 120,000. But something like this seems to good to be true. That why i started trying to research this company since the site was so vague. I’m 20 years old and this kind of investment could make or break me. I was just looking for some kind of info on company. But thanks for the info let me know of anything else you hear. Thanks
December 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Also mark i also did research on corista and it does seem somewhat odd. The similarities of the two are quite scary.
December 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
>I was told about euclid discoveries from a close >relative who has shares in the company.
I’ve often referred to Euclid’s method of raising money as a tupperware scheme. It seems to place a lot of reliance on raising money from angel investors who don’t necessarily know much about what they are getting into.
Stocks are cheap today, if you’ve got $12K to invest why not buy an S&P500 index fund with a super-low cost ratio? You won’t get a 10:1 payoff in 1 year but 200 years of history suggests you’ll get a few points above inflation. Tuck it away for retirement or a new house and it will grow nicely in the long run.
- Mark
December 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Assuming you are really asking if this is a good investment don’t try looking at the company, try looking at the market it claims will buy it’s product.
That is the killer problem for all to see, the market is no where as big as Euclid claims, even if it had a real product. If this were the 1990’s there would be a huge demand for a product that would let you store Giga-Bytes of data on hard drives that were a few hundred Mega-Bytes at most in size.
But on Boxing Day (2008) I went out to buy new storage (internal drive) for my laptop as the old hard drive was dying. I ended up with an 8 GB CF card, works great TODAY not sometime in the future. And the *SMALLEST* hard drive I could find for sale was 160GBs! And the largest laptop drive was 360GBs. If I was willing to go to an external drive the largest drive was 1.5 Tera-Bytes!
How many people do you think need more storage than that! More important what is cheaper if you do need more? Buying more hard drives? Waiting a year or two for still bigger ones to come on market? Or paying the big bucks Euclid claims their software is worth?
Euclid is trying to claim that they make Buggy Whips, and someone is willing to pay a billion dollars for the company! True, buggy whips are still being made today, and it is probably a market worth millions world-wide. But you can’t find anyone willing to pay a billion for such a company. The same applies to Euclid, no-one needs their software enough to pay what they claim it is worth.
So it does not matter if they have a working compressor or not (But we know that they don’t because their claims are impossible) because even if it was real you would never make your money back.
Go on try and do it yourself! Try and name who needs their claimed software enough to pay what they want for it!
December 28th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Alright guys its nice to have an outside opinion on an investment. I also have money in the stock market so maybe with this 12 i will invest a little more. Thanks guys. Keep me posted on any other news.
December 29th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Brandon, your post made no sense. Invest more where?
December 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Corista deals with condensing images or still pictures. Euclid deals with condensing video, so perhaps the technology is quite similar, but the end result will be quite separate and distinct.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Add again I ask why pay for their unproven garbage when there are working systems available in your local store TODAY!
And I do mean local, I live in a small town (120,000) and Yellow pages list three imaging companies locally who if i go in and slap the cash down can sell my a working system. More if I go into Toronto.
The problem as I keep saying is the claims about how much money they can make vs how much the market is willing to pay is way too large.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
if anyone bought euclid units from a LLC that charged investors more than they paid for the units, call your state atty genl office. They seem very interested in this for profit arrangement.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:35 am
>if anyone bought euclid units from a LLC that
>charged investors more than they paid for the
>units,
How is this illegal? Just curious.
I always felt that the use of LLCs was pretty dubious for two reasons.
First, the people who buy stock in an LLC actually don’t have any rights as Euclid shareholders. Which to me says that you would have to be a complete idiot to do this. I mean, if the LLC can buy shares, why can’t I buy the shares myself? Let’s hear a real reason, and if you can’t give me one, why, maybe I’ll keep my retirement money somewhere nice and safe, like in US blue chip stocks!
Second, it seems that using LLCs would be a way to attempt to avoid having Euclid reach the number of shareholders that would trigger the requirement that it start publicly reporting its finances. I don’t know if this is a strategy that is feasible or legal, I’m just speculating that this might be a result of their LLC strategy.
- Mark
January 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I have no idea why they were interested.
January 10th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Isnt it unusual for a comp’s management to start another co while still working on the first co? i didnt know about corista until now. weird.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I’ve also been asked to get in this trade - not sure - been told 12,000 will go to 100,000 this year for sure
January 12th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@Jeff:
So the first thing you have to ask is how will the fundamentals drive this price?
This is not a publicly traded stock, and since the company has no revenue stream, you can expect nobody is going to be buying up the stock unless a sale is imminent.
In order for another company to purchase Euclid, they would have to have a demonstrated technology that the other company is interested.
Once that is seen, and you come up with a sale price, you can then figure out how much your shares will be worth by looking at preferred shares and common shares, seeing how funds will be distributed, and seeing what your payout will be.
How much of this research have you done? And are you proposing to buy shares from an LLC or directly from Euclid? If from an LLC, have you asked Euclid why you cannot buy your shares directly from them?
- Mark
January 12th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
what i cannot figure out is if their video compression works, how much would microsoft pay for it? In this tight credit market, why would anyone put a lot of cash for something like this?
January 12th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
i would be buying from an LLC because i do not have the money to buy direct
January 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
@Jeff:
Is there some reason that Euclid can’t simply lower the price so that angel investors can put their money directly into the company? Why do they need these LLCs? Don’t you wonder about that? Euclid can set the minimums at whatever number they please.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
i agree - not sure of the reason for the state minimums and why an LLC could buy single shares but only after they meet the mininum investment. That is what is curious - the LLCs still buy direct from the Company but have the shares issued to the shareholder, except Euclid does not record the individual as a shareholder…..something like that i think
January 12th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
@Jeff:
There is effectively not much market for their product any more.
Companies like Cisco and Apple with large cash reserves love buying stuff during hard times because prices are low. So there is no doubt they might go for something that is useful to them. But there is no business case for this.
You can already store a ton of moves on an iPod. The problem is, since you’re buying them, watching them once, then moving on, there’s really no big reason to save them. Who cares if you can put 2,500 movies on a 10G disk, or whatever the insane promise is?
The only people who still really care about video bandwidth are satellite providers. Everyone else is able to deal with the status quo using the very capable H.264 method.
- Mark
January 12th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
i might just call the company and speak with them directly about this….because that is the key - if there is no market for the product , what company is going to spend that kind of money to make the risk worth while?
January 14th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Please don’t settle for vague promises.
Demand details if needed, what markets they are going to sell to?
Forget Ipods and PDAs, they are shipping with 16GBs of flash today, and 80-160GBs of hard drive TODAY! A GB is about an hour’s worth of video or over ten hours of sound depending on the amount of present day available compression software. Why should any company pay them extra. And don’t fall for the claim that companies can buy smaller cheaper storage devices. It does not work that way, those smaller units are not being made anymore and special runs will just raise their prices.
What else? High speed on telephone lines? It’s called DSL and it is available today, plus companies have invested too much money to dump the old hardware.
Cell phones, the facts is that cell companies have plenty of bandwidth. It’s their pricing model that is old, no sales there not matter what Euclid claims.
Okay, what else. Storage? Go to your local Business Depot for off the self solutions that don’t need any extra software.
Cable TV, who even uses what is available today on cable, do you really think there is a demand for even double what most cable companies already supply.
Remember, at all times Euclid’s claims about about their stocks’ worth is based on what others will pay for it. But no matter where or who you look at you can’t find anyone to pay the amounts Euclid claims, even worse too many other solutions there *CHEAPER* than Euclid. Why pay $1,000,000,000 for software when you can do it for $50,000,000 using hardware instead?
January 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
And of course, there is no evidence yet that Euclid can do what they are claiming.
- Mark
January 14th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
So what in the world is going to happen to these investors? I mean, some folks have put a ton of money in Euclid thinking that there is going to be a huge payoff this year. And, i heard it would be 12 into 100, virtually guaranteed.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:27 am
@Jeff:
Well that much is easy to explain: they will lose all their money. When Euclid finally burns up all the cash, they will go into bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or 11. Whatever assets can be disposed of will be used to pay off vendors, landlords, etc. Then everyone who invested money in the company can declare their stock worthless and start deducting it from their taxes as a loss, $3,000 a year I believe.
>And, i heard it would be 12 into 100,
>virtually guaranteed.
I think Bernie Madoff promised very attractive returns to his investors, and he managed to lose $50B. Euclid is small potatoes in comparison.
If they had a product that was guaranteed to get that kind of rate of return they would have had no problem raising funds from real investors who knew what they were doing, instead of naive tupperware party investors. It’s a shame.
- Mark
January 15th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
How can you believe anyone claim without solid proof after what has happened to the stock market.
Thousands of stock brokers having been telling millions of people that their money was safe too. Ask anyone who’s life savings were wiped out or reduced to a small fraction of their original claimed worth whether trusting the stock brokers protected them?
And these are people investing money in companies making/shipping/selling real products - and they still lost out.
Yet, here is someone making claims about a product that they have never demoed to you, why would you give them any more trust?
January 15th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
i guess that is the real question. I havent seen the product demo’ed - i can understand the idea behind it. But - i just do not understand how it can be valued like that. Moreover, if it were valued at a Billion dollars, then their investment bankers - Allen and Company - will take a pretty penny, the management will get a nice slice, then the investors will get a part. Not sure what the investment bankers’ cut would be but i cannot image it would be small.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Now you are starting to ask the right questions. And some that don’t even need you to understand the computer side of it at all.
If you don’t have it in writing, then the promise ‘is no better the paper it’s written on’.
This is a scam, pure and simple. But let’s leave it at that and say the scammers are still able to sell the company to someone for a billion dollars. Next the money needs to to be split up to the investors.
Like you say, the bankers want their share, but how much of the company do the insiders own? Remember, since the outside authorities do not need to be reported to they could have easily voted themselves extra shares and you would never know.
Next thing you know you find yourself being paid ten cents on the dollar and the insiders walking (running out of the country before the scam blows up) away with all the dough.
Again, demand info in writing. All their words about how much stock you own is meaningless if they have voted themselves a hundred time more stock. Demand percentage and payback amounts in writing.
And this is BUSINESS! There are NO excuses for when someone tries to weasel out of giving ALL the facts!
PS. Any garbage about the banks trusting them should be thrown back into their faces. If the banks really knew what they were doing would we be in this economic situation today?
May 20th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I see that Euclid Investors blog has been shut down. Does this mean the gig is up?
Sorry guys but after 9 years in your heart you must have known this was coming!
May 21st, 2009 at 7:47 am
@Green Turn:
The Euclid Discovery site is still up, and presumably the officers are still drawing down the remaining investor funds for rent and salary. I don’t see that coming to an end any time soon. Because of the foolish LLC distribution system they bought into, the investors are powerless to do anything about it.
If they had any muscle, the thing to do would be to liquidate and return any remaining funds to the poor shareholders. But that won’t happen, and because of their impotence, all they can do is keep touting the company line, billion dollar sale right around the corner.
It won’t die with a bang, just a whimper.
- Mark
June 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
How can they claim a billion dollar sales in today’s market?
Not only is there no need by anyone out there for compression that can not just be meet with less money spent on hardware, but who even have a billion to throw around?
During the Dot.Com boom there was mad money being spent like crazy on all sorts of dumb stuff, but who spends money like that now?
The few people/companies that I know of are capable of that type of spending have no need for compression software - and that includes Apple and MicroSoft. Neither will see an increase in sales from compression software to pay that kind of price.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:05 am
Earl, go back to building model rockets. The fastest growing component on the web is video. And the next big growth area will be cloud computing.
Don’t say there is no need for compression. Whether anyone is going to be willing to pay huge sums for it remains to be seen. The growth and need for larger demand, speed and definition cannot be met by hardware alone. If you honestly believe that, go back and put on your tin foil helmet.
Finally I am not sure why you feel the need to constantly keep up the negative dialogue. As someone asked a long time ago, do you have a horse in this race?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
> Earl, go back to building model rockets. The fastest growing component on the web is video.
So what? As a person with GBs of videos already downloaded onto my computer I never found a need for more compression than is presently in use (I am talking DIVX not MPEG-2). There are only 24 hours in a day and at present the video data downloads faster than I can view it. Better compression would be nice, but it will not make any easyier to view more shows/movies/anime so why pay for an extra feature that I don’t needed?
And please don’t bring up that old chestnut about storage limits, TB drives are off-the-shelf items now. Today it is now cheaper to add more hardware than pay the suggested price of these ‘magic’ compressors.
> And the next big growth area will be cloud computing.
Which has nothing to do with data compression, stick to the subject of the blog.
> Don’t say there is no need for compression. Whether anyone is going to be willing to pay huge sums for it remains to be seen.
I never said there was no need, find a single post where I claim that! What I have said is with today’s present working and available to everybody (ZIP, RAR, MPEG, DIVX) compressors and with today’s large hard drives why would anyone pay a large sum of money for a pie-in-the-sky product that no-one has even seen pass a honest test?
> The growth and need for larger demand, speed and definition cannot be met by hardware alone. If you honestly believe that, go back and put on your tin foil helmet.
The bandwidth/standards/hardware already meet the needs of HD-Video today, the fact that you are living in some back-water location is not my fault. But HD-Video is already available on air/cable today without the need of your so-claimed needed magic tech. And HD-Video has been available for downloading for years - I suggest you get a better ISP if that is your problem.
Do people want more? Of-course they do. Do people want to pay more? Of-course they don’t.
The compression/bandwidth tech of today already meets the needs, so again why pay more?
>Finally I am not sure why you feel the need to constantly keep up the negative dialogue.
And why do you feel a need to hype an unproven product?
I do because (1) I can. (2) I hate liars in a field that is a hobby of mine. (3) I hope to warn people of people like you pushing snake-oil claims. (4) It is fun watching people like you foam at the mouth when faced to see the truth posted.
> As someone asked a long time ago, do you have a horse in this race?
Compression is one of my hobbies, and I like to keep the scam-artists out of my hobby.
What is your excuse for supporting a scam?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Ps. All anyone has to do to stop me posting all these negative comments about magical compressors is show one working under conditions that prevent a scam from being carried out.
So far after years of claims not one person/organization that claimed to have a magic compressor has been willing to a proper “Two Computer Test” or send out a demo software for indepentant testing.
As for stealing IP, is it not funny how the producers of ZIP, RAR, StuffIt, MPEGs, DIVX and others all make money even with millions of free copies of thier software on machines worldwide. Also the publishers of BWT, BZIP, PNM, etc all seem to make a living with their stuff being given out for free?
So far, the only money I have seen any of the magic compressor companies make is off the stocks they sell to people who know nothing about data compression.
And after all these years not one single working product (not even a poor compression ratio one).
June 6th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
hmmm
I’m new to this
here is an impressive ‘compressor’: the English language.
26 letters, able to convey a huge amount of information.
More letters than needed? Gaelic I hear has 18 letters.
Still more than needed?
Try 16?
DNA has four: “C:, “G”, “A’, “T”
Another thing: in the past, technologies have been discovered that at the time, appear to have “no market”. When Graham Alexander Bell presented the telephone, he was told “get that toy off my desk”, was he not?
The CCD was “a failed computer chip”, curious, but slow. However, turned out it was great for pictures.
I have discovered (apparently) how to generate holograms from natural light (no lasers)- allowing possibly “star wars” movie-like holography.
Data compression: if you ‘compressed’ twenty different movies to simply “01″: well, that’s done by labelling them- but you wouldn’t know which was which.
However,
…
here is a fun book: “Godel, Escher, Bach. An Eternal Golden Braid” by Douglas Hofstadter.
If I give away my possibility of new technology for free, will someone sponsor me to NZ$1 million?
June 12th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Well, Alan I see a lot of meaningless wordage from you, but still no sign of the magic compressor/decompresser this thread is about.
So again, why are you supporting this scam?
June 12th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
To Earl:
to quote Manuel from “Faulty Towers”: “I know nothing” (well, almost nothing, regarding Euclid Discoveries)- I never hear of then till I saw this thread.
What I do know is this: years ago, I figured out, in connection with internet discussions on science, philosophy, religoon, and consciousness; an astonishing high-speed way to navigate the information content of e.g. science problems.
This lead to an explosion of possible new inventions and technologies (many of which I am trying to sell/ release in the market). These include a possibility of creating “Star Wars Movie”-like holographic images from natural light, ways of increasing the data speed/capacity of copper phone lines to perhaps fibre-optic potential, and insight on ultra-fast and secure data transmission and things like “wave division multiplexing in passive optical networks”.
I also apparently figured out how to predict earthquakes like the way a weather map helps predict weather (either by modifying seismometers or looking at the data from existing seismometers in a special manner); and how to reduce the fuel requirement of a jet aircraft (guessing it could be as high as 90%). (I saw recently that a New Zealander who is short-listed for astronaut training school
is working on drastic fuel-reduction too- and curiously I found amazing links between what they are doing and what I have thought of)- suggesting I really have come up with something. Imagine what that is worth??? )
And I have made numerous other possible breakthroughs all over the sciences, including possible breakthroughs in solar photo voltaic cell technology and CO2 recovery technology.
One day I saw a newspaper article on Philip James Whitley and “Near Zero”. I thought- interesting - wonder how one could do that (ultra data compression)?
Very quickly I figured something out. In doing so, I found possible evidence he was on to something, as I found a possibility of explanation as to why the things that reportedly baffled the computer expert were so.
A search lead me to this blog. I very much could do with some investment, my living conditions are appalling. Re: data compression: I have continued to make stunning progress, though the concept is not fully proven yet.
I am not supporting any scams. I do not support scams. I “blundered my way” into this place, and find myself in the curious situation of perhaps having the very thing that the investors had wished for!
I am so fed up with being poor, maybe I ought to give it away and prove I am a capable inventor!? That would be silly, would it not?
For the first time, I now have a coherent system (of how my ultra extreme data compression system may work). And also, for the first time, I have a logical explanation of how it apparently can work (previously the question was: how can something so tiny, vary enough to potentially compress billions of different arrangements of data?)
My discovery is for sale, even in its unproven state, it contains fantastic possibilities I think. This is not a scam. If anyone finds me a buyer/investor, such that in a deal acceptable to me (for any of my potential inventions), I clear NZ$3million after allowing all tax and other costs, on full clearing the funds I’m offering them $NZ1million sales commission.
Re: data compression: I have something real, in terms of theoretical development. it involves physics, it involves a specific area of mathematics. I invented two (or more) new types of mathematics (though they probably already existed in some way).
There are only two steps left to prove this, one, a “logic test” (a logical proof the idea works), and two, converting it into computer operating language etc. for the actual test using computers.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:22 am
curious:
have now figured out why a video compression company would be called “Euclid Discoveries”; and a possible way for video data compression!
Also: made further progress on ideas re: general data compression; turns out what I have found could be described as “a space computer”; this makes sense, as to fit data in the smallest possible space, you would need “a space computer”.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
And so far still a lot of meaningless wordage without a working compressor/decompressor.
Feelings don’t help you write working computer code, proper math does.
You are still supporting a scam if you can’t show a working set of programs or a readable math model.
All else is wishful thinking.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I simply happened (having wondered, incidentally, why on earth this company was called “Euclid Discoveries”), to discover a method (in theory) of “video data compression”, that, on the face of a sketchy model so far, appears may work, and appears to be a type of “space computer” (suggesting it really does work! ); and, curiously, gave me a possible explanation as to why the company is called “Euclid Discoveries”.
I have no bias for or against “Euclid Discoveries”, other than what is published about them may influence me (as it may influence anyone).
Do you want a working compressor/decompressor? Why not make it, with my knowledge) via an nda and intellectual property rights deal? Maybe 50-50?
I know about “proper math”; it actually makes life easier as it gives me a rigorous system to test the idea, and has provided valuable understanding as to how this (or “space computers” in general) may (eventually) work.
I do not know if Euclid discoveries can fulfill your requirements of “not being a scam”. For my own discoveries, shouldn’t be too difficult. I can already show whoever signs an nda, if trustworthy, enough probably to satisfy the level of evidence you would neeed to be convinced this can probably work…?
June 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I have three working compressors available to anyone who wants to download them!
White Hole, Grey Hole, and Black Hole.
ALL are public domain and are available to anyone to test, all they have to do is go to the old Amiga Archives to find them. They are all in source code form and are well documented for anyone to translate if they wish.
There is also some compressor/decompressor code of mine own design to be found in my RAMDISK, again freely available to all if they run BeOS, available for downloading in source form on http://www.bebits.com
I have written/tested compression/decompression code both mine own and that of others, and that experience tells me that these companies are just scams.
NO, I REPEAT NO — working compressor/decompressor combination found in the real world that you can use today has ever taken more than a few weeks to proof the theory, or more than a couple of months to get working properly.
You can point to all the *WORKING* compressors you like and how long they have been in development/improvement. But not one of them took even a year to get a working demo on the market or available for download.
The fact that these companies taken your money and never even show a demo after all these years that can pass even basic security testing is proof that they are all scams.
What experience do you have with how hard it is to write working code? Not counting college work, my first serious (paid to delevop for a business) was in 1982.
I have written (was paid for too) accounting, inventory, and text editting programs for businesses that needed the code to work.
For personal use, I have been wiring a Logix to play board games when I was 14 (1970), I was writting programs on a microcomputer of my own design in 1975, I have been coding on commerially available computers (Mainframe, Mini, and Micro) since 1978.
I know how hard it is to develop good code, but it is not as hard as these companies make it out to be to write a working demo of a compression program.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:10 am
So you honestly believe H.264 took a couple of months to build and test? Wow, you must be brilliant. REPEAT THIS: It took a lot of smart people a lot longer than that. ED is next-generation video compression technology but backwards compatible with H.264.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Take off the tin hat, put on your glasses and learn to read carefully.
I said it took only a few weeks/months to ###DEMO and PROOF### the idea. And that the ****VERY FIRST*** versions that were put to use by alpha/beta testers were within a year.
This has nothing to do with how long it took to refine and debug the hardware and software for final use. Only just how long it took to prove if the idea was worth investing money into.
Most compression software for sale that is out there has been in constant development for years and years. But you can’t find a single one that was hidden away for years without even a working demo to show investors, except for these ‘magic’ compressors than no matter how much money they collect never have even a working demo to show.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:27 am
What happened to euclidinvestors.com?
June 20th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I learned to write simple “Fortran” programs (like to solve quadratic equations) at College
in the late 70s. I used Apple “Basic” to draw a picture of my chemistry teacher. I have written very few programs. Guess I could learn a modern language and try and write my own program, though am very busy inventing new things.
What does it cost to hire a programmer to write a “hyper-compression” program (using the science-discoveries I have apparently made on how to achieve “space-computer” technology”)?
June 21st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Who says they don’t have a working mode? Just because they don’t show it to you doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. In fact I know they are just finishing up a fully developed product that they will be introducing sooner than later. A number of people have seen it. Have you gone to thier website and looked at their service partners. People like that don’t allow you to use their names if you are just a scam company. If I was building ground breaking technology I would not make it public either. Nobody in the company needs your approval. You would be the last person in the world we would show it too. We will see soon.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:52 am
@Green Turn:
>What happened to euclidinvestors.com?
The guy who ran the board had some trouble with the domain name and his provider, and I think he basically gave up on it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 am
@Tin Foil Hat:
>In fact I know they are just finishing up a fully
>developed product that they will be introducing
>sooner than later.
It doesn’t matter - the market for anything ED could have produced has come and gone. People are watching video on their iPhones using existing technology, people are downloading HD video from Amazon and Netflix using existing technology. There is no billion-dollar market for what at best would be a marginal improvement over existing H.264.
>Have you gone to thier [sic] website and looked at
>their service partners. People like that don’t allow
>you to use their names if you are just a scam company.
Yes, actually it is quite easy to use the names of reputable companies even if you are total scammers. I imagine if you looked at the web pages of Enron right before they imploded you would have found names like Arthur Anderson, et. al., making it look quite reputable. Don’t use that web page as an attempt to imply some sort of legitimacy - doesn’t count.
>We will see soon.
No, we will not. Any idiot can say this, and plenty haven been saying it for what must be getting close to eight years or so. It seems more and more likely that the emperor has been naked from day one.
If the Euclid investors hadn’t been suckered into a two-tiered program that strips them of voting rights, they would probably force liquidation and try to get back maybe five cents on the dollar. Since that won’t happen, the existing employees and board will continue to draw salaries, happily answering to nobody, until the accounts run dry. They will then quietly disappear.
At least that’s my uninformed opinion. And has been for six years. Not a hint yet that I’m wrong.
- Mark
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Mark, I agree with you 100%.
Tin Foil Hat, the statement ‘real soon now’ is something we heve been hearing for years, and still no working demos in sight. Your claim is just words that anyone can post.
SHOW ME THE DEMO!!!!