Alternative Energy Corporation Patent Opacity
Alternative Energy Corporation accounts for technology acquisitions about as well as it describes its technology. The annual report for 2003-Q3 claimed that their patent and technology acquisitions for that quarter, were $4M. But in the annual report filed for 2003, they claim that they acquired less than $2M for the whole year. Again in 2004, the Q3 report claims $329k for the quarter, yet the annual report claims $218k for the whole year. There are no explanations for the discrepancies.
There is an even greater discrepancy between Alternative Energy Corporation's annual reports and their in-court posturings. In court, they claim:
On October 22, 2004 we sued Russell Rothman in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Case No. 04-CV-277760CM2). We are seeking the rescission of agreements between us and Rothman, return of shares paid to him, and return of money paid. We had entered into an agreement with Rothman for the purchase of certain technology related to the production of hydrogen gas. Rothman represented to us that he had all right title and interest in the technology and had the ability to sell the technology. We alleged in our lawsuit that Rothman had in fact sold the technology to other companies, and on more than one occasion, prior to entering into the agreement with us. We additionally allege that the technology he purported to sell did not work. We do not rely on the Rothman technology for the production of hydrogen. We have developed our own proprietary processes for producing hydrogen.
It's hard to understand how they can claim that the Rothman technology doesn't work, when the 2 million in technology assets they claim on their balance sheets is the Rothman technology. If Alternative Energy Corporation claims the Rothman technology they bought doesn't work, why haven't they written it off? The first they let the investors know if a problem was in the 2004 annual report. So, presumably, the original provisional patents filed in the fall of 2003, the abandoned ones, were for the Rothman technology. And the tests done in 200310 by Maxxam Analytics, mentioned as late as the last prospectus,were presumably using the technology that "never worked".
Of course, the Rothman technology could not possibly work as AEC described that it did, producing energy in the form of H2 at a lower cost than fossil fuels. That's impossible. Of course, AEC's current process can't either.
| Year or quarter ending | Patent and Tech Assets | Patent and Tech Investment |
| 200306 | $62,863 | $62,863 |
| 200309 | $4,153,650 | $4,090,787 |
| 200312 | $1,969,236 | |
| 200403 | $1,969,236 | |
| 200406 | $1,970,248 | $1,012 |
| 200409 | $2,300,077 | $329,829 |
| 200412 | 2,124,373 | Written off: $41,085; Disposed: 62,863; Acquired: 218,000 |
| 200503 | $2,124,373 |
| Balance, May 22, 2003 | $ 0 |
| Patents and technology acquired during the year | $1,969,236 |
| Balance, December 31, 2003 | $1,969,236 |
| Patents and technology acquired during the year | $218,000 |
| Patents and technology disposed of during the year (note 10) | $62,863 |
| Balance, December 31, 2004 | $2,124,373 |
posted by johnlichtenstein at 16:41
|
5 comments
