A booming segment of the Perpetual Motion Machine industry is capitalizing on the hype over the "Hydrogen Economy" with claims to produce Hydrogen for impossibly low cost.


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.

AEC Patent Assets
Year or quarter ending Patent and Tech Assets Patent and Tech Investment
2004122,124,373Written off: $41,085; Disposed: 62,863; Acquired: 218,000

AEC Patent Asset Changes from 2004 Annual Report
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


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you not think that the appropriate time to write down the asset is when the court determines that it should be unwound.

That would mean that the shares and cash get returned to the treasury of the company.

I think that you lack the proper knowledge of accounting.

Also the accountants would have advised the company as to what should be done. That is standard practice and it the company did not accept the advice then the accountants would have no choice but to resign.

Needless to say that has not happened.

Are you here to mislead the public?

Get a real life.

September 22, 2005 5:48 AM

Blogger frway said...

Yes he is!!

September 22, 2005 5:15 PM

Blogger john lichtenstein said...

No that accounting does not seem correct. If an asset has no value, the balance sheet should reflect that. So the Rothman technology should be completely written off as IP. The asset doesn't disappear since they have the lawsuit. But it's not IP. GAAP or not it makes no sense for a technology company to count as 90% of its IP something it calls junk.

Anyway, I'll write the accountants.

September 22, 2005 8:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

well its about time that you did something positive.

I will be very interested to hear what they have to say about this.

I will be watching here and intend to keep your feet in the fire on this one.

As a matter of fact we will all be watching so dont let us down Mr. Investigative Reporter.

September 23, 2005 4:24 AM

Blogger frway said...

Dont you think that the shares the RR received from the company should be returned to the company when RR loses in court!!

September 29, 2005 5:38 PM

Blogger frway said...

Thats a question John what do you think! Should they be they be returned?

September 29, 2005 5:40 PM

Blogger frway said...

On September 22,2005 you said that you would write the auditors.

It is now October 5,2005 and we don't see the reply here.

Have you contacted them as you said you would and if so what is their reply.

Come on Mr. Investigative Reporter get on the ball.

October 05, 2005 5:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What did the accountants for AEC have to say?

We are all waiting for the reply from them.

Lets get the job done Mr. Investigative Reporter.

Or are you just another big mouth with an empty brain.

October 13, 2005 11:17 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


October 19, 2005 7:30 AM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home