Paint Solutions

This
letter is a response to the above letter from Davison Design and Development,
Inc. (Davison)
First
of all, the sales happened on the
phone by promised statements by salesman and based on the trust to the
company (salesman) and charge of the amount happened based on the exact
promised statements.
I,
[redacted], did not agree to pay for the old market and patent research-data.
I paid on the phone and agreed to pay for the development and initial design
of my idea.
I
am not, and I was not interested to pay that huge amount for getting old market
and patent data. So, from the first point, it was a huge misleading and then
salesman promised to send initial development and initial design of my idea,
also he asked from me to send him any scratch and design of my idea to him through
email and I did sent him with the mind that I am supposed to get development of
my design.
So
question here is:
Why
Davison asked me to send them my design if they want to send me the old patent
data (Patent research data)? I was told to get some development and improvement
on my initial design on the phone that is why I sent them my design and all
scratch I had. Email can be sent to prove that I have sent my initial design.
I
was convinced by salesman to get development and initial design of the idea,
and I paid for this service on the phone and waited 3 weeks and got the CD with
old patent data.
Second
question, why should they use general word “Pre-development” for selling “old Patent
search data”. This is very general word which can be any step before
development. This misleads client such as me who are looking for development
and design.
In the response to Davison statement: “Davison provided its services per the terms of the
contract.”
To
address this part, Davison sold the service on the phone and never performed
the promised services on the time of the sales (payment).
In the response to Davison statement: “It is important to note that the disclosures are
made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to
Davison.”
To
address this part, this is completely wrong and false. I paid on the phone and
never seen the contract before paying the fee.  I clicked on the link and went to the website
around 7 or 8 hours later, and I was expecting to see my idea and some
information on the website, so I clicked on yes to terms and conditions section
and then nothing was on my account except acknowledgment at the initial part,
this has never been explained that this portal is for signing the contract
only. I signed to the website after I paid on the phone and can prove this
statement. So statement below by Davison is completely wrong.
“It
is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any
service contract or makes any payment to Davison.”
In the response Davison to statement: “Davison offered additional services, under a
separate contract, which Mr. [redacted] has declined.”
I
have never declined anything and never declined any services, if yes, I would defiantly
decline it after not getting my promised services on the phone through
salesman.In the response to Davison
statement: “As statement, Mr.
[redacted] was fully informed of all services and their related fees offered by Davison,
BEFORE he entered into any contract.”
This
is completely wrong statement. I have never seen and read the contract before
being charged. I have been charged first on the phone then received the email
containing the portal and I logged in to the portal exactly after 7 or 8 hours
when sales had been performed already. So this is wrong information provided by
Davison to you.
In the response to Davison
statement: “On 04/22/2015, Mr.
[redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received and read the
two disclosure statements.”
This
is completely wrong information and I am glad Davison mentioned this, I got the
email regarding portal access on 5/5/2015 and I have never got any portal
access to read and acknowledge the disclosure on Aprl 22nd. So, this
is again another wrong response from Davison. Email can be provided as a proof.
 
 
The
email Davison sent me on May 4th includes Davison-Roadmap which says
in the pre-development step:” We identify a corporation to target with the
idea. The corporation’s
product line, distribution outlets, manufacturing methods, mission statement, packaging
and more will be identified. We will provide related products and
patents. We put all of this information in your “Idea to Product Portfolio.”
There was not such highlighted information in the package they
sent. They only sent me old
patent data which I was told. Actually I was told to get initial design and
development of my idea and paid on the phone based on the salesman statements
and I logged in to the portal after paying the fee so never saw the contract
before paying the fee. Which Davison provided wrong information regarding the
time stamp of these events.
As
a conclusion, I paid on the phone based on the trust to the salesman and his statements,
I paid before seeing the contract, and I received which was never been told on
the time of the sales.
 
Regards,
[redacted] Shharam [redacted]

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 09/04/2017.  Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a...

minimum.  From the time of an initial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions.  It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees, and the contract terms.                Briefly stated, Mr. [redacted] entered into a Pre-Development and Representation Agreement on 03/28/2017, and made a partial payment of the contract fee on 04/03/2017.  As he is a resident of Illinois, his contract provided a seven (7) day revocation period during which he could have cancelled the contract and received a refund of all monies paid.  Mr. [redacted] did not cancel the contract within that period.  Now, more than five months later, he has cancelled the contract and is demanding a refund.  The contract explicitly states; “The revocation provision of this Agreement is the only means of cancelling this Agreement and obtaining a refund. If the Agreement is cancelled, revoked or terminated after the seven day period, there will be no refund of any amount paid towards the contract fee.”  Accordingly, there is no contractual basis for a refund. However, Davison has no interest in retaining fees for services that will not be performed.  Despite having no contractual obligation to process a refund, Davison will agree to waive its claim for the unpaid balance and refund 80% of the monies paid toward the contract (20% is retained to help offset the administrative expenses).  If Mr. [redacted] desires to accept this offer, he need simply contact our legal department and the paperwork will be forwarded to his attention. = Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

Ms. [redacted]...

[redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         February 12, 2018               Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 02/06/2018.  Please note that Ms. [redacted] has contacted Davison on 02/08/2018 and advised that there is no concern regarding her project.  She indicated that she would be notifying your office directly.  However, a response to the issue raised in her complaint is warranted.   The gravamen of her complaint relates to the expense of pursing a patent application.  Davison is not a law firm and does not offer patent services, or other legal services.  The contracts are explicit in this regard.  While Davison will provide all materials that it has created in the development of a product sample, the obligation and expense of pursuing any intellectual property protection is the client’s.                Davison looks forward to continuing to work with Ms. [redacted] in the development of her product idea.      Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 09/14/2017.  Mr. [redacted] has been a valued client since contacting Davison in 2012, and all services have been completed with his express...

written approval and authorization.  Further, the services have been performed to his documented satisfaction.  Regrettably, his complaint is a defamatory mischaracterization of the services provided and it does not contain any factual support.  There is no basis to support his demand for a refund, much less to support his defamatory statements. The new product development process is a high risk venture.  There is no guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed, much less a guarantee of a financial gain.  Davison goes to great lengths to disclose the risks to all individuals who may submit an idea for a new product.  In addition to disclosing all of its services and fees upfront, the historical success rates of securing a license and of realizing a financial gain are provided.   The contracts for services repeatedly provide disclosures that there is no guarantee that a product will be licensed, or that a client will realize a financial gain.  When faced with an outcome not meeting their expectations, too many clients forget about the services that were provided, and that they knowingly undertook a risk after being fully informed of the risk by Davison.  Instead, they lash out with unsubstantiated allegations.  Mr. [redacted] submitted his idea to Davison through its website in 2012.  He entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, and the Integrated Product Rendering Agreement.  The services were performed with his express written approval and authorization.  He approved the design of her product rendering and authorized its presentation.  Copies of his signed approval and authorization are enclosed.  (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.) He also completed two questionnaires; one about the design and one about the Executive Briefing presentation material.   In both questionnaires, he provided noting but positive feedback.  Copies of his signed questionnaires are enclosed.  The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea.  Mr. [redacted] contracted for a second presentation which was made; however the second company also declined to license his product idea.  No additional services have been contracted. At this point, with all contracted services having been completed, Mr. [redacted]’s project is in a “reactive” status, wherein no presentations will be actively pursued and no continued updates will be provided.     In regard to the specific issues raised in is complaint, there is simply no basis to support those concerns.  Initially, he raises the issue that the product rendering developed by Davison was not his precise initial concept. Davison does not create prototypes to its client’s preconceived specifications.  Davison is a design firm that develops cost effective solutions to the problems identified by its clients.  The contract Mr. [redacted] entered specifically notes that Davison will “uncover possible product solutions”.  There are a variety of factors that are considered when developing a product solution.  Included among those factors are the cost effectiveness of the design, the existence of third-party intellectual property rights, and the feasibility of the idea.  Although changes were made, Mr. [redacted] explicitly approved the design, and authorized its presentation.  There is no basis to support his complaint of design.  Next, he alleges there is no proof of the presentations. It bears noting that at no time did Mr. [redacted] request proof of the presentations; had he made such a request, the information would have been provided.  Enclosed, please find copies of the presentation submissions.  (Note the individual contact person at each corporation has been redacted.)  Finally, he claims “they failed to deliver on their promise to produce”.  To the extent he is implying a promise, or guarantee, of a license, he is mistaken.  Davison does not, and can not, guarantee that any particular product idea will be licensed.  The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard.  As stated above, Davison completed all its services per the contract terms and with Mr. [redacted]’s written authorization and approval. Though no specifically an issue of complaint, Mr. [redacted] states; “this process has gone on for over 4 years”.  To the extent he is attempting to imply a delay caused by Davison, he is incorrect.  The single most significant delay in the development of his project was his payment of the contract fee.  He entered the Integrated Product Rendering agreement in November of 2012.  The performance of services was not due to begin until full payment of the contract fee had been received.  Mr. [redacted] did not make final payment until February 2016.  Davison has promptly performed its services.    In summary, Davison has performed its services promptly, and with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization.  Further, the services have been performed to his documented satisfaction.  There is no basis to support his complaint or his demand for a refund.  However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted].  If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.      Sincerely,     David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 04/15/2016. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum....

From the time of an initial contact and throughout the development and presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront, providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions, and securing the client’s approval and authorization. It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development of their project. A review of Mr. [redacted]’s file indicates that he was provided with, and acknowledged, the disclosures of all fees and services BEFORE he entered any service contract or made any payment to Davison.The services for which he contracted have been completed. He has declined the offer of additional services, which is his prerogative. There is no basis for a refund.Mr. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website on 12/15/2015. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing of the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees. Mr. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received and read the two disclosure statements. Enclosed please find a copy of the electronic data record documenting his acknowledgment at 11:55:19 on 12/15/2015 from IP address 174.17.24.44.Following his acknowledgment of the disclosures, Mr. [redacted] entered the initial predevelopment contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patents and products, on the market at that time, which were similar to his idea. This research was completed and the material provided to him in a Product Portfolio on 02/23/2016. The contract for the predevelopment service contains the following provision;DAVISON“Section IIB. Product Sampfes; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample, packaging and relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client's soie expense, Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services, under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them.”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosures provided to Mr. [redacted], Davison offered additional services for the further development of his project. Mr. [redacted] declined these additional services, which is his prerogative.Mr. [redacted]’s allegation that the services and fees were not disclosed to him is simply false. As stated above, every individual who submits an idea through Davison’s website is provided with, and acknowledges having received and read, the disclosures. Further, the disclosures are freely available on Davison’s website. Davison can not confirm that he actually read the disclosures, only that he acknowledge having done so. The services for which he contracted have been performed. His decision to not pursue the further development of his product idea does not negate the initial service which was completed. There is no basis for arefund.Davison Design and Development, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me at this time until the next meeting with Davison to review the modifications to the project. 
Regards,
[redacted] January 16, 2018To:  Ms. [redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220 [redacted] This is in response to my complaint against Davison Design and Development, Inc. which I made on January 3, 2018.  Davison did respond to my complaint and I did speak to Mr. D[redacted] on January 9th and January 11th.  These conversations have resulted in an agreement to continue development of my product. We have reached an agreement with Davison to have the agreed changes made to the Integrated Product Rendering ready for inspection and approval in 5 to 7 weeks (which would be sometime before the last week in February.) I would like to respond to statements Mr. D[redacted] made in his reply to my complaint to the Revdex.com: I understand that product development can be a time consuming process, however, Mr. V[redacted] assured me he would personally oversee the process of product development and it would take approximately 10 to 12 weeks, this did NOT happen. Mr. DeMay stated I was in error claiming my project was stopped with no contractual basis, I disagree with this.  I was asked my opinion of the Integrated Product Rendering and I disagreed with the questionnaire because it was very clear to me that more discussion and collaboration was needed with the Design Team to create a useful product. I did sign the Agreement section because it only applies to the discussion of the product with prospective licensing companies. The Agreement does NOT state, if I disagree with the questionnaire, Davison with stop all work on my product, which is what happened. Mr. T[redacted] told me it was stopped for 7 weeks without my knowledge. I feel I should have been informed of this work stoppage by Mr. V[redacted] when we spoke on the phone. I only found out the project was stopped by speaking to Mr. V[redacted]’ assistant, Kelly K[redacted].Regarding communications with Davison; my communications with Mr. V[redacted] were spotty. Many times his assistant, Kelly, would call saying Mr. V[redacted] was in a meeting and unavailable. We would then have to reschedule the phone meetings. If Mr. V[redacted] did call and I was unable to answer the phone, I would call him right back, even on his cell number, and it would go to voice mail. That is when I would send an e-mail asking for another phone appointment. This characterizes my communication with Mr. V[redacted], very little was accomplished.    Regarding the missed calls with Mr. T[redacted], I was not in error. I was available and ready for our phone appointments each time.  I was grateful Mr. T[redacted] was willing to handle my product development, but was disappointed that communications faltered after such a promising start with him.Mr. DeMay has been very helpful and was able to bring two members of the Design Team into our phone conversation on January 11th, which was very productive. I expect they will continue with my project and I am looking for a successful completion regarding the ideas we discussed.In general, I have not been pleased with my dealings with Davison.  I paid them $10,775.00 to develop a product based on the ideas I presented to them.  I expected a professional collaboration with the goal of producing a product which would have a good chance of being produced and marketed.  I did not expect unprofessional business practices where representatives of the company would give me conflicting and false information, and would be so difficult to communicate with.   I did not expect Davison to be so reluctant to even consider modifying their original integrated product rendering.  I did not expect to have to spend so much time in unproductive and frustrating work just trying to speak to Davison and discuss my product development.  I did not expect to have to contact the Revdex.com to have Davison contact me.I am looking forward to the end of February when Davison has agreed to produce a modified integrated product rendering for my approval.Sincerely,[redacted]p.s.   I will be sending you a hard copy of this letter in the mail.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 07/31/2016. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimum. From...

the time of an initial contact and throughout the process,Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront,and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. A review of Ms.[redacted]’ file indicates that all services, for which she contracted, were completed by October 2015.Now, nine months later, she has filed this complaint. The significant delay in presenting herconcerns bears on the credibility of her contentions. There is no support for her complaint.Briefly stated, Ms. [redacted] contacted Davison in September 2015, and entered into theinitial Pre-Development and Representation agreement. This agreement obligated Davison tocompile research material relevant to her submitted idea. This service was completed and theresearch material, comprising fifteen (1 5 ) U.S. patent documents and information on eight (8 )products similar to her idea, was shipped to Ms. [redacted] on 10/13/2015. These materials wereshipped via USPS, tracking number [redacted]. On 10/21/2015, Ms. [redacted] and arepresentative of Davison had a discussion about the research material and possible additionalservices. On 11/02/2015, consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement, Davisonoffered additional services for the creation of a physical product sample and presentationmaterials. Ms. [redacted] declined these additional services, which is her prerogative. Davison had nofurther contact from Ms. [redacted] until July 10, 2016 at which time she first voiced the concerns asstated in her complaint. Davison conveyed to her the details of her project as outlined above,including the discussion of the research material on 10/21/2015. This complaint then followed.In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] alleges she did not receive the research material. This is notaccurate. As detailed above, the research was sent to her and was discussed with her in October2015. Regardless, a second set of the research material has been sent to her via email. Attached,please find confirmation of the e-mail. The services for which there was a contract have beenperformed. Additional services were offered, but declined. There is no basis for a refund.Associate counselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] againstDavison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 08/12/2015. Davison understandsthat customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating a successfulbusiness. Customer...

concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot themso communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contact, through theresearch and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of a client’s idea, an openchannel of communication is maintained, disclosing the services and fees upfront and securingthe clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process. Unfortunately, despite bestefforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed.That appears to be the simple truth with Mr. [redacted].Ms. [redacted] has been a valued client since first contacting Davison in September 2007. Inher complaint, Ms. [redacted] alleges that “no product development or marketing has come forth.” Thisstatement is both false and a mischaracterization of the services provided. As will be detailed,Ms. [redacted]’s product idea was developed; a design was created and approved by her, a physicalproduct sample, packaging and presentation materials were constructed and approved by her. Asfor “marketing”, Ms. [redacted] misconstrues the services provided. Davison does not “market” itsclients’ products to the general public. They design and develop product samples for presentationto corporations, who in turn may manufacture and market the product. Ms. [redacted]’s product samplehas been presented, with her written authorization, to two corporations. Unfortunately, neitherhas decided to license her product idea.With regard to the services that were provided, a brief summary follows. Ms. [redacted]contacted Davison in September 2007. As with all potential clients, she was provided withdisclosures that set out the risks of the new product development process, as well as Davison’shistorical success rates in securing licenses. She contracted for the initial pre-developmentresearch services which were completed. Subsequently, she entered into a contract for the designand construction of a product sample, packaging and presentation material. Davison submitted adesign of the product sample to Ms. [redacted] which she approved, in writing, and about which shecompleted a questionnaire providing positive feedback. A copy of her signed approval andcompleted questionnaire are enclosed; note the approved design has been obscured forconfidentiality purposes. In reliance upon her approval of the design, Davison constructed theproduct sample, packaging and created presentation materials. An Executive Briefing wascreated which contained an actual photograph of the constructed product sample. After receipt ofthe Executive Briefing, Ms. [redacted] authorized the presentation of her product idea to the targetedcorporation. At that time, Ms. [redacted] also completed a second questionnaire in which she providedpositive feedback about the Executive Briefing. A copy of her authorization and thequestionnaire are attached. Ms. [redacted] then authorized a second presentation to a new corporation.Again, the corporation chose to not license her idea. Ms. [redacted] chose not to pursue any additionalpresentations and our last contact with her, prior to the present complaint, was on 06/26/20 14.In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] references “promises made”, implying some form ofguarantee that her product would be successful. The simple fact is; the product developmentprocess provides no guarantees of financial gain. Davison does not and simply cannot, makesuch guarantees. The express terms of the contracts are explicit that Davison make norepresentation about the likelihood of financial gain. The New Product Sample Agreement whichMs. [redacted] entered contains the following provisions:“Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client willreceive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.”“The Client understands that there is no way of knowing at this time if the targetedcorporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed.Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihoodof licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”Finally, Ms. [redacted] makes the thoroughly unsubstantiated claim that Davison may havesold her idea. She offers no support for such an inflammatory allegation. Simply put — no;Davison has not “sold her idea”. Davison has abided by its obligation of confidentiality withregard to Ms. [redacted]’s idea, as it adheres to this obligation for all of its clients. However, Davisoncan not account for similar, or the same, ideas that may be submitted by other clients, or that maybe disclosed to the general public through other avenues. Davison is not aware, and simply cannot be aware, of every idea for a new product that any person, anywhere, may conceive. It is notuncommon for multiple people to conceive of the same or a similar product, independently.As stated, the design, construction, and presentations of Ms. [redacted]’s product sample havebeen performed with her express written approval and authorization and to her documentedsatisfaction. No additional contracts have been entered and no additional payments have beenreceived. There is no basis to warrant a refund for services rendered. The fact that a particularproject does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that wereprovided. However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additionalpresentations at no cost to Ms. [redacted]. If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact theLicensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.Sincerely:David M. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint, filed by Mr. [redacted], against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about09/16/2015. It bears noting that Mr. [redacted] filed a complaint in April 2015 (ID#[redacted]) to which Davison provided a full response on...

04/16/2015. As stated in theprior response, Mr. [redacted] has been a valued client since 2009. Davison has providedits services with his express written approval and authorization, and to his documentedsatisfaction. Copies of the supporting documentation were provided. Without reiteratingthe prior response, his current concerns will be addressed.Mr. [redacted] alleges that he did not receive “proof’ that his product sample wasconstructed. This is inaccurate. He was provided the initial design which he approvedand about which he completed a questionnaire giving positive feedback. He wasprovided an actual photograph of the constructed product sample and a copy of thepresentation material. He authorized the presentations and he completed a secondquestionnaire about the product sample and presentation material, again giving positivefeedback. Copies of his signed approval, authorizations and completed questionnairesare again provided herein. At his request, his product sample is in the process of beingshipped to his attention.With regard to the presentations, there were three presentation of his product idea.These presentations occurred on 02/25/2011, 08/24/2011, and 10/01/2012. Eachpresentation was specially authorized by Mr. [redacted]. Enclosed, please find copies ofthe e-mail documentation of the first two presentations, and a copy of the US Customsform documenting the mailing of the third presentation. As for documenting acorporation’s decision to not license a client’s project, it is common for a company tosimply inform Davison of its decision and not provide a detailed explanation or writtenrejection. Accordingly, we can not provide to our clients information that is not providedto us. However, in the case of the third presentation, the corporation did provide aresponse e-mail, which is enclosed. Note the names of the specific contact individualshave been redacted.As stated earlier, the simple fact is; the product development process provides noguarantees of financial gain. Our contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard.While this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money,effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does not bring financialgain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided. Davison has noobligation, legal or otherwise, to refund any monies paid by Mr. [redacted] for servicesrendered to his documented satisfaction.SincerelyDavid ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 07/22/2016. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimum....

From the time of an initial contact and throughout the developmentand presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing, inadvance, its services and fees and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print”provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and thedevelopment of their project. Ms. [redacted]’s contention that she hired Davison for a schematicdrawing is not supported by the evidence. She contracted for research services which wereperformed. There is no basis for a refund, nor support for her complaint.Ms. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website on01/17/2016. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for aclient to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable andsavable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client entersany service contract or makes any payment to Davison. The disclosures provide a listing of thevarious services offered and the related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosuredetailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Ms. [redacted]. She acknowledged, viaan electronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy ofthe data record confirms her acknowledgement on 01/17/20 16 at 10:18:48 EST. Note thesubmitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Subsequently, on 01/22/20 16, Ms.[redacted] entered the initial pre-development contract which obligated Davison to compile researchon U.S. Patents and products, on the market, which were similar to her idea. This research wascompleted and the material provided to her in the computer disks referenced in her complaint.Following completion of the initial service, Davison offered additional services for the furtherdevelopment of her project. She declined these additional services, which is her prerogative.There is no factual basis to support Ms. [redacted]’s complaint. She states that she read allthe documents and that nothing was alarming. However, she contends she hired Davison for aschematic drawing for a patent application. These statements are conflicting. Nowhere in thedisclosures, which detail the services offered, nor in the terms of the pre-development contract,the belief that was the service she contracted for, she is mistaken. Such a mistaken belief is notdue to a lack of disclosure by Davison. She also claims she returned the disks and is warranted arefund. This is not reasonable. The contract was for a service, specifically the compilation ofresearch regarding her submitted idea. The compiled data included eleven (11) U.S. patentdocuments and information on six (6) similar products. The research material is customized, andrelevant only to her product idea; as such, it not capable of being returned and re-inventoried.Ms. [redacted] also raises a concern over the confidentiality of her idea, claiming her idea“is no longer in your [Davison’s] confidence and could now be exploited.” Her concern ismisplaced. All idea submissions to Davison are made pursuant to a Confidentiality Agreement.Davison adheres to this obligation of confidentiality for all submitted ideas, including Mr.[redacted]’s idea. However, Davison is neither aware of, nor responsible for, any and every newproduct idea that might be conceived of by anyone, anywhere. It is not uncommon for multiplepersons to have the same or similar idea.As stated above, she was fully informed of the services offered by Davison BEFORE sheentered any contract. The services for which she contracted have been performed. Hercontention that she contracted for a different service is not supported by the facts. Her decision tonot pursue the further development of her product idea does not negate the initial service whichwas completed. There is no basis for a refund.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 08/31/2015. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimum. At...

the outset, it should be noted that the last contact with Ms.[redacted] was on 11/19/2013, nearly two years ago. The significant delay in her submitting acomplaint bears on the credibility o f her position.From the time o f an initial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains anopen channel o f communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and securing the clients’approval and authorization throughout the process. The contracts are simply written, with no“fine print” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services andfees. As will be detailed below; Ms. [redacted] selected the payment terms; performance o f theservices has begun; the services provided to date have been performed with her express writtenapproval and to her documented satisfaction; there remains an outstanding balance due; and atMs. [redacted]’s specific request, her file was closed. Davison remains willing to complete allremaining services upon final payment. There is no basis for a refund.Ms. [redacted] submitted an idea to Davison through its website. Subsequently, sheentered into a contract for the design and construction o f a physical product sample, packagingand presentation material. When the contract was presented to Ms. [redacted], there were four (4)fee structures offered; three included varying retainer amounts and associated royalty percentagerates, and one was an hourly rate. Ms. [redacted] was free to select any o f these options. Thecontract provides that no services are due to be performed until full payment o f the agreed fee ispaid. Ms. [redacted] selected a payment structure and has made payment o f 60% of the contractfee, the remaining 40% being outstanding.Understanding that the retainer amounts are sizable sums, Davison does, voluntarily,begin the design phase o f the services when 60% o f the agreed fee has been paid. Accordingly, aproposed design was developed and submitted to Ms. [redacted] for her approval. She approvedthe design and completed a questionnaire in which she provided positive feedback. A copy o f hersigned approval and the completed questionnaire are attached. (Note the actual approved designhas been redacted for confidentiality purposes). To date, Ms. [redacted] has not fulfilled herpayment obligation, and no further services are due to be performed until payment in full hasbeen received.In her complaint, she alleges the proposed design “was not her idea” . It is important tonote that Davison is not a prototype manufacturer that creates a product sample based upon theclient’s preconceived notions. Davison is a design and development firm whose goal is to createa product sample that is a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the client. Thecontract which Ms. [redacted] entered explicitly states the following;“1. A. iv) Preliminary Product Design: Development Team "brainstorming" sessions will be held to uncoverproduct design solutions that blend with the targeted corporation's manufacturing capabilities. Theergonomics and aesthetics o f the product are also taken into consideration. This subjective process oftenresults in the Development Team making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimes substantial,to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submitted by Client, particularly if Client's proposeddesign is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect currentmanufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the market....4. O. Client acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived andsubmitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will function in themanner and with the attributes as originally conceived by Client...This Agreement does not contain orincorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sampleto be produced.”The design created by Davison was approved by Ms. [redacted], and she completed aquestionnaire documenting her satisfaction with the design. To now allege disapproval isdisingenuous.Ms. [redacted] also alleges “I have not heard from them”; implying a lack ofcommunication from Davison. This too is disingenuous. The last contact with Ms. [redacted] wason 11/19/2013, nearly two years ago. At that time she indicated her desire to end her project andher file was closed. There was no basis for a refund as the revocation period had ended, serviceshad begun and the services were performed to her documented satisfaction. In her complaint, shealleges she made contact with Davison on 08/13/2015. A review of Davison’s phone recordsshow no calls received on that date, or at any other time in 2015.Davison remains willing to complete all services under the terms o f the contract,provided full payment is received. As the services provided to date have met with Ms.[redacted]’s documented satisfaction, there is no basis to warrant a refund.Davison Design and Development, Inc.

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday...

Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         March 13, 2018               Re:      [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 03/02/2018.  Ms. [redacted] has been a valued client since contacting Davison in 2008, and all services have been completed. Those services were provided with her express written approval and authorization.  Further, the services met with her documented satisfaction. Unfortunately, no corporation has been willing to license her product idea.  When faced with an outcome not meeting their expectations, too many clients forget about the services that were provided, and that they knowingly undertook a risk after being fully informed of the risk by Davison.  Instead, they lash out with unsubstantiated allegations.    Ms. [redacted] entered into an agreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile research data related to her product idea.  Davison completed the Pre-Development services and the compiled research was provided.  Apparently satisfied with the service, she entered into a second contract for the design and construction of a physical product sample and presentation material.   A proposed design was provided for her review.  She approved the design and completed a questionnaire about the design - providing positive feedback.  Based upon that approval, the physical sample and presentation material were created.  An Executive Briefing, containing a photograph of the physical product sample, was provided to her.  She authorized the presentation of the product idea and completed a second questionnaire providing positive feedback.  The product idea was presented. Unfortunately, the corporation did not license her idea. She contracted for presentation material for a second corporation; that corporation did not license the idea.  She declined any further services.   In her complaint, she makes numerous inaccurate statements.  First, she claims to have had a patent that expired after 12 months.  That is not true.  Davison is not a law firm, and does not offer patent services or any other legal services. Davison does provide a blank cover sheet for a provisional application and information about patents taken directly from the USPTO website.  Assuming she had patent, the term is significantly longer than 1 year.  The filing that expires after 12 months is a provisional application for patent, not a granted patent.  The information provided about patents includes this detail.  Second, she claims Davison has an obligation to continue to maintain contact with her, despite her decision to refuse any further services.  That is not reasonable. Once services are completed, and a client declines any further services, there is simply no ongoing obligation from Davison. Davison provides the client with a letter indicating their project is in a “reactive” status, where no presentations are pursued and no ongoing updates are provided.   Next, she claims the product sample was not consistent with what she approved, making specific reference to the material of construction.  As stated above, she was provided an Executive Summary which contained a photograph of the physical sample and information about its construction. The information clearly states the material as “injection molded ABS” and aluminum.  A copy of the Executive Briefing is attached; note all details regarding the product idea have been redacted.  Finally, she alludes to other posted complaints. When a customer’s experience is good, it is not often that that customer takes the time to post their positive experiences.  The inevitable result is that review sites are filled with a seemingly overwhelming volume of negativity. Further, many individuals simply note the number of comments, rather than actually read the post and the business response. That is a simple reality of on-line review sites.                In light of the detail above, any alleged complaint is simply not credible and there is no basis for a refund.  However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Ms. [redacted].  If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.    Sincerely,   David ** D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosures

Mr. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of...

Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         October 30, 2017                 Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]     Dear Mr. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 10/24/2017.  Ms. [redacted] has been a valued client since contacting Davison in August 2015, and all services have been completed by June 2016. Those services were provided with her express written approval and authorization.  Further, the services met with her documented satisfaction.  Her contention that she “didn’t get any results” simply disregards these services.  The reality is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain.  The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed.  When faced with an outcome not meeting their expectations, too many clients forget about the services that were provided, and that they knowingly undertook a risk after being fully informed of the risk by Davison.  Instead, they lash out with unsubstantiated allegations.    Ms. [redacted] submitted her idea to Davison through its website on 08/20/2015.  The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format.  It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.  Among the disclosures is a detailed statement of the historical track record of securing a license for a client project.  She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on 08/20/2015 at 21:16:31 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.   Ms. [redacted] entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, and the New Product Sample Agreement.  The services were performed with her express written approval and authorization.  She approved the design of her product sample and authorized its presentation.  Copies of her signed approval and authorization are enclosed.  (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.) She also completed two separate questionnaires, one about the design and the other about the Executive Briefing, in which she provided positive feedback.  Copies of the questionnaires are enclosed.  The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea.  An offer of services for presentation to additional companies was made; Ms. [redacted] declined.  At this point, all contracted services had been completed and Ms. [redacted]’s project was in a “reactive” status, wherein no presentations would actively be pursued and no continued updates would be provided.     Her contention that she was “promised” her invention would sell is simply false.  Davison does not guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed, and goes to great lengths to communicate this to its clients.  Ms. [redacted] was repeatedly provided with this information, specifically in;   Disclosures:  “Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potential...”         The historical licensing data including the number of clients to have received a license and the number of clients who have received a financial gain are provided.                  Pre-Development Agreement: “Client acknowledges that Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design.  Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client's Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client. Davison has not evaluated the Product;”   New Product Sample Agreement: “Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.”   “Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will not evaluate the commercial potential of the Idea and that Davison has not disclosed it to anyone.  Thus, there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed.  Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”               In light of the numerous disclosures provided to Ms. [redacted], her signed approval, signed authorization, and signed questionnaires, any alleged complaint is simply not credible and there is no basis for a refund.  However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Ms. [redacted].  If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.      Sincerely,     David ** D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against [redacted]on Design and Development, Inc. ([redacted]on) on or about05 06 2016. At the outset, please be advised that I have made several attempts to reachMr. [redacted] to address his concerns; however I have not...

yet been able to connect withhim. I will continue efforts to reach him.[redacted]on understands that customer service is vital in all businesses and isimperative when operating a successful business. Customer concerns upset everyone andthe staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to aminimum. From the time of an initial contact, through the research and development of anew product idea, to the presentation of a client’s idea, the staff tries to maintain an openchannel of communication, disclosing the services and fees upfront and securing theclients’ approval and authorization throughout the process. A review of his file indicatesthat [redacted]on has performed its services per the contract terms.Mr. N[redacted] initially submitted an idea for a new product to [redacted]on in July2014. Subsequently, on 04/23/2016, he entered the initial pre-development contractwhich obligated [redacted]on to compile research on U.S. Patents and products which aresimilar to his idea. This research has been completed and shipped to him on 05 10 2016.There is currently a call scheduled to discuss the research and possible additionalservices. The file indicates the service has been performed in a prompt manner,according to the terms of the contract.In the complaint, Mr. [redacted] makes several inaccurate statements that will beclarified. First, he alleges there has been a lack of communication from [redacted]on. In theperiod of 04/01/2016 to 05/10/2016, there have been no less than eight calls to Mr.N[redacted]. Next, he makes a demand to “bring my product to market”. [redacted]on does not“market” its clients’ product ideas to the general public; they design and develop productideas for presentation to corporations who in turn may manufacture and market theproduct. Third, he makes a demand to “pay me royalties”. While royalties are thedesired goal, the simple fact is that the product development process provides noguarantees of a license. Our contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. Finally,he alleges to have been informed that there are no additional fees beyond that charged forthe initial pre-development service. This contention is directly contradicted by thedisclosures and the contract terms. Even the title of the contract he entered “PreDevelopment. . .“ states that the services are prior to the development of the product idea.The electronic submission system utilized by [redacted]on makes it impossible for aclient to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printableand savable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE theClient enters any service contract or makes any payment to [redacted]on. Among thedisclosures is the statement that “It is [redacted]on’s normal practice to seek more than onecontract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing ofthe various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosuredetailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Mr. N[redacted]. Heacknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read thesedisclosures. In addition, the pre-development contract that he entered contains thefollowing provision;“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample,packaging and relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to aLicensee, at Client’s sole expense. [redacted]on, at its option, will offer to provide furtherdevelopment services, under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creatingthe sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she isfree to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them.”As stated, the services performed to date have been provided according to thecontract terms. I will continue to attempt to contact Mr. [redacted] to address anyconcerns; certainly he is free to contact me directly. [redacted]on looks forward to continuingto work with Mr. [redacted] in the development of his project.David M. D[redacted]Associate Counsel[redacted]on Design and Development, Inc.Enclosure

October 31, 2017               Re:      [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]   Dear Mr. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Ms. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint.  Davison’s initial response of October 20, 2017 is incorporated.  Accordingly, any issues addressed in the original response will not be reiterated.   Initially, please note that her product sample has been shipped to her attention via FedEx, tracking number [redacted].  In addition, at no cost to Ms. [redacted], Davison created a brief video demonstrating the functionality of the product sample and provided that to her as well.  Attached please find a copy of the e-mail providing this information and video.    In her supplemental comments Ms. [redacted] attempts to disavow her signed questionnaires stating they were too narrow for her to comment on the areas she felt were lacking.  Copies of the questionnaires were provided to you.  For each statement the client can select Agree, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, or Disagree.  Also, the questionnaires explicitly state “Any additional comments are welcome.” Ms. [redacted] selected “Agree” for all statements and did not provide any additional comments.  Her retrospective attempt to claim the questionnaires do not represent her satisfactions is disingenuous at best.   Sincerely,   David ** D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosure

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 02/29/20 16. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimu** From...

the time of an initial contact and throughout the developmentand presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing itsservices and fees upfront, providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print”provisions, and securing the client’s approval and authorization. It is not possible to be moreupfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development of their project. A review ofMs. [redacted]’s file indicates that she was provided with, and acknowledged, the disclosures of allfees and services BEFORE she entered any service contract or made any payment to Davison.The services for which she contracted have been completed. She has declined the offer ofadditional services, which is her prerogative. There is no basis for a refund, nor support for hercomplaint.Ms. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website on11/13/2015. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for aclient to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable andsavable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client entersany service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statementthat “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract in connection with asubmitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing of the various services and related fees.Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees. Ms. [redacted]acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she received and read the two disclosurestatements. Enclosed please find a copy of the electronic data record documenting heracknowledgment at 03:04:27 on 11/13/2015 from IP address 73.179.145.45.Following her acknowledgment of the disclosures, Ms. [redacted] entered the initial predevelopment contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patents and products,on the market at that time, which were similar to her idea. This research was completed and thematerial provided to her in a Product Portfolio on 01/07/2016. The contract for the predevelopment service contains the following provision;“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample, packagingand relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client’ssole expense. Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services, under a separatecontract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for thetargeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtainthem.”On 01/27/2016, consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and thedisclosures provided to Ms. [redacted], Davison offered additional services for the furtherdevelopment of her project. Ms. [redacted] declined these additional services, which is herprerogative.Ms. [redacted]’s complaint contains numerous false allegations and mischaracterizations.Her allegation that the services and fees were not disclosed to her is simply false. As statedabove, every individual who submits an idea through Davison’s website is provided with, andacknowledges having received and read, the disclosures. Further, the disclosures are freelyavailable on Davison’s website. Davison can not confirm that she actually read the disclosures,only that she acknowledge having done so.Next she claims the services offered are to “produce, patent and sell your invention”.This mischaracterizes Davison’s services. First, Davison is not a prototype manufacturer thatcreates a product sample based upon the client’s preconceived notions. Davison is a design anddevelopment firm whose goal is to create a product sample that is a cost-effective solution to theproblem identified by the client. Second, Davison does not offer patent services. Davison is nota law firm and does not advertise that it provides patent services or any other legal services. Thecontracts for services do not include patent filing services or any other legal services. Thecontracts are explicitly clear that the Client is solely responsible for securing any and allintellectual property protections. Finally, Davison does not “sell” its clients’ product ideas to thegeneral public, they design and develop product ideas for presentation to corporations who in turnmay manufacture and market the product. To the extent Ms. [redacted] misunderstood the natureand scope of services offered such misunderstanding is not due to a lack of disclosure byDavison.As stated, Ms. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and related fees BEFORE sheentered any contract. The services for which she contracted have been performed. Her decisionto not pursue the further development of her product idea does not negate the initial service whichwas completed. There is neither basis for a refund nor support for her complaint.SincerelyDavid ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania...

[redacted]                                   ...⇄   February 28, 2017                 Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]     Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 02/20/2017.  Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum.  Unfortunately, after having reviewed Mr. [redacted]’s file, a breakdown in communication is precisely what occurred.  A representative from Davison’s Licensing Department will be in contact with Mr. [redacted] in the immediate future.  Davison extends its apology for this breakdown.   The following brief summary of events is provided as a full disclosure of events and is not intended as an attempt to excuse the lack of communication.  Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison by submitting an idea for a new product.  He entered the initial pre-development agreement and those services were performed.  Subsequently, he entered an agreement for the creation of a physical product sample and presentation material.  He approved the design of the product sample and authorized its presentation.  His new product idea was presented to two corporations; unfortunately neither chose to enter a license agreement. There were no outstanding services to be performed on his project at the time of the communication breakdown.   As stated, Davison extends its apology for its part in the breakdown of communication.  Mr. [redacted] should expect a call in the immediate future to discuss his project.      Sincerely,     David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

[redacted]
I would like to have more details as to what exactly is entailed in a presentation. Will they simply send out an email to two random companies with some info regarding my product or will they actually conduct a presentation in person at the other tow businesses.
Also, by making this offer, have they admitted that they did not fulfill their prior commitments in regards to my product marketing? Their offer to two additional presentations could be to companies that they have had little or no success with in past presentations and a way to just fulfill their offer. My first preference would be for Davison to refund their initial charge for services, which were not, in my estimation, performed adequately. If there is no possibility of this happening, the only other choice I have is their offer to present to two additional companies. I just feel that their presentation will be just going through the motions with no sense of commitment. I will await more details as to just what their presentations are comprised of.
Thank you.

Dear [redacted],Per the letter you sent me,  Davison Design & Development, Inc. is only willing to present my product to two more manufactures.In order for me to accept their offer,I tried to contact Davison by email on November 28, 2017 to Vicky B[redacted]. Asking Vicky to send me Davison's Licensing Department contact person name and email address.I still haven't heard from her.Best Regards,[redacted]

I would like to respond to each of the points made by Davison,First of all when I realizedthat I sent only $5,600. to Davison rather than 6,700.00 I immediately let them know myerror.Second, I know the process and I know that Davison does not buy products. Theysimply stand as a middle man and try to sell my intention to another company.Third, regardless what the contract state - Mr. Robert S[redacted] of Davison told me ineveryone of our phone conversations that when Davison sales people would be outknocking on doors trying to sell my product to another company. Mr. S[redacted] told me thismany many times. I would have never signed up for this deal had I know there weresending letters with no follow up either by phone or having a salesman drop in on theperson the letter was sent to.I have a copy of the letter that Matt Alwine claims to have sent to these other business,a copy is included for your review.Item 4 has already been covered - Mr. Robert S[redacted] - NEW PRODUCTS told me theywould send men out and they would be knocking on doors trying to get my businesssold.4.2 No responseFive, I have more than a few emails from Davison that read “from the office of thePresident. While both have different I really don’t see the difference between thethe President and the Chief Executive Officer of a company.Now, On several occasions I have asked Matt Alwine to send me copies of the lettershe sent to other business so that I could take the time and contact these businessesand see if they recall receiving a letter from Davison and if they had any questions that Icould help them with.On one occasion, I asked Mr. Alwine to sell me one of my cooling systems - hestumbled through his own sales pitch as stated on the letter Alwine sent to othercompanies.He didn’t know the product so even if some did call him about my product he didn’tknow the product well enough to sell it to me or anyone else. Earlier today I sent Mr.Alwine an email suggesting a change in the verbiage of this letter and I copied the officeof the President as well.If Mr. Robert S[redacted] of Davison miss represented himself or his employer and thats theinformation I used when I decided to go with Davison than this is what Davison has tolive with,I will be pulling other related email from Davison for your review, see how it stacks upagainst what they are telling you.