Statz Custom Homes, Inc.

Clearly we are not a fraud as we've been operating and licensing products for sixteen years, all of which time we've been accredited by the Revdex.com. It's true that we have to be cautious about the products we represent on a commission basis howeverWe have no intentions other than to make our
best efforts on behalf of inventors though the claims made by this inventor for what his invention can achieve throw up some immediate flags -- it's not the first invention of its type that we've receivedHowever, after ***'s disgruntled response to our assessment, we offered on two occasions to revisit his invention and perform due diligence to ensure we hadn't overlooked an opportunityHis last reply stated that he didn't have "any urge to reply to a fraud company. Best Regards, *** Lambert Lambert & Lambert

I am rejecting this response because: Despite observing in the assessment that the invention performs the task that it claims to do, very beneficial to the society, will comply with applicable law, safe, feasible to manufacture etcthey rejected itI understood then that it was for their concern regarding its patentIn support of their concern they cited a list of patents, of which a few are one or two centuries old, which they claimed to be competitor to my inventionI studied all these and others also and found in them no semblance of similarity with my inventionSurely they did not study them, only collected the patent nosand referred them to meI wrote them my finding that “Not a single patent has any semblance of similarity with my inventionIn theory, in construction and in operation my invention is completely different from all of themSo it has no chance of rejection or being curtailed its claimsDo you find any generator on the market that generates as much electricity as you need free? No.(So) If you find one, will not you buy it instantly? So it has no competitor and no market barrierSo assessment on this point is also not correctWe can imagine its marketSo why a manufacturer will not grab it and will not be ready to spend on it? Surely some wrong has entered into the decision-takingSo I request your company to re-view its decision.”To it their reply was “ Since the decision to take on a project and offer to represent it chiefly falls on our marketing department, information about your invention will be forwarded to themYou will be contacted within the next couple of weeks if they’re interested or need more details.”Getting no communication from them for one month, I contacted them to know the resultA little later on the same day they replied “My partner and I have taken another look at your invention and we find it interesting. We think it’s a useful concept, but we have however decided to pass on representing it after consultation with our marketing staff. Our marketing people operate strictly on a commission (their only reward is a portion of Lambert & Lambert’s commission) and tend to be rather cautious about how they commit their time and energy. They work closely with many manufacturers, have a broad scope of expertise regarding licensable products, and can’t foresee concluding a licensing agreement for your product with a manufacturer based on the value it has to offer at this time.”The explanation was such silly that I wrote back “A product which is salable in millions and millions of units worldwide will not find a manufacturer! How ridiculous! I thought you were an honest and genuine company… So all of you are scams, some in the disguise of 'good guys'.”To this they replied “We're willing to reconsider and will reopen your fileOur research department will do some more work and you're welcome to provide any additional information regarding the efficacy of your generatorHave you come any closer to developing a prototype?”The reply was clearly an eyewashBy then it was evident to me that they had not the capability to develop it.Before submitting my invention I had checked with them by giving them the idea of the invention, whether they could do such major thingsThey assured me “I am confident that we can offer you the competent, prompt and personalized service that you deserve.”So if they are not fraud and really do some work as they have asserted in their reply to you, then they can do only some petty (though useful) worksBut being informed of the higher technological nature of my work which they are not capable of doing, to ask me to submit it and pocket the assessment fee, isn’t it cheating?So they deserve to be de-accredited and should return me the assessment fee $

We are definitely concerned and very upset about our client’s response regarding the evaluation results and his accusations that we are a fraudulent company.  We are not, never were, and will never be a fraudulent company.  We have been in business for over 16 years and have been a Revdex.com accredited business through most if not all this time.  We are at somewhat of a disadvantage in this discussion since we cannot disclose anything regarding his invention because of the nondisclosure agreement we have between our client and our company.  The main reason for not offering representation is that we do not feel that his invention will work as claimed.  If his invention worked it would be a great invention for society since it would generate free energy for everyone.  Our client did a very good job in his presentation and many people will think that it may work.  Our staff is very skeptical of such claims but without proof of the results one way or the other we have to give the inventor the benefit of the doubt and proceed with the evaluation as if it does work and recommend that the inventor continue research and development of his invention.    After closer inspection and unfortunately after sending the evaluation results I feel that his invention is a very well disguised perpetual motion machine, which we all know will not work because perpetual motion machines defy one of the basic laws of physics in that energy cannot be created or destroyed. We are at somewhat of a catch 22 in that our client believes that his invention will work and we do not.  However, if our client can show us the results of his invention working we would definitely be interested in offering representation of his invention.  We would not require a full blown market ready product or even a rough prototype but results from a proof of concept would suffice.  In light of all this and to resolve some of this bad feeling we would be willing to refund half of his evaluation fee if he would be willing to remove his complaint.  Also, our offer to assist him in licensing his invention is still open if he can show that it works.  I hope that our client finds this acceptable.