Hop-On Inc (HPNN)

[PRmaniac]

CEO the fraudster....blast from the past.

It seems that old Tweety thinks merely using the word fraud in his PR will take suspicion off him and HPNN's claims.
The funny thing is, when you Google fraud and Peter D Michaels you get this.....

Quote:
Hop-On.com chief executive Peter Michaels, the Southern California impresario who gained fame for touting a disposable cell phone, has been arrested for allegedly defrauding investors in connection with a defunct online gambling company.
A federal indictment made public Thursday accused Michaels and others of raising $12 million to $18 million on behalf of World Wide Web Casinos (WWWC) with the help of telemarketers, glossy brochures and false representations. It also accused Michaels of pocketing some of the money.
"Fantastic," said Michael Harb, an accountant who invested $70,000 in the gambling venture six years ago and has been able to recover only half his money. He said some other investors lost their homes.
Hop-On.com chief executive Peter Michaels, the Southern California impresario who gained fame for touting a disposable cell phone, has been arrested for allegedly defrauding investors in connection with a defunct online gambling company.

And this.....
Quote:
Hop-On, Inc. Founder Sentenced for Stock Fraud
Investigative Reports
November 20 2005
When it came time to call his attorney, Peter Michaels may have wished he owned the disposable cell phone he had been promising investors. His phone privileges will be decidedly more limited for the next 8 months. Michaels, the former CEO of Hop-On, Inc. (Pink Sheets: HPNN), whose unfulfilled promise to deliver a disposable cellular telephone enticed investors and seduced much of the mainstream media, has been sentenced to serve 8 months in jail for defrauding investors in connection with an online gambling company called World Wide Web Casinos (WWWC).

Michaels grabbed headlines with his promise to deliver "the world's first disposable, fully-recyclable and contract-free cell phone." The hype attracted media attention and persuaded Time Magazine to cite Hop-On's disposable phone as one of the "Inventions of the Year" in 2001. There was just one problem – Hop-On did not appear to have a phone to deliver. See HOP-ON.COM, INC. — TROUBLE IN RIVER CITY.

Meanwhile, authorities were focusing on Michaels' earlier activities promoting another tiny public company, WWWC. On April 17, 2003, prosecutors charged Michaels and four other men with raising $12 to $15 million for WWWC by orchestrating an aggressive telemarketing scheme and issuing online press releases that created "a veneer of legitimacy for WWWC and affiliated companies." That same description could be used to characterize Michaels' efforts to promote Hop-On.

Once he has completed his 8 month jail term, Michaels will remain on probation for 3 years. He also has been order to pay a $100,000 fine – a seemingly paltry sum considering the alleged scheme allegedly netted millions of dollars.

While Hop-On – sans Michaels - currently offers cell phone for sale, the Company no longer appears to be marketing its erstwhile invention of the year. It seems that the product, like Michaels, became disposable.

And this.....

Controversial CEO Moves From Disposable Phones To Patent Lawyers
Hop-on CEO Peter Michaels is demanding royalties from major handset manufacturers, wireless carriers,
and retailers that he claims are making money from his ideas.
By Antone Gonsalves, InformationWeek
April 9, 2007
URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198900059
Peter Michaels, Hop-on CEO who several years ago drew lots of media attention but few sales with his plans for a
disposable mobile phone, is back with a new scheme. This one, however, won't need any factories or retail sales
channels, only lawyers.
A month after receiving federal patents for a couple of mobile phone designs, Michaels is demanding royalties from
major handset manufacturers, wireless carriers, and retailers that he claims are making money from his ideas. "I do
have lawyers," he told InformationWeek. "And we have resources to lock asses with these guys. We have the resources
to defend our rights."
While some CEOs would try to work out this dispute privately, Michaels issued a press release last week warning the
mobile phone industry that he wanted payment. Michaels' decision to go to the media is reminiscent of 2001 when he
convinced Time Magazine that his $30 disposable phone was worthy of being named one of the year's best inventions,
even though Hop-on, the company he founded in 1998, hadn't sold a single phone. Indeed, three months later in March
2002, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a prototype of the phone was a jury-rigged Nokia phone with a plastic
facade.
Two years later, Hop-on claimed it's throwaway phones were ready for market. But no major wireless carrier or retailer
ever sold them. Michaels said the company stopped selling his invention a couple of years ago, because competition is
just too tough. "It's such a competitive business now, there's not enough margins," he said.
Competition won't be a problem in Michaels' latest moneymaking effort. Hop-on has received from the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office two design patents, D536,685 S and D536,320 S, for two flip phones. Among the design elements
Michaels claims belong to Hop-on are speakers placed on the sides of phones, and front and side buttons used to
activate camera and video features and to control music playing, such as fast forwarding or replaying a tune.
Michaels won't say that anyone has actually copied the designs. "I don't want to say they blatantly copied my design,
but it's kind of funny that their phones look exactly like mine," he said. "If they did design the phone, why didn't they
file a patent and protect their intellectual property rights."
While Michaels says the patents show he's been wronged, lawyers say patents alone don't mean a company is entitled
to anything. The government issues patents based largely on the information supplied by the applicant, so companies,
when challenged, often have to convince a judge that they deserve exclusive rights to an invention. "Just because the
Patent Office issues a patent doesn't mean it's valid or enforceable," said Henry Sneath, IP attorney for the law firm
Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, in an interview.

Yep, that's what you get

Or not.......LMAO