Frisbee, well you sure let me have it! Seriously, kudos to you for some of which you stated was well deserved. And you are 100% correct, in retrospect, I was very stupid to invest in this company in the amount that I did without researching it in much more detail. And you are right that I should have a professional and I do, in fact I have 3 professionals including U.S. Trust headquartered in California. 90% of my monies that are in stocks, bonds, commodities, etc., are with these 3 firms. The money I invested in ALLM was all part of my speculative account. The reason I initially invested in ALLM is that I met one of the 3 company founders in my church in Melbourne Florida. He has produced 5 faith-based films including one that my church actively supported. My wife and I went out to dinner with he and his wife on many Saturday nights after church with a regular group of church people for at least the past 2 years.. We got to know them, we thought very well. I actually organized several home group movie showings where I showed this founder's movies with he and his lovely and very nice wife in attendance. I have all his movies in my collection at home. He would tell us folks in the dinner group about his company and that "we would make a lot of money if we invested in his company."
Very simply, after getting to know him for several years, I trusted him when he would make predictions and sure enough there would come the press release exactly as he stated. I believed him when he said the technology on the patent, (which I knew there was a patent on file) was globally disruptive as it could produce sugar from cellulose at 5 cents per pound when the world price is about 13.4 cents per pound.
So this is why I initially invested, because I trusted this founder and had no reason not to believe these fantastic press releases. Should I have done more homework before investing, you bet. I screwed up big time and I admit it that I really messed up with very bad judgement following the lack of due diligence. I am still very humbled by it and I am still very mad at myself - not anyone else - it is all my fault.
So there you have it Mr. Frisbee, this is my lame excuse for not doing my homework and your points are spot on - what else can I say? I was a total idiot with my speculative account.
That is enough said with this post. I will give a link from Google earth below that shows the exterior of EK Labs in Longwood. The unmarked warehouse on the left hand side to the left of the vehicles parked on the grass is the building in question. You can zoom in closer to the building and get a direct view from the road if you wish. This is EK Labs where my wife and I were given a look right after they opened up. The official address should be 208 West Marvin Avenue but google earth is not quite matching up to that address. It is in a warehouse neighborhood. That is all I want to say right now. I don't feel like trying to discredit anyone and I may never do so. I may decide to simply shut up and take my lumps that I deserve. I have finally sold the last of my stock so I am trying to move on and get past the embarrassment of my mistake. I just wanted to agree with you Frisbee on one of your main points and admit my mistake. I really don't want to talk about it any further this evening as it does bring back some pain knowing that I messed up in a big way - and it was all my fault - it was not the founder's fault. Just because I trusted a founder, it doesn't excuse my total lack of due diligence. So gloat on Mr. Frisbee, I deserve it, seriously!
<<The stock guy said he is interested enough to keep it on his "watch" board. The engineer friend not only told me it was sound technology and the patent was valid(his specialty within a large engineering company is to create viable patents), but he bought some of the stock... >>
Frisbee, how in the world can your allegedly smart engineering "friend" state the the patent is valid?
Anyone worth their salt (which your "friend" obviously isn't) would tell you that the patent isn't worth much of anything unless it can survive a challenge. That challenge typically starts with an inter partes review / validity challenge at the USPTO:
<<Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a procedure that allows third parties to challenge claims in a granted patent based on prior art patents and printed publications. IPR has been adopted very rapidly. On an annualized basis, IPR petitions exceed all other types of post-grant proceedings. IPR is similar to inter partes reexamination, as the petitioner maintains a role in the proceeding (as opposed to ex parte reexamination that a petitioner initiated but could not participate in), but IPR offers advantages such as its faster resolution time of 18 months.>>
Secondly, IF the Blair patents would survive and IPR, they'd have to prove that the claims that survived are infringed by the companies that are using the technology. That would have to take place in a Federal District Court of Law.
Do you have the slightest clue how much money that would cost?
Why hasn't anyone challenged the Blair patents via a IPR yet??
I'll tell you why, those challenges only come when there is commercial value of the patents. The Blair patents are NOT being infringed because they're not being used because there is NO commercial value.
Methinks that your "friend" is Dan DeLiege who is obviously a compulsive liar!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
