8 Comments

1. Take a look at both the “Extreme” and “Watch” under “Invention Technologies” and/or “Invent-Tech”:

   http://www.inventored.org/caution/extreme
   http://www.inventored.org/caution/watch

   As well as:

   (a) FTC site [under the Freedom of Info Act] -

   http://www.ftc.gov/foia/frequentrequest.htm

   (b) US PATENT/TRADEMARK OFFICE complaint page -

   http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic.....ePromotion

   (c) SLAPP LAWSUITS (www.inventored.org/SLAPP)
   filed against some complaining inventors:

   http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil
   Select:(1) Standard Case Search then (2) type Invention Technologies in the “Party Name.”

   (d) Enter “PLYMOUTH GLOBAL GROUP” in any search engine (their previous name).

   RJR

   Comment by Ron J. Riley — December 28, 2004 #

2. Invent-Tech Blog Posting 6

   FTC “Complaint File” Document

   There have been an increasing number of people contacting us who are concerned after reading about a somewhat confusing PDF file compiling all available consumer communications to the FTC about Invent-Tech. The file in question http://www.invent-tech.com/fud.....logies.pdf is apparently the result of a Freedom Of Information Act request made a few years ago – except that most FOIA requests are not usually publicized and promoted in the way this one has been. Tellingly, a simultaneous request was also made about our largest competitor and is wielded as the same kind of FUD light-saber where they are concerned.

   In reality, if someone actually took the time to read the entire document they’d find that many of the communications compiled in the FTC document are simply inquiries. Many of the pages mysteriously don’t say anything at all. Yet, there they are - each listed as one of the “complaints against Invent-Tech”.

   Only a handful of these communications could reasonably be categorized as complaints at all and that’s before you even begin to consider the legitimacy of each one. There’s no way to research or investigate any of the claims made because none of the “complainers” are personally identified. It is unverifiable, unreliable information ripe for abuse by a competitor, schemer or kook, don’t you think? Most significantly, the FTC themselves state on the cover page that none of these have been verified or in any way legitimized. Who knows who these people are? We certainly don’t because all of their names are marked-out. We have no opportunity to respond because no one has ever contacted us about any of them nor are they even supposed to from what we can surmise.

   There is a constitutional right to due process for a reason – it prevents this kind of exploitation and manipulation. If you are accused of something, you have a presumption of innocence and the right to tell your side of the story. That is not often the case in the court of public opinion and don’t think for a minute that the FUD factory doesn’t know that fact very well..

   Invent-Tech would like to take the opportunity now to highlight a couple of the “complaints” compiled in the FTC file as this is being held out as some kind of “smoking gun” by the masters of FUD on the Internet:

   “This is not really a complaint, I think they might be a good company, but I also think they should be investigated. Most of all, I would like to remain unknown because I don’t want to ruin a company if they are doing good business.”

   “I am contacting you to find out if this company is a legitimate invention promotion company. I have tried to research them but have been going in circles.”

   REALITY CHECK : True experts and industry professionals are busy doing business. As you can see many of not all of these posting are not complaints at since we do not know from whom these are originating we have been unable to address the issues directly to the client and resolve the isse.
   Invent-Tech Marketing Department

   Comment by Invent-Tech — June 7, 2005 #

3. a client of invent-tech whom was just unhappy with invent-tech’s services.but now i find my invention being introduced by a company i sent a pamplet on my product and a licensing agreement but had no response.someones got some explianing to do and some checks owned myself.

   Comment by poince — September 21, 2005 #

4. POINCE (FAILED CLIENT) FRIAR JEM71@SBCGLOBAL.NET I”M NOW SEEKING A LEGAL TEAM.I HAVE DOUCUMENTATION FROM MID 04 ,INVENT-TECH DID MY PATEND SEARCH AND ALL OTHERTASKSLIKE REGISTERING THROUGH THE PATEND OFFICE.I THOUGHT I WAS PROTECTED.NOW PLANTRONICS IS MANUFACTURING MY INVENTION WITHOUT ME. I WON’T GO DOWN WITHOUT A FIGHT!!!!!!!

   Comment by poince — September 21, 2005 #

5. Just a few questions for invent tech. What is your fee for a patent and if one were to purchase a patent for their idea does that person recieve anything from you as far as the purchased patent is concerned? Your reply will be greatly appriciated. Thank you

   Comment by Nickole — December 14, 2005 #

6. thank you to all concerned and involved in shedding light on predatory outfits like invent tech,davison, etc.they need to thank there makers that i have been able to research for complaints against them before i sent them money i sweat and bled to earn.forgiveness is not in my nature.i will continue to work on my ideas solo, as slow as progress may be,at least its honest.

   Comment by jim kerns — March 21, 2006 #

7. Hi, I have a great idea,but i do not know where to start. Can anyone offer any suggestions?

   Comment by Ken — July 27, 2006 #

8. “says Leslie Hecker, a legal liaison for the company” Now this is funny, because Leslie Hecker used to be Invent-Tech’s attorney. Her title changed shortly after being disbarred. Inventech use of a disbarred attorney is a perfect example of the nature of Invent-Tech. For the full scoop on Invent-Tech see http://www.Invent-Tech-Sucks.org

   Comment by Ronald J Riley — August 18, 2006 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Supporters