I’d suggest that this exchange basically confirms the story that one finds when searching the net. This subject might be worth a sticky topic of its own – It’s a story that’s been discussed on this board a fair bit already.
*Inflated, misleading and frequently revised (downwards) claims and assertations. Poorly designed, poorly built products, that don’t perform as advertised, let alone accomplish the desired goal. That’s assuming the product actually arrives after it’s been paid for.
*Generally poor service, lots of excuses, and special pleading, denial of responsability. There are occassional “example cases” of better service but they appear to be strongly atypical cases (and generally these people aren’t – as far as I can tell – well known to any community where they appear or are refered to) . The Better Business Bureau, bulletin boards like this one, “fraud watch” style websites and organaziations, and and a surprising number of spcially created websites document an ongoing pattern of dissatisfied costomers.
*A pronounced tendency to blame the customer for not accepting excuses, or for not considering promises to someday deal with the problem as equivilent to actually dealing with the problem. Often accompanied (several exchanges down the line) by variations on the “if you had been more constructive/nicer/more trusting, I would have fixed your problem yesterday” speech – often completely ignoring the actual content of the original complaint.
And a question for anyone in the know -- what exactly about this product would be patentable? As far as I know, anything that is legitimately patentable has already been patented by LaBerge or The Lucidity Institute (which perhaps wasn't really properly patentable, but at least the case could be made) and is probably near expiry date by now anyways. Certainly nothing in Gelerter's device get's around "prior art" considerations.