I asked nicely in one of my blog posts - please don't insult any engineer, current or former, at uBeam.
There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.
Market pressures came to bear on Hashfast and I was fortunate/unfortunate enough to close the doors after a bankruptcy fight.
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.
Does "A US District Judge has approved claims" mean convicted in a US court? But thanks @georgesmith for providing links to your sources. I wish more people would do that.
Apple now hiring uBeam engineers (The Verge)
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.
And he stayed there to switch off the lights. From his LinkedIn:QuoteMarket pressures came to bear on Hashfast and I was fortunate/unfortunate enough to close the doors after a bankruptcy fight.
Apple now hiring uBeam engineers (The Verge)
Oh dear, now the true believers will say that vindicates the idea of ultrasonic charging
HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.
The company’s new CFO, Monica Hushen.
This woman is the death of hardware personified.
Her career is amazing. She was with Apple during the time when Apple was for all intents and purposes dead, then she went to Iomega right when Zip drives fell out of favor. Afterwards she went to some B2C solution provider not even Wikipedia remembers that was promptly bought and killed by eBay, then she went to work for the smoldering almost-corpse of Palm Inc, which HP finally axe murdered. Noticing a trend she had a brief stint at ECS Refining, which is a recycling company for dead hardware.
And now she's with Hashfast, a hardware "company" floundering dead in the water before it sold its first product..
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.
Does "A US District Judge has approved claims" mean convicted in a US court? But thanks @georgesmith for providing links to your sources. I wish more people would do that.
Thanks. The judge ruled against them, but the suit was then settled before trial, so you're right that "convicted" isn't fully accurate. Post edited, more details here.
Saying that someone was convicted when they weren't is "libel per se". It can get you in serious trouble. It's not even possible to be convicted in a civil suit.
It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.
There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.
Hash fast was in the news due to its founders so the correlation with ubeam continues. The bigger question is the choices of a talented engineer to go to the likes of these companies, but it appears he's doing the wise act and looking for his self now as when one googles him he's got his resume posted live "Currently I am looking for my next role." And lists ubeam in his repertoire so it is a current post.http://www.taffler.com/Taffler/Welcome.html Wonder how many other engineers will be flying the coop now from there?
I asked nicely in one of my blog posts - please don't insult any engineer, current or former, at uBeam.
There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.
May I ask, did you, or any of your technical colleagues, ever expect to see the phone charging product deployed and selling in the wild?
new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610
QuoteIt is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.
It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.
... but no, it's never libel to mistakenly rely on an inaccurate source.
(Otherwise, any time a media outlet got something wrong, every reader who told a friend something would be guilty of libel.)
I'm sorry I screwed up, and didn't check sources carefully enough.
new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610
Same article I believe, no paywall, just a click-through box
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603
May I ask, did you, or any of your technical colleagues, ever expect to see the phone charging product deployed and selling in the wild?No. It never made any sense.
Erm, I don't really think it's your place to answer on behalf of those engineers when we've got one here now who can speak for himself and who the question was directed to.
new WSJ article on uBeam sound interesting from the title, but behind a paywall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubeam-vcs-created-hype-cycle-1463484610
Same article I believe, no paywall, just a click-through box
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603I don't seem to be able to click through on that page. I only get options to sign in or subscribe.
QuoteIt is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.
It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.
It's exactly that kind of writing that gets you sued for libel. You take a quote that refers exclusively to a court direction on a motion to dismiss and conflate it with "a large judgement ... against one of the defendents". Whether you intend to or not, it looks like you're trying to find some way of ascribing guilt without having the facts available to support that. And that's what matters, at least in English law, that a piece of writing, taken as a whole is likely to be read as defamatory by a "right-minded person" - the appearance in the mind of the reader is what counts. I know wherewith of what I speak, I used to be a journalist and I've had formal training in libel law as my publisher, Felix Dennis, didn't like being sued (you may remember a little thing called the Oz trial).