• Report: #173012

Complaint Review: Davison Inventegration

  • Submitted: Tue, January 24, 2006
  • Updated: Tue, February 28, 2006

  • Reported By:Henderson Nevada
Davison Inventegration
RIDC Park 595 Alpha Drive Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania U.S.A.

Davison Inventegration - Scott Serene ripoff misrepresentation of services, prices, high pressure sales tactics Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
*Update.. Rip-off Report Investigation: Davison Design and Development (Davison Inventegration) pledges to resolve all complaints and address any issues with customer service, commitment to 100 percent customer satisfaction - commitment from Mr Davison and other executives, inventors should feel confident in trusting Davison's commitment to their project..

*Author of original report: UPDATE: Response from George H. Crompton (General Counsel) for Davison Inventegration

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Scott Serene is 1 out of 800 of Davison Inventegration's "Director's of New Products" (DNP). Davison plays on the naivety and gullibility of potential inventors by using slick talking, scheming telemarketer/salesmen whom they call DNP's to separate hardworking inventors from their money by misrepresenting both their services and prices. Serene promised that the $685 fee for Pre-inventegration Research Portfolio would be the ONLY cost I would need to come up with. I was assured that Davison covers all other costs including design, marketing, provisional patent, etc 9 months later I was asked for another $1000 which I was told 2 weeks later only a retainer for the additional $8859--13,059 it would cost for "Product Development" to present it to a company who marketed a similar product. How ironic that their US Patent Research failed to find it only 2 months before!
Check out PatentHunters (free trial) for yourselves to find existing patents on your potential inventions. These guys are crooks, liars, and shysters! Buried in the legalese of the Contingency Agreement are the TRUE facts which are NOT being disclosed by the DNP's about additional fees, expiration dates of the contracts, and the fact that Davison NOT the client has the final approval over numerous details regarding the product and prototype. If a potential company (they have chosen) isn't interested, there will be more fees, etc... Furthermore, Davison claims that ONLY 10 projects since 1990 have resulted in a net profit to the client!! Run, don't walk from these shysters, IF you deal with them, you have one guarantee--a lighter wallet or pocketbook!

Deborah
Henderson, Nevada
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/24/2006 01:18 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Davison-Inventegration/Pittsburgh-Pennsylvania-15238-2911/Davison-Inventegration-Scott-Serene-ripoff-misrepresentation-of-services-prices-high-p-173012. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Davison Inventegration

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 1Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Author of original report

UPDATE: Response from George H. Crompton (General Counsel) for Davison Inventegration

AUTHOR: Deborah - (U.S.A.)

On February 17, 2006 I finally received a response from George H. Crompton, General Counsel for Davison Inventegration. Unfortunately this website does not appear to allow me to import his letter. However, I have enclosed my response to his letter, which I sent through the Better Business Bureau of Western Pennsylvania.

Crompton has several GROSS errors in his letter, which I attempted to address. They fall into several critical areas:

1) My product was "substantially similar to numerous products that had (already) been patented".
2) I had been "informed of (other) costs related to product development". THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORAL & WRITTEN COMMUNICATION AND CONTRACTS--which is Davison's method of attempting to squirm out of any liability issues for fraud.
3) I knew how few inventors & products had actually recouped Davison's outrageous research & product development costs. IE: READ THE #$@! contract and still retained Davison, that is attorneyese for "buyer beware", we're crooks and you knew it when you retained us!!!
4) The $1000 limited time offer was ONLY a DOWN PAYMENT retainer and NOT the entire cost for the product development was not disclosed until 2 weeks later!

Crompton threw the bone back into my court and the (unstated) comment that a LACK OF A RESPONSE WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN AGREEMENT THAT DAVISON HAD PERFOMED ADEQUATELY.


ATTN: Jim Cauliffe@pittsburgh.bbb.org
BBB OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
300 Sixth Avenue Ste. 100-UL,
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2511
412-456-2700 FAX 412-456-2739
info@pittsburgh.bbb.org
www.westernpennsylvania.bbb.org


Dear Mr. Cauliffe:

Thank you for your response, and for the enclosed response from Davison to my complaint from George. H Compton, General Counsel. His response includes the following BLATANT errors.
1) Davison's research showed NO similar products that were substantially similar to my product idea.

However, when they paired me up with a company the product currently being marketed showed MANY similarities. Why is that? Why wasn't this company or their product highlighted in Davison's quality market research. After all, supposedly that was what I was paying for? When, I asked Scott Serene that EXACT question and he gave me a completely unsatisfactory answer stating that the report may NOT include products recently produced or had a patent pending. But that supposedly was what their research was SUPPOSE to show so that there was NOT any patent infringement!

2) Crompton's agreement that portions of the report could have applied to any product generated by Davison is grossly understated.

The quality of the report SHOULD have showed all similar products currently on the market, or that had or were applying for a patent AND IT DID NOT. The most unique feature of this research was that the name of my product appeared in a bold font on the top of each page which is a touchy feely feature meant to reassure the potential inventor. The VAST majority of the report was mass produced and very general. Furthermore, that generalized information served as legalese to protect Davison NOT the potential investor when they receive their personalized simplistic, under-researched market and patents.

3) Crompton's assertion that I was informed up front by Scott Serene that other costs would be involved is absolutely FALSE. I asked specilically if there would be ANY other costs and was told that Davison would take care of those costs.

At no time did Serene ever verbally tell me of ANY other costs related to bringing this product to market. THAT INFORMATION WAS BURIED ON PAGE 2 OF THE CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT. I ASKED MORE THAN A FEW TIMES BECAUSE I HAD BEEN FACED WITH SEVERAL SUBSTANTIAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AND BOTH CARS WERE TOTALED AS A RESULT OF ANOTHER DRIVERS' NEGLIGENCE.

Davison is lying to potential inventors because costs related to making a prototype are NOT under the ORIGINAL contract, they are part of a SECOND contract, so TECHNICALLY there are no costs!!!! That is considered fraud and misrepresentation!!!

Furthermore, the Contingency Chart for Davison (Strategic Implementation) which was also sent at the same time. I WAS TOLD TO REFER TO THIS CHART TO SHOW THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT AND FOR REASSURANCE OF ANY COSTS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT.

(STEP 6) states: Project is presented to the Cost Estimating department to quote the cost to build a Product Sample if and when needed.

(STEP 8) states: Client retains Davison to develop a Product Sample for presentation to a corporation. Davison contacts the corporation in writing to notify them of the Product Sample being developed for their review.

(STEP 9) states: Client approves virtual renderings of the Product Sample as designed by Davison.

(STEP 10) states: Client approves final integrated Product Sample developed by Davison.

(STEP 11) states: Patent, Trademark or Copyright may be requested & will need to be prepared by a registered Patent Attorney.

ALL COSTS RELATED TO THESE FACTS AND
THAT THE POTENTIAL INVENTOR IS ON THE HOOK FOR, AND
THE FACT THAT THE INVENTOR IS SUBJECT TO DAVISON'S APPROVAL AND ARE ALL UNDER A(NOTHER) SEPARATE CONTRACT ARE IN THE FINE PRINT AND
WERE NEVER DISCLOSED DURING THE ENTIRE 9 MONTHS I DEALT WITH SCOTT SERENE.

4) When we finally got to the stage of producing a Product Sample I sent the Product Sample to Scott Serene when he mentioned the $1000 ADDITONAL cost. He NEVER disclosed at THAT TIME that this was to be a down payment. From what he did NOT say, I was left to understand that this was the TOTAL cost. I had already worked out 90% of the design problems, only ONE area needed to be padded. It wasn't until 2 weeks later when I got the new Product Development Retainer package that I discovered that the $1000 was ONLY a down payment.


It was because of this nondisclosure that I finally started investigating Davison with the Better Business Bureau, TV consumer reports, on-line reporting services, etc. WHAT AN EYE OPENER to find out that these same manipulative, understating, camoflauging techniques were part and parcel for the way Davison routinely did business.

4) It was because of these new fees ($1000) that I PRODUCED, REFINED AND SENT MY PRODUCT SAMPLE!!!!

5) The limited time offer was NOT an innocuous opportunity to help me as the potential inventor. It was a fraudulent attempt to get me to give Davison $1000 only to find out (IN WRITING) TWO WEEKS LATER (when I received the ACTUAL contract) that it was ONLY a down payment!!!

And exactly what was the need of the immediacy of limited time offer? What would happen if I needed to think about it, bring in partners? Would the quality of their research and product development change if I didn't respond in 48 hours? NONE!!! Scott Serene, as a representative of Davison extended this limited time offer for the sole purpose used the limited time offer as a closing technique to manipulate the potential investor.

Crompton's assertation that Many clients who would otherwise not be able to pursue their projects take advantage of this GENEROUS program. How exactly is this offer generous if the CLIENT is NOT being told the TRUE costs of the product development? Especially when the written contract stating the REAL costs isn't sent for an additional two weeks? That is MORE evidence of purposely misleading and misrepresenting the client!



6) It was only after I realized the depth of the con that I finally saw that the oral agreement and understanding I had with Scott Serene was NOT reflected in the actual written document. LIES!!! LIES!! AND MORE LIES!!! Designed to lower the potential inventors defenses and get them to trust THE Director of New Products by misrepresenting their services and their REAL prices.

7) Finally, Crompton's comment that the initial contract for research was signed in April 2005 and not completely paid for until October 2005 is evidence of the willingness and lengths that Davison and their representatives are willing to go to secure a contract and withhold evidence of the TRUE costs of retaining Davison.


7) As requested by Crompton, I am submitting this letter to his attention THROUGH the Better Business Bureau.

This additional information concerning why I feel that the quality of Davison's research was inadequate and that my request for a refund should be honored. Scott Serene lied and misrepresented everything!!!

I have also taken the liberty of submitting Crompton's letter and my response to Rip Off Reports and Channel 5 OF Pittsburgh, PA.



Sincerely,

Deborah Kay Eichelberger

Dissatisfied, Disgruntled former Davison customer
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
X