Watch One Kickstarter Creator Self-Destruct As People Call Him Out For Scam Project

from the borderline-scams dept

Mon, Dec 9th 2013 2:03pm — Mike Masnick

There have been a few stories over the past year or so of Kickstarter projects simply taking products found elsewhere (often China) slapping a new label on them and claiming they're new. This pretty clearly violates Kickstarter rules, which includes the following:

Projects cannot resell items or offer rewards not produced by the project or its creator.

There have been a few cases in the past where this has popped up. Last year there was the Ambiolight and earlier this year there was the machined gamers dice -- both of which were called out by people in the comments as being mere reselling of products made by others already on the market.

It appears that others keep trying to do these kinds of reseller setups, tricking users along the way. A few weeks ago, I saw the projects for "Full of Fuel" external batteries. I have a bit of an obsession with external battery packs, and have been personally using a fantastic Anker Astro Pro 20,000mAh battery -- which looked nearly identical to one of the Fuel of Fire batteries. The other two Fuel of Fire batteries also looked like other external batteries already on the market. Thankfully, plenty of people started pointing out similar things in the comments. The guy behind the project initially defended it, claiming that they had "changed the design" but many didn't believe it. The guy behind the project apparently promised to send a sample to one of the most vocal critics to prove that it was different... but then stopped responding altogether, and the project was cancelled (apparently by Kickstarter).

It appears that something similar is happening with the so-called Rock Smartwatch, which launched with a bit of hype, including some odd claims such as that the watch had 1080p resolution (huh? on a watch?!?) and 4GB of RAM. Some folks quickly pointed out that the watch appeared to be nothing more than a rebranded Z3 watch from China. There was a fair bit of evidence to support this. The creator of the project, "Vak Sambath" first started claiming that he was devastated and suggesting that their manufacturing partner had somehow leaked or made different versions of their work.

Then he started posting a bizarre "defense" in which he claims to have been "in conversations with our engineers, manufacturers and designers" to then explain why it's different than the Z3.

This comment got posted a whole bunch of times... and it also seems to claim that all their work has really been focused on software, suggesting that perhaps they were just using standard Chinese watches and rewriting the software. Of course, if that were true then they should have said so upfront, and his previous claim that seeing the same design elsewhere devastated him and was because of someone in China leaking the designs makes no sense at all. Keep that in mind, because as this story moves forward, there are more and more things that "make no sense at all."

Because, he then posted a different, but equally unintelligible comment claiming those first comments in which he defended the watch weren't really from him, but were because his computer got hacked:

Hey Guys... first and foremost... I'd like to apologize for whatever happened to do. It wasn't me. I wasn't in front of my computer all day. Someone got into my account. When it rains it pours guys. This is the real Vak. My account got hacked from some freaking hot mess reason. This hasn't been easy.

Later he came back and again defended the watch, while admitting that it does not have 1080p, but not explaining why he'd made that claim originally (or apologizing for the blatantly false advertising, which seems like an FTC violation).

Then he tried again by claiming that most people are just too dumb to understand what they're doing, and saying that people "who don't like change" are too critical:

We appreciate kickstarter for allowing small companies to enter new markets with new ideas, that may not be popular with a small sector that does not like change.

The rock is taking a more innovative approach that some may find hard to understand since it is a new direction.

He also keeps talking up patents that the company has, which supposedly distinguishes the watch from its competitors. Except when people in the comments asked him which patents Vak responded by claiming the patents were proprietary so he couldn't share them and telling critics to contact the company's lawyers. Uh, that's not how patents work. If you have a patent it's public. That's one of the key points of a patent in the first place, to disclose to the public. It's possible that they have patent applications that haven't been published yet, but having an application is very different than claiming you have a patented technology.

Then there's his attempt to explain why he won't give a straight answer, claiming that if you email his legal team they'll give answers but that "the comment section is not an appropriate platform to voice speculation, since there are many experts as pyntail,engineers and large companies involved."

I've read this comment over and over again and it's totally nonsensical. First of all, the comments are exactly the right platform for backers to ask these kinds of questions to make sure they're not getting scammed, and no one's asking him to "speculate," but rather to answer some basic questions concerning the product he claims to be selling. How could anyone think it's appropriate when being quizzed about questions on your own product that only you should be able to answer, to instead claim that it's inappropriate to engage in speculation. And, um, if there are many "experts" then that seems like all the more reason to have a full and open discussion.

On Saturday morning, things took an even weirder twist, as Vak suddenly decided to just start posting over and over and over again in the comments pretending that they were getting lots of "great encouragement" from their backers, and those backers were asking questions. So he started answering them, but each time he posted, plenty of critics just kept commenting about Vak's own ridiculous claims and calling out that the whole thing was a scam. And rather than respond, Vak just kept posting the same exact "email answers" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, perhaps in the faulty belief that this would somehow drown out all those calling him out.

The other odd thing was that some folks noticed that even as a ton of people bailed from the project earlier in the week, there was suddenly an influx of new buyers, according to Kicktraq's data:

But, since Kickstarter shows who backs the projects, some people pointed out that nearly all of the new backers had just joined in December and this was the only project they were backing. For example, here's "Dianne Barrymore" who joined in December, only backed the Rock, and also just happened to post two overly excited comments about it, even after everyone had pointed out the whole thing was likely a scam. Others pointed out that despite all the new backers, the total money raised seemed to be staying about steady, suggesting that many of the new backers may have only contributed the bare minimum of a dollar...

Finally, around noon on Saturday, Kickstarter stepped in and cancelled the deal, at about the same time Vak was insisting the fact that Kickstarter had approved the campaign was proof that it was legit. In an email to backers, Kickstarter's Trust & Safety team admitted that the project clearly violated numbers rules:

A review of the project uncovered evidence of one or more violations of Kickstarter's rules, which include:

A related party posing as an independent, supportive party in project comments or elsewhere
Misrepresenting support by pledging to your own project
Misrepresenting or failing to disclose relevant facts about the project or its creator
Providing inaccurate or incomplete user information to Kickstarter or one of our partners
Accordingly, all funding has been stopped and backers will not be charged for their pledges. No further action is required on your part.

Vak then went quiet on Kickstarter, but it didn't stop him from continue fighting the bizarre fight on Twitter. First, he pretended that people were just upset because they were "using parts from China." But, of course, that wasn't what anyone was claiming. Then he claimed that what he "learned" from the project is that "what we have isn't for Kickstarter."

Yeah, that's not quite what happened there...

Either way, I expect we'll see more of this sort of thing happening over time, but it's kind of neat to see the community itself work all of the details out and help out these questionable projects (even as it's funny to see the project creators try to tap dance around their claims).

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: vak sambath
Companies: kickstarter

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Zauber Paracelsus (profile), 9 Dec 2013 @ 2:23pm

As they say with open source, "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". I suppose with enough eyes, all scams are shallow as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 9 Dec 2013 @ 2:28pm

But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
And how in any way could its TEN PERCENT OFF THE TOP TAKE be justified?
Kickstarter is the grifter ideal: (poor) people come up with and finance ideas; ten percent off-the-top take for little more than a web-site and money transfers; no responsibility for failures or even scans.

10:27:52[l-730-7]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Automatic Grammatizator, 9 Dec 2013 @ 2:31pm
  
  You strike me as very similar to Vak Sambath, only you haven't been banned from your platform of choice yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jameshogg (profile), 9 Dec 2013 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
  Are you saying that Kickstarter deserves no reward for its service? That's rather anti-capitalism of you (in the bad sense). If there is a better value-for-money option that artists can find in other crowdfunding websites, they will take it.
  
  And eBay can't be held responsible for the scams some users try to get away with there either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Dec 2013 @ 3:58pm
    
    Re: Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
    Blue believes that anybody who isn't engaged in manufacturing is "grifting," and so all service-only businesses are immoral and shouldn't exist. So it's no surprise that he'd hate Kickstarter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2013 @ 4:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Funny how he still refuses to claim that the RIAA/MPAA are grifters. They're not labels, they're not unions, they don't produce jack shit.
      
      out_of_the_blue must really hate it when due process is enforced.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Pragmatic, 10 Dec 2013 @ 4:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thank you, AC.
        
        The RIAA and MPAA are indeed grifters in the same way as Blue accuses us of being.
        
        They take what is not theirs and actually steal it from the artists by claiming it as their property and their sole right to exploit it for profit.
        
        So, Blue, why are you all over copyright like a rash when only the rich can benefit from it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 10 Dec 2013 @ 12:08am
    
    Re: Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
    "Are you saying that Kickstarter deserves no reward for its service?"
    
    Yes, he is. Go back to any story about Kickstarter and you'll see him whining that they don't deserve money for their service. The usual hilarity is when he bothers to try and explain his position - he either demonstrates absolute ignorance of what they actually do, or ties himself into logical knots to avoid admitting they provide a useful service that's successfully created a non-legacy model outlet for creators and consumers alike.
    
    "If there is a better value-for-money option that artists can find in other crowdfunding websites, they will take it."
    
    Or, they will use another funding method altogether. Or use a combination, raising money elsewhere but using Kickstarter to generate seed money, make up any deficit or create initial demand for the first batch of sales. Mental midgets like ootb like to try attacking articles on this site because it won't back a single, one-size-fits-all business model that works for everybody. The fact that this doesn't, and cannot, exist in the real world is one of the many reasons why people like this are a joke.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2013 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
  I don't know, maybe you should ask all the Kickstarter creators who decided that the 10% take was well worth it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 9 Dec 2013 @ 7:12pm
  
  Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
  "And how in any way could its TEN PERCENT OFF THE TOP TAKE be justified?"
  
  How can the studios take of 95+% of all monies from the actual creators be justified?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pragmatic, 10 Dec 2013 @ 4:49am
    
    Re: Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
    One presumes the people who use Kickstarter are forced to do so by the evil government, etc.
    
    Wait, what? They're not? And they're not giving up any rights to or ownership of their work?
    
    Oh, right. They can't be that bad, then, can they?
    
    People have chosen to use a service that works for them. Go for it, I say, and good luck to them and to Kickstarter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 9 Dec 2013 @ 2:49pm

He keeps hyping the "fact" that the Rock will use patented technology. As a consumer, why would I ever care about that? Whether I'm buying sprockets or cogs, all I care is whether the product meets my needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 9 Dec 2013 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re:
  He also claimed that the cost of obtaining patents was a big part of the startup cost. I wonder if it occurred to him that he could have saved a bundle by not getting any patents at all (assuming that he did).
  
  Startups chasing patents is a waste of the one thing a startup can't waste: money. There are easier and cheaper ways of protecting yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2013 @ 2:59pm

Then he claimed that what he "learned" from the project is that "what we have isn't for Kickstarter."

Well, he's technically right. What he has is a shameless rebrand of an existing product, and rebrands of existing products are no for Kickstarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2013 @ 3:18pm

Oh man this is going to be Charles Carreon awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2013 @ 3:44pm

It's not lying!
It's marketing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ion, 9 Dec 2013 @ 7:05pm

�including some odd claims such as that the watch had 1080p resolution (huh? on a watch?!?)�

In the category of comments that will be amusing in fifteen years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2013 @ 1:46am
  
  Re:
  Unless you have a massive watch (like 20" widescreen on your wrist) you could not perceive that resolution. But who needs Full HD to show a clock anyway?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DexX, 10 Dec 2013 @ 8:03pm
  
  Re: 1080p res on a watch
  There is a ceiling on how much resolution the human eye can see. Like a display screen, the human retina has a resolution too, the number of light-sensitive receptors per square centimetre.
  
  At about a foot away from your nose, with good eyesight, you can see pixels larger than around 200-250 dpi. Let's say a large watch has a display 2x2 inches, that means any resolution above 500x500 pixels is just wasted. At that scale, a VGA 800x600 display would be just fine.
  
  It all changes with scale, though - a "full HD" picture at 1080p on an IMAX screen would look terrible, as you need a 4K image or better at that size.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2013 @ 5:32am

...and so ends Team Prendas first foray into patent law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2013 @ 10:37am

He's right, what they have his not for Kickstarter. He should try releasing his rebranded Z3 on the open market, ebay and in shopping mall kiosks, it would probably do quite well with all the other rebranded chinese goods out there and in that arena he'd be pretty legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BJ Van Gundy (profile), 10 Dec 2013 @ 12:02pm

I was happy Kickstarter FINALLY stepped in
As one of the backers (I really only became a backer in order to comment and help take this project down as I saw it was a scam) that helped take this down... while it took them longer than I thought it should have... I was glad that KS finally stepped in.

I've backed quite a few projects and this one just stunk! I believe that I've been burned on one of them as the production date has now been delayed by more than 6 months. Time will tell... on that one it didn't become apparent until AFTER the funding time limit ran out.

THIS one on the other hand became apparent a couple of weeks ago with silliness, as you pointed out, of a product description that included 1080P on a 240x240 display... and 4GB of RAM (my Note 3 "only" has 3GB... lol).

It was clear that the creator himself had no idea what product he was even trying to sell!

Anyway. Good article and summary of the events! Cheers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rick Hustwit, 10 Dec 2013 @ 11:37pm

Vak's Back
It would seem that Vak is back with a new website:

http://www.rocksmartwatch.com/#

Stay well clear and keep others posted to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LiLo, 11 Dec 2013 @ 2:11am

Rick, that is just bizzare..
So that new website is totally empty apart from a countdown counter counting 110 days) and the Galaxy Gear commercial playing in the background.

I was joking while trying to bring the KS project down, but this seriously brings me to fear Vak is missing a few key screws in critical places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rick Hustwit, 11 Dec 2013 @ 3:45am
  
  Re: Rick, that is just bizzare..
  It must be Vak, it's the same web address as the old website that was pushing the original 'Rock Smartwatch' (I clicked it in my laptop's history) - Vak seriously has issues.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
6, 11 Dec 2013 @ 10:07am

He's obviously crazy. Or a con man. But it appears crazy. He also seems to have some money to throw around. In either event, this is one way that a software patent troll is born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jack, 12 Dec 2013 @ 7:27pm

Omate
I think Omate do the same thing. What can backers do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private, 2 Jan 2014 @ 9:53am

Omate
This looks a lot like what Omate is doing. Please investigate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dennis, 25 May 2014 @ 1:18pm

They're back!
Looks like the same guys tried another "smart" watch on indiegogo - https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/first-womens-bluetooth-quartz-smart-watch-89-looks-like-a-7-000-d esigner-watch

Both the Rock watch domain and "smartcoolwatch.com" are registered to a 'mav hoeven'... the plot thickens!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]