22 August 2007

Today, The New York Times published Saul Hansell's article, "Misgivings Spoil Plans of Start-up". The start-up company to which Hansell refers is "a new Internet search engine, Accoona" that is novel because it is "said to be powered by innovative artificial intelligence technology" and introduced by Bill Clinton through a news conference at Tavern on the Green. From the title of the article, I am lead to feel sympathetic towards the start-up. [Think: Little (Search) Engine that Could...]

From the text of the article, I feel otherwise. Indeed, the founder of the company is apparently a scofflaw, "banned from working in the securities industry" after pleading guilty to "securities fraud and money-laundering". The founder's associates are no better, also convicted of fraud, not just in the States, but also in France. The companies Accoona partners with are also rather shady; the main company affiliate being awarded an "unsatisfactory rating from the New York Better Business Bureau".

Accoona is then a three-fold company consisting of:

1) a search engine that

a) fails to deliver according to Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Watch, and

b) produces search results "filled with links to second-tier sites" and "promoters trying to manipulate search engines with various tricks".

2) an "electronic commerce" (according to Accoona's Chief Executive) that

a) partners with companies rife with "numerous consumer complaints about aggressively selling accessories, spotty product availability and poor customer service", and

b) practices luring customers with "low prices and then use[s] aggressive tactics to get them to spend more money" (Andre Brysha, VP of Marketing, Ritz Interactive).

3) "a new advertising exchange" (according to Accoona's Chief Executive) that is in more need of good 'p.r.' than it is worth.

Bill Clinton aside, two (2) noteworthy individuals who would have had a positive legitimizing impact on the company - Stuart Kauder, former Executive of DoubleClick, and Eckhard Pfeiffer, former Chief Executive of Compaq - decided to resign from Accoona for "personal reasons".  (All signs point to EXIT!)

Let us just put aside the fact that Accoona's founder has a criminal background that includes:

1) a 1998 guilty plea to stock fraud charges in the States,

2) a 1999 conviction of the same crime in France,

3) a conviction of securities fraud and money laundering, and

4) a ban from the securities industry.

Accoona's Chief Executive is damaging enough, defending the practices of their electronics sector and spinning it as "legitimate business activities used by many companies" that customers appreciate.  Furthermore, the Chief Executive extols Accoona's practices (that BBBs deem unsatisfactory) as providing "the highest level of service and observing the highest ethical standards". 

Is he serious!?  This is probably the first time I have ever encountered such an extreme level of truly transparent corruption.  Does he expect people to be that credulous?

What more is necessary to draw your own logical conclusion(s)?

The main question then becomes: "Why is our former President helping such a disreputable company?" Is he looking for another scandal?

Why even give legitimacy to such an apparent scam?

Probably the most worrisome element of Hansell's article is when he reports that Accoona's "$80.5 million initial public offering...moved forward despite the long history" of the founder's "brushes with the law".

Again, why?

How?

The founder is supposed to be banned from doing business in the securities industry. How is he allowed to pull off an IPO? What is going on?

There are so many innocent people convicted unjustly of crimes. Why is this criminal allowed to perpetrate this burgeoning scam with no one stopping him?

Hello, recidivism?

Has our common sense really been impaired so severely that we have become blind to blatant offenses?