I would guess not so friendly, especially as the college of opticians originally intervened on Bergez's behalf.Originally Posted by AnotherOD
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...nlii39086.html
I'm certainly less than impressed with their attempts to "protect the public"
As has been said many times before, the College of Optometrists intervened because the College of Opticians did nothing. The Opticians were angered that the Optometrists were treading on their turf. If the optometrists had not pursued the case nothing would have been done. But what is to be done now? Other than the Hamilton Spectator, the media doesn't cover the story. Optometrists pursued the case and won judgement. The guy owes over $50,000,000 and still nothing is happening from the government that we can see. He didn't pay his taxes and didn't pay Workman's Comp and still he is operation. Obviously the government doesn't view this as very important stuff. It is up to opticians to go to the stores with a sherriff and place a lock on their doors. Can they do this? Optometrists can't do any more than they have done. The College of Opticians has to step up to the plate now.
Wow.
[3] Bruce Bergez was the only party to respond to this application and was self-represented. The College of Opticians of Ontario (COC) intervened.
I think we can conclude with their recent decision, that they have chosen not to.
When a person brags about all the EyeLogic shares one owns , and the dividends that come from these , then that should tell you quite the story. I gues if the shares rise then one would be cashing in. Lol
A recent newspaper article in the London Free Press kinda indicated that Optometry was backing off some options and for some reason optometry faces were distinctly missing at some London meetings too ! In fact it made one wonder just why that would be ? Did someone discourage attendance ?
another article:
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2.../13120066.html
Umm... care to elaborate? Is the person you are referring to an optometrist or an optician?
So what would you do in this market ? Would you place your bets on Sunlife ? Greensheild ? Manulife ? Lux ? Eye Logic ? Coastal Contacts ? Which one do you think has the best near term prospects ? What would affect the value of each and cause one to go up or another to go down ?
Stocks go up and stocks go down. We have certainly all witnessed that in the past few years . If you believe in going short and stocks go down , or if you believe in only being long and stocks go up, then you could be cashin in .
Err... Yup...
In addition to Don Smith, a number of high ranking opticians are rumoured to be shareholders in Eyelogic, and, thus, the reason for inaction on the OOA in the GG case. Howver, I am not sure if Eyelogic is a safe investment judging from the Shire lawsuit which alleges that Eyelogic is merely a front and is the major shareholder in a myriad of companies (171 according Eyelogic's 2009 annual report) in which Eyelogic collects fees for lining up investors for these other companies.
http://sites.google.com/site/shireinvestor/Home
(3rd article in list Amended Statement of Claim..page 13-17 specifically addresses Eyelogic's role in this Ponzi-style scheme involving real estate developments that never materialized)
All the companies involved such as Olympia have the same CEO's/directors, with Rick Skauge as the central character. In fact, the 2 largest shareholders of Eyelogic - Target Capital (pulbicly traded like Eyelogic) and Tarman Inc. - are shell companies created and run by Rick Skauge and the same group of directors as Eyelogic. The CFO of Eyelogic is also the CFO or Target Capital, Ryan Hoult, who is the son of a past president of the College of Optometrists/director of IOBP at UW. Many connections, and players in this complicated maze of companies. I think this company would do anything to raise capital.
In reality, if the equipment was any good and had a decent return on investment, they would have been selling to optometrists, however, in their 2005 annual report, Eyelogic confirms that opticians are their primary market. I don't think they have even tried to market this equipment to optometrists. Eyelogic is a one-trick pony selling only one piece of equipment.
Last edited by NorthStar; 03-05-2010 at 02:38 PM. Reason: link
Cashin, cashout
Last edited by idispense; 03-06-2010 at 02:23 AM.
Copied from the classifieds at opticalprism.ca:
Optometrists—Ontario Eyelogic Systems Inc. is a leading provider of advanced eye care systems and solutions. We help people see clearly. Our business is expanding to provide fully managed eye exam centres. We’re currently searching for licensed optometrists in the Greater Toronto Area to travel to various locations to provide superior patient care. Tremendous earning potential with a guaranteed minimum. No investment. No overhead. We provide work locations, equipment, administration, and support. Forward your CV via fax 403-264-9740 or email info@eyelogic.com
Looks like Eyelogic wants to cater to ODs; at least unscrupulous unemployed ones...
Is it certain they intend to use eyelogic for remote sight-testing?
Cater to OD's ? No,no ,no ! They want Od's to cater to their business model .
Last edited by idispense; 03-06-2010 at 02:25 AM. Reason: spelling
Eyelogic equipment has been used for remote eye testing in BC and Alberta in the past. Now Eyelogic has a contract with Loblaws in BC for their opticians to refract in that province.
From Eyelogic's 2008 annual report:
Beginning in January of this year, management held several meetings with the goal of evaluating our lack of success in penetrating the medical market. We concluded the greatest obstacle we had to over come was the lack of acceptance of our product by optometrists who in large part do not delegate the refraction process to technicians. The old paradigm is still the norm and will continue to be for quite some time. We then focused our meetings on how our existing technology and market position could be used to deliver the most value to customers and the public. We concluded that our Company should shift from just selling refraction technology to providing an entire eye examination service to optical stores. Optical stores survive by selling prescription eyewear. Although, most optical stores (including big box national opticals), do not have a direct link to prescriptions. This market condition, along with our unique position in the marketplace, provides our Company with a remarkable opportunity. We have discussed our eye exam model with big box retailers and have received positive feedback.
Last edited by NorthStar; 03-06-2010 at 06:10 PM. Reason: neatness
From what I have heard, the deal for the OD is that they cover a few optical stores and are paid relatively well for a part-time gig (no overhead, travel expenses, keep exam fees, base salary). However, it is clear the OD must allow the optical store to refract with the Eyelogic equipment, and the patient returns for the health part with the OD on the day he/she is scheduled to be there. (I wonder when the patient has to pay for the split up exam - at the refraction part (free?) or when they actually see the eye doctor?) On the other side the optical store does not have any upfront fees and it is pitched as a fee per patient ($40/patient?) - like the Optomap business model - but I imagine the store pays the entire monthly rent on the equipment regardless if any customers are refracted.
Eyelogic is holding themselves out as the Trojan horse to opticians leading them in their quest for refraction with the perception that the optician will be protected from persecution by Eyelogic and their OD. The OD or refracting MD (Eyelogic had ads out to them a few months before the OD ad) could end up being the patsy; it is their name being used for Rx authourity. However, legally, it gets murky if the OD does have an "office" onsite with the onus on the patient to return. So the store could possibly refract and dispense before there is even a doctor-patient relationship established, or if the patient does not return for the health part there would be no doctor-patient relationship; I doubt the Eyelogic would simply sit idle until the day the OD is scheduled. The college of optometrists' rules normally would/should never allow this type of employment or forced delegation. As well, there is no guarantee that an optician would do the refraction; like GG, in many locations, they have no optician.
Eyelogic would love to see more GG-type locations with opticians or technicians (it does not matter to them) refracting - their business model is counting on it.
Eyelogic, as a company, has no long term value. Their product is not in any way particularly unique, as they simply bundle an equipment package with their own software to control it all. If they really wanted to cash out they should be licensing their software to equipment manufacturers. As it stands they have little to no market penetration outside Canada, and even that is tenuous as any smart refracting optician would just buy a cheap used phoropter and forget about the expensive monthly payments to eyelogic.
Frankly I can't understand why more opticians with the eyelogic system haven't figured that out?
Well - Eyelogic does allow a non-refractionist to perform the refraction.
So someone running a gig like BB would be able to make use of it.
Because it's alot more accurate with near perfect results, requires little training; not to mention the use of phoropter technology was developed when dinosuars still roamed the earth. Hence the hefty price tag of time and convenience.
On a side note, in response to optometry, it's rather humerous that we are 100 years ahead of ourselves in the sense that we have already developed free form technology and digital surfacing accurate to a 1/100th of a diopter, yet we still perform refractions with a phoropter set accurate to only a .12th or .25th of a diopter and based on one's 'opinion' or 'judgement'???
Isn't the cart before the horse here???? The schools and universities really have to start investing in the technological advancement of optometry and it all starts at this level.
at the end of the day its still an old school phoropter, rendering it no more "accurate" than any other phoropter. Yes, any idiot can operate an eyelogic unit, but the same can be said of a regular phoropter, it doesn't take much. The eyelogic unit will fail at delivering a clear and COMFORTABLE refraction is much the same way that an inexperienced refractionist will.
If you think we're dragging our knuckles here performing refractions in 0.25 diopter increments, I invite you to spend a day doing those refractions. You'll soon learn that most people can hardly tell the difference between a 1/4 diopter, and a good number of them don't even respond to 1/2 diopter changes! The cart really is before the horse with technology because we really cant perform refractions to anywhere near the accuracy that a lens can be produced.
If people can barely notice a 0.50D difference, explain why then there are so many doctor's changes remakes genious? And the national average of remakes due to doctor's changes is a little bit less than 10%? Definitely room for improvement.
Now, if we could combine experience with technology, the world would be a beautiful place. :)
10%? Seriously? I certainly can't explain that. I stick to my assertion that there are tons of people that can't discern a difference between a 1/2 diopter, at least not in the exam room anyways.
It must be that good ole Chicago Kool-Aid. We could definitely use some of that up here. :D
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks