I'll give you this Daiz: you have now done something that begins to resemble a fair evaluation of Beamr, and that's only 2 hours after you posted your original conclusion!
For the record: I have nothing to do with this Beamr thing, but I do feel sorry for those guys. Despite your 50 min evaluation here I'll give them the benefit of a doubt and conclude they're probably hard working honest people trying their best to build something valuable in this world, and sell it. If your analysis holds up they may have failed, but that's no crime.
You seem quick to dismiss his review. While the branding of "snake oil" may be an overly strong term, it might not be incorrect: the evidence I've seen thus far (as a user admittedly unfamiliar with the subject) does seem to point to profit off open-source work. But if we were always so quick to give the benefit of the doubt while ridiculing investigations as you did, the thievery would be out of control. I will say that this situation seems like we could take a lesson from Mr. Musk though, and make statements instead of accusations. I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
For the record: I have nothing to do with this Beamr thing, but I do feel sorry for those guys. Despite your 50 min evaluation here I'll give them the benefit of a doubt and conclude they're probably hard working honest people trying their best to build something valuable in this world, and sell it. If your analysis holds up they may have failed, but that's no crime.