How can other posters take this article at face value? This reads 100% like a fake ad (I mean stylistically and in terms of presentation, like the kind of thing you see "Advertisement" written in small text over the top of while it's run in the New Yorker or wherever. I read them. I like it. Because they're amusing.) The only thing that keeps it from being one is that it's on macworld.com. Like, really? Industrial espionage, a real "professional job"? "Big Battery"? Everyone here has worked on way more interesting technology than a metal sleeve and a farfetched tale - which is all this is - and who breaks into our offices to steal our tech? It doesn't happen. Nobody would do it even if the device works exactly as stated.

Do these prototypes look to you like something that came out of a test lab? The only work put into them is the branding, "Batteriser" a word that is mentioned 43 times in 2000 words, including the first word of the title.

I'm not calling this native advertising but if it isn't, it seems the only one more gullible than this journalist is everyone else who swallows this hook, line, and sinker.

You could have written the same article but with some doohickey that lowers gas mileage by increasing oxygen mixture, and gets stolen in a brazen act of industrial espionage, a real professional job.

come on. we're adults here. this article is insulting. Where are the details of the break-in, such as date or what precisely was stolen, or where it happened - you know: journalism?