"Fake?" is not a very descriptive title. From the guidelines:
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
I think this is not "fake", only "wrong" and very "misguided".
It's a common mistake to mix some anagogic parts and forget to use the counting argument to "invent" a new compression scheme. The problem is that all the legalese and the lack of a working prototype (or at least something remotely similar to a blueprint of an implementation) doesn't make obvious that this won't work.
