The problem is, I don't think Ut or anyone remembers the context of the original post. Here it is, I'll highlight the pertinent portion.
He didn't know off hand, he made that pretty clear. Everyone who is complaining has been focusing on the second statement. As anyone who works for a firm with a PR department can tell you, this is why workers often aren't allowed to speak with the public without a script--because things get taken out of context very quickly. In this case, Brad made it pretty clear he isn't the engineer and he deferred the selection to someone else, and didn't recall the precise reason. But all that's remembered is the second post where he says "yep, we couldn't get the source code because of X or Y barrier".
Kind of hesitent to post this because Ut's being rational overall about crowd funding. As someone who helps investors regularly, most kickstarters are not good investments and are completely irrational. That being said, you can't really look at a kick starter the same way you look at normal capital investments. The risk people assume is usually pretty small, because the investors are diversified. There is actually a whole theory of economics now that wants to do away with lending and fiat capitalization--and move to a crowd-funding investment system. The reason why that's appealing is because it doesn't reward people as much for large capital stores and rewards them more for making wise investments---but that's a topic for the political thread.
Anyway. Ut's overall view is perfectly rational. I think he's bitten onto something here that is a bit silly and really just a representation that Brad is a developer, not a coder/engineer.