SVJ responded:
"OTOH, to be fair to BLP, it's my understanding that the facility is not
financially structured to creating prototypes for industry and consumers.
Just proof-of-concept experimental devices that aren't in their own right
something that can be commercialized - not without a lot of expensive R&D
engineering involved. BLP doesn't possess sufficient cash reserves for that
kind of operation. It's through the licensing of their research findings
that they hope to cash in when others sign up with licensing fees and
subsequently start paying royalties."

Yes, BLP's business model is the same as the startup I've been with for
several years, namely, technology/IP development, not manufacturing.  We
develop the technologies, patent them, but then license the IP to
manufacturers.  So my comment "why doesn't Mills focus on one thing and
finish it" means, "Why doesn't Mills get at least ONE technology licensed
off to someone who WILL get it to market."

The license agreements with several entities that BLP has announced have
gone nowhere... i.e., those licensees are expecting a completed device, and
are not expected to do the engineering to make a low-cost, mass produced
product.  So what good are those licensees except to generate interest when
BLP has run out of $ and needs to raise more?

"... not without a lot of expensive R&D engineering involved. BLP doesn't
possess sufficient cash reserves for that kind of operation."

Have to disagree... Mills has raised well over $60M and has been at it for
20+ yrs, and that is more than enough $ and time to have focused on ONE
product, and complete it to the point where someone one willing to come in
and complete the design and begin manufacturing. On the other hand, he does
have the molecular modeling software that they at least have productized,
but I don't know how well it works nor how much revenue it generates... 

I think the most likely explanation is that Mills is wed to his theoretical
framework and instead of accepting that it has led them down non-productive
paths and wasted time and investor's $, he continues to follow it, but then
thinks of a different way to apply the theory and off he goes down another
doomed R&D path.
 
Just venting...
-Mark


Reply via email to