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
