Originally posted by captainblood
2 things that I really like about the agm notes are. 1/ our focus in regards batteries are on the 2 main companies they have now. we are not spreading ourselves too thin by chasing more at the moment. also it probably means the 2 companies are both big and therefore royalties if successful will be similar. you wouldn't limit yourself to 2 battery manufacturers if they were small, resulting in small returns. imo. 2/ from peterfred notes, we have 18 poc opportunities that are active. it contradicts what I said about the batteries, but poc devices wouldn't involve as much work as the batteries (we would have built up a large database on poc devices) the more the merrier, I say. I will have to temper this with the fact it was claimed that previously 60 companies we supposedly dealing with us ? I think our new management team will have learn't from those previous mistakes.
from a very bleak few years, we seem to have a future ahead of us. a contained excitement is starting. of course, money is running out, so they will have to sign a deal in the near future.
Hi captainblood,
Agreed about the focus on two in the battery field. Very important for our development team to be able to concentrate on those two, for there is much to be tuned and taken further. I imagine a lot of trial and error, so often the bane and beauty of research.
But in the PoC field, we have done so much of that investigation; I recall the scientists being quite excited about some early lateral flow results they showed us on a lab tour a few years back. At the time, I didn't understand the significance. But the basic R & D has been done, so now it is a matter of applying it to those 18 and more of the lateral flow PoC world. We are in a position to be able to work with that number of players in this field. I am hopeful that we may see some earnings emerge from some of these, but I'm in no position to even suggest a timescale. However, it seems very clear that earnings from PoC will be incremental, but enough to encourage the share price and help set the company on its feet. Meanwhile, who knows what might emerge quickly from a battery player.
Now I think as we discussed on this forum back in August, the Poc1 Minicare (i.e. Philips) was based on fluid dynamics (a point Chris made clear to us in discussion at the Shareholder Presentation of August. We need to be aware of this point, that fluid dynamics are far more complex to get right, and the reasons for Philips dropping the project may well have been that the device simply could not be made to work reliably. PoC1 was not part of that lateral flow world.
Rogues and others have reminded us of how learning from our earlier work so often is being applied to the battery work. Not collateral damage, but collateral cross-fertilisation. If we put on our optimistic hats, we can imagine similar cross-fertilisation as new fields are attempted. But that is a future yet to be realised; for now, a picture of what might be.
I appreciate and am encouraged by the thoughtful comments on all the reports from posters who were able to attend the AGM and share their perceptions, as I am reassured that my confidence may not be so misplaced after all.
