UniTrader
as your position is obviously negative in general, then we are in different camps. But the point you make about the quality of the IP is one worth pursuing, for the entire battery enterprise depends on it, and if it is as you say, then naturally MNS's new direction, not to mention C4V and the Imperium Consortium, will all fall on its sword soon enough.
So can we pull the rug out from under this concept? For the IP to be worthless - and let's cut to the chase - the tech is either great or it's not, all the team's work at Binghamton is not what they say it is. That is a very large poisonous cup you are asking me to drink from. Frankly speaking, it is too large, far beyond what appeals to my sense of reasonablness and understanding of any scientific enterprise by some of the world's greatest achievers in this field. You are suggesting that we have another Piltdown Man on our hands. Sorry, but your position is far, far more unreasonable than the contrary.
I am being fare to the argument here and have given your camp a hearing. But in short, it hardly registers as it does not provide any credible evidence in its support.
But let's attempt to try to construct this evidence for arguments sake.
Starting at the top of what I consider is your strongest point, there is the niggling question to why hasn't this great IP been snapped up by one of the big batttery manufacturers or even a car company?
I don't think anyone other than a few peolpe on this earth can answer that. These peolpe are thse who hold the keys to the IP. Why can't us lesser mortals answer it? It's because we don't have enough of the relevant information. But my line of argument here is probably unconvincing, after all, we're all entitled to a little speculation, and we're all great theorists when we want to be, especiaalyy when we have position to maintain.
So let's take another angle. Why wasn't Bill Gate's garage snapped up by IBM, after all, it was just down the road? Why wasn't Zuckerbergs' dorm over-ran by his campus? And Steve Jobs early enterprise?
You get the point. But please allow me a little more reading time since it's a long, long weekend.
Here is an exert from the site, Biography:
'Zuckerberg developed an interest in computers at an early age; when he was about 12, he used Atari BASIC to create a messaging program he named "Zucknet." His father used the program in his dental office, so that the receptionist could inform him of a new patient without yelling across the room. The family also used Zucknet to communicate within the house. Together with his friends, he also created computer games just for fun. "I had a bunch of friends who were artists," he said. "They'd come over, draw stuff, and I'd build a game out of it."
To keep up with Mark's burgeoning interest in computers, his parents hired private computer tutor David Newman to come to the house once a week and work with Mark. Newman later told reporters that it was hard to stay ahead of the prodigy, who began taking graduate courses at nearby Mercy College around this same time.
Zuckerberg later studied at Phillips Exeter Academy, an exclusive preparatory school in New Hampshire. There he showed talent in fencing, becoming the captain of the school's team. He also excelled in literature, earning a diploma in classics. Yet Zuckerberg remained fascinated by computers, and continued to work on developing new programs. While still in high school, he created an early version of the music software Pandora, which he called Synapse. Several companies—including AOL and Microsoft—expressed an interest in buying the software, and hiring the teenager before graduation. He declined the offers.'
So even before the founder of Facebook had even thought of his major enterprise, he had offers from the world's largest tech companies on his earlier work. It was not as if he wasn't known to them once Facebook's enrollment began to gather speed.
Can you see where I'm going with this line of argument?
We do know that MNS has had discussions with VW.
Syzygy, say that again...... disscussions with VW!
Ok, lets stop here. Anything further and we are back to square one in speculating. But have we come any closer to answering the concern about why C4V hasn't been snapped up, and we could add, why has the void been filled by our little Aussie miner?
Maybe Dr. Upreti is doing a Zuckerberg and making it 'alone,' and/or maybe it is just the way things have paned-out. These guys invented a battery, decided to take it to market, decided they wanted a raw materials provider onboard, and found MNS as a good bedfellow. They then began a working relationship, and we can read all about this on the website of C4V where Magnis gets an early and significant mention:
C4V have actually partnered MNS. Believe it or not.
Now I should mention something about myself. I am no gun investor; only two years to market. But I am a 'trained skeptic,' that is, I do participate in a field of enquiry that specializes in recognizing a fallacy when it appears. Apart from that, my lifetime career has been pretty down to earth, roaming the high seas with a lot at stake, and I've learnt and earnt a nose for recognising a steady ship and distinguishing the difference between a ship load of shite and a shite load of a ship, if you get my point.
So all things considered, I'm quite enthusiastic where this enterprise is heading and am prepared to make some early, yet relative proportional investment in it.
But I will give you this. I have no idea if MNS will succeed, after all, I can see that there is so much new science going into battery development presently, that in five years the industry is going to be quite different from where it is now. My early investment presently is taking a very small stake in what that 5 year outcome may become. Even if it doesn't win the race but still competes in its class, there is more chance than not in it being a worthwhile investment.
Thanks for listening.
(20min delay)