It seems we now not only have to contend with passing pub tests, we have to pass the google test as well.
Well, TL, taking into account what you said, I followed TPM through all of 10 pages of Google and didn’t find mention in the entries of you-know-who. Admittedly I didn’t find much on TPM drug delivery either. Searches were dominated by Trusted Platform Module and TPG Telecom. I note that TPG so far hasn't felt the need to change its TPM ASX ticker, and its sp has been traveling very nicely in spite of it.
Googling TPM drug delivery certainly yielded more relevant results. Yet, over 10 pages, still no mention of she-who-shouldn't-be-named. Unless, of course, you enter into older websites linked to POH or into the Hot Copper entries that you find. However, googling Phosphagenics does quite easily lead to mention of she-who-still-haunts-us. Therefore if, as suggested, POH rebranded TPM, licensees would still have to avoid mentioning the name of the tech licensor, Phosphagenics. The other solution of course could be for Phosphagenics to change its name. The problem is, even if you changed Phosphagenics’ name to, say, Targeted E Delivery (TED), and a potential customer applied the google test, with a minimum of effort TED would quickly lead them back to POH and that person, wouldn’t it?
Alternatively POH, now renamed as TED, could stick with its TPM branding and all licensees could “distance” themselves from the “taint” through the use of their own brand names for the tech. That would mean that they would then have to hide the fact that TED was the licensor of the tech (because TED would lead them to POH which would lead them to she-who-is-unmentionable). In turn, that would mean that TED couldn't name the licensee when announcing licensing deals because that would then establish a Google link between the companies.Rather tricky for a listed company and obviously unappealing to TED shareholders.
I can also see a further problem arising if customers then discovered that the source of the tech had been deliberately hidden from them (and I believe that many could and would)… isn't there the risk that they might feel like victims of fraud themselves?
Changing names may seem an easy solution, but it isn't. For Phosphagenics to change both its company name and TPM branding for its tech would be very complex and costly. As argued, such a strategy would be unlikely to succeed in its aim. The other suggested strategy of licensees “distancing” themselves by not identifying TPM tech would also require non-identification of the licensor of the tech. This is similarly complex, unlikely to succeed in its aim and runs the risk of backfiring on the licensee.
All imo.
Expand
(20min delay)