Hi all
I've been thinking about those words also "..without providing details of how.. ..when cryogenic conditions are generally required.." Seems merely a request for more information to substantiate the claim and better understand 'how' it works at room temperature when most of the others in the market need the big fridge. It may simply be that the nature of the materials used by archer is such that they are stable at room temperature (as opposed to using some special operational method that requires explaining). As others have noted, given patent approval in Japan, China etc, it may just be a simple clarification. I'm no quantum physicist or patent attorney but I'm comfortable with the exchanges and see no evidence that it doesn't work or won't be patented. To be fair to the patent officer, their knowledge of quantum physics would likely be pretty light compared to the physicist who's published work the product is based on and the physicist who invented the fist single atom transistor. I know who our money is on
Also, another poster, Lilypond I think, shared Tom's last article at motley which seemed to express a dislike for small caps raising equity funding to develop new products. Sure, many new products don't make it. If we shared his outlook, we wouldn't have invested in archer. I see nothing in the article today or in the oz patent office request that changes my view of archer, its prospects of successful product development or IP protection. We don't know the outcome yet but I'm happy with my bet. Let's see who's eating humble pie two years from now
(20min delay)