Forgive me if I sound too absolutist on this. That is not my intention, but it is my growing conviction. AP has indicated in the past that it has a whole series of patents relating to the production of sound from a pixel array. I read many of these a few years ago, so I am going on memory for that aspect. As I understand it they tie up and ensure that DSR by pixel array techniques are protected IP that AP owns.
I am trying to differentiate between the construction details of making the pixel membranes operate optimally, and the DSR technique itself.
It appears to be clear that EM had been working on micro speaker pixels independently of its involvement with AP. If it had not then it would not have been able to step in and help AP make their pixels work better. EM's patents also appear to relate predominately to the construction of the pixel membranes and their actuation. EM's patents all seem to use the pixels as conventional vibrating micro speakers. This does not include the DSR technique, which is exclusively the IP of AP.
My comments to the effect "that they did not translate into a functioning device that worked adequately" all relate to the stream of failures of the pixel devices in the array that combine to produce unequivocally excellent sound that could be taken to market as a device. This is not just my opinion. We have all been witness to how that has been announced. It's not that they did not work, so much as that they did not work optimally, let alone perfectly. They were struggling to explain how and why the sound quality was too low, too noisy, too twisty, too twirly. We were told about experimental half structures that gave unexpectedly good results, and how this led to the later change of direction to accommodate that, the bringing in of the multi-physics software that allowed the techs to model what was needed better, the incorporation of various techniques to prevent stiction etc, prevent debris etc. These were the short comings, failures and inadequate results I refer to. They existed and they were a problem with AP's IP to that date. But that did not bring into question the validity of the DSR technique.
My point there is that I
personally think that the enterprise was somewhat in the poohs at that time. However, they bent over backwards to solve the problems and they became pretty secretive about what the problems were and how they were fixing them. The announcements were just technobabble in many ways. They sounded like explanations but had little detail that anybody outside the company could interpret. As I see it now, looking backwards, the only way these could have been fixed was with lots of experimentation in a highly cooperative FAB that could provide the techs with acquired expertise that was gained at the coal face of MEMS construction. I think TowerJAZZ was not able to provide that in a timely enough fashion. As has often been said, "nobody has done this before", so getting that expertise was not an easy thing.
But my guess is that that was the time AP came into contact with EM, and that they could and would help. All the design work that we have seen photographic images of from that time onwards bear close resemblance to the tech that EM has used and has been patenting, including some that are just being patented after what would have to have been a long incubation period. Later Danny Lewin and others indicated indicated that EM's involvement commenced a lot earlier than the announcement of their cooperation.
EM has clearly
contributed something material to the resolution of the problems AP has encountered. My pick is that EM's input was
crucial in its MEMS fabrication details, which proved their worth, and in its ability to permit incremental trialling out of their techniques on AP devices in a much faster time frame. It's not that AP's DSR tech is at risk, but that the micro-machining techniques of MEMS construction that have enabled the pixels to work properly, have been either the work and IP of EM, or based at least in part on that acquired expertise and IP, or have been developed
jointly in some agreed and acceptable way. How that agreement works going forwards is what remains to be seen. But it
will be seen, of that we can have the CEO's assurance.
As Danny said:
"... There is litle “daylight” between AudioPixels and EarthMountain. We are confident in our relationship and enjoy very close collaboration and cooperation on all material technical and business maters. All, and I emphasize ALL - intellectual property whether patented or otherwise, pertaining to our revolutionary digital sound reconstruction platform and its implementation, was developed by and is the exclusive property of Audio Pixels. To the very best knowledge, there is no other party in the world including EarthMountain, that might have any legitimate claim, to any aspect of our technology. ..."
Note above that Danny refers
specifically to the DSR technology. That is my point. That is the key to AP's original and highly important IP that sets its product apart from other aspects of MEMS construction. I think that the MEMS that AP had prior to EM's involvement was only part way to being usable. It did not work optimally and did not give sound that was marketable. EM's input appears to have changed that substantially. Hopefully it has given us a marketable product that will help change the way audio is produced well into the future.
This comes from the address below from earlier this year. I think it is highly pertinent to the questions I have been considering.
"... Audio Pixels Ltd. CEO Address Tuesday 30 May 2023
Thank you all for taking the time to attend this year’s AGM.
In an effort to leave as much time as possible for demonstration and Q&A - I will limit my opening comments to highlight a few noteworthy events that have already been disclosed in our published reports and announcements.
The first such event involves device fabrication.
Our current MEMS and packaging vendor EarthMountain, permited us to reveal that over the past year or so our ongoing collaboration activities included expanding their production capabilities and capacity. EarthMountain has been able to secure two additional MEMS fabrication facilities, both of which utilize an 8” wafer platform which as reported provides a substantial increase in production capacity while deriving considerable benefit from utilizing newer and higher precision equipment. Additionally, and of significant importance is the redundancy gained by having our wafers produced at multiple and independent facilities.
The aforementioned activities required and continue to require substantial investment by EarthMountain, estimated in the many of millions of dollars. I am aware of at least some of the yarn spun on various social media platiorms offering dubious tales concocted behind the veil of anonymity. So let me be factual and definitive:
- There is litle “daylight” between AudioPixels and EarthMountain. We are confident in our relationship and enjoy very close collaboration and cooperation on all material technical and business maters.
- All, and I emphasize ALL - intellectual property whether patented or otherwise, pertaining to our revolutionary digital sound reconstruction platform and its implementation, was developed by and is the exclusive property of Audio Pixels. To the very best knowledge, there is no other party in the world including EarthMountain, that might have any legitimate claim, to any aspect of our technology.
- While the specific terms of any third-party agreement must be kept in confidence, Management considers the very existence of such an agreement to be “material information”, and as such, promptly informs the market of its existence and its material content. If management has not informed the market of an agreement, whether involving intellectual property, fabrication, sales, marketing, distribution or otherwise, then rest assured that such an agreement does not exist.
- We have and continue to update the market, with the best information available, including as it pertains to the $3m dollar placement that was commited by EarthMountain in our prior financing round. As has been informed EarthMountain has so far been unable to setle its commitment apparently due to tighter and far more stringent controls exercised by the authorities responsible for regulating and approving foreign equity investments by Chinese companies. EarthMountain continues to repeatedly advise of their unwavering commitment to making investment in AKP, and are in the process of resubmiting their application to the authorities in the hope of ataining the necessary approvals.
It has been said that the natural tendency of humankind is to express skepticism and doubt about all things good, while immediately believe that all bad things are factual and true. The reality is that management is occupied 24 x 7 trying to invent and capitalize on what I hope you too will soon agree, is a truly a groundbreaking revolution in sound. I ask your indulgence to apply equal measures of skepticism when assessing information that doesn't originate directly from the company - as we have neither the time nor bandwidth to deal with the tall tales spread on social media. ..."
(20min delay)