I agree to some extent with your sentiment about my generation, but be careful not to generalise too much. There's still a lot of us who understand that hard work pays off even though it might not seem like it sometimes.
AngryTan, while I agree with a fair few of the points you make you seem to be caught up too much with definitions of words and nitpicking every little detail in people's posts. I understand why you would do that with company announcements, but I don't get why you do that with other peoples posts, especially when it is fairly obvious what the poster meant (at least in my eyes). The length of your posts seem entirely unnecessary because all you had to do was ask Twinvest for clarification on what he meant by "intangible value" and for some sources / references for his other information.
Also in between these good points and nitpicking you tend to make fatuous analogies, comments, and incorrect statements that are easily refuted with just a little bit of research or a simple question on HC. For example:
"This is a bit like saying,
"ADO has lower CASH
burn rates than a lot of businesses". WTF??!!!! Which businesses? - Dry Cleaners, Milk Bars, Meth Labs, Multi-national oil corporations?"
I don't get this point at all, not only do I think it doesn't make sense in the context of your post but it's implying Twinvest would compare ADO's cash burn rate with those.
"Methods of IP valuation involving assessments of income take in the present value of future cash flows to the IP's owner -
at this point nobody has any idea how much, or what form any future income from POC1 will take."
http://www.finnewsnetwork.com.au/Pr...stor_series_sydney2014_Anteo_Diagnostics.html
Slide 8: "Expectation: royalties on every test performed on the instrument."
This is where GC says that either project (BBI or Philips / GHC) will return in excess of $10m pa. Where speculation comes in now IMO is whether GC's estimate was based on an assumption that GHC would eventually let ADO have access to the entire device.
I can only speak for myself, but I'll see if I can elaborate on the point I think Twinvest was making. After watching the Philips video in this thread and the FNN video, I'm extremely confident that Philips will eventually sign a commercial deal with ADO. So, what does that mean for ADO when that day comes? The benefits for ADO are two fold.
1. Royalties from every test performed on the instrument to the tune of 10m+ pa, possibly more
2. Validation of the technology (IP) by a healthcare giant.
#2 is what Twinvest is getting at. After 6 years of developing this device Philips hasn't been able to get it work. Now Anteo comes along and fixes the problems they had within 2 years all while being restricted to one part of the device and only recently being allowed access to the whole system. Not to mention the expertise and data ADO will have gained by working in the labs at Philips on a world class POC device. What does this say to other companies that are thinking of, or currently evaluating the use of Mix&Go in their products? If you were evaluating the benefits of different technologies to incorporate in to your products, would you be more or less confident of scientific claims made by that company if they had a commercial contract with Philips for a revolutionary POC device that has no comparable competitor in the market place?
I could elaborate further but I've been typing this for too long so I'll just stop here for now.
(20min delay)