We have discussed the current POCT for troponin in here before,...

We have discussed the current POCT for troponin in here before, so no it is not something we've been turning a blind eye to.

Here are some aspects you may want to consider with regard to not just the meritas technology but other solutions, most notably the Abbott i-STAT. Consider:
- whether the existing solutions such as the one you just highlighted or the Abbott iSTAT is truly a POC solution. While the size of the devices is important, so are many other aspects, that govern how you can actually use it in the real world. e.g. The device needing to be placed on a stable flat surface for a set time for it to work. Have a look at other devices you've found, and think about whether there is scope for innovation.

- Aspects of how the chemistry needs to be prepared, stored and applied. Some examples of the storage options for AMG reagents on its website are:

Mix&Go™ Micro
AI-LMPN100-03.00
Storage: Shelf life at 20°C – 25°C is 3 years
Mix&Go can tolerate temperature conditions
from 4°C – 45°C and is not recommended to be
exposed to temperatures exceeding 60°C

Mix&Go™ Biosensor
AI-PLSC010-03.00
Storage: Shelf life at 20°C – 25°C is 2 years
Mix&Go can tolerate temperature conditions
from 4°C – 45°C and is not recommended to be
exposed to temperatures exceeding 60°C

see: http://anteotech.com/products/mixgo-reagents/

How does AMG stack up with existing tech such as the i-stat and meritas? How do the differences limit the use of each technology?

These are just some of the questions I asked myself when I was considering if what Philips was doing was worthwhile. I'm sure Philips isn't wasting millions of dollars on developing a clone of existing technology like the i-stat or meritas.

"Trinity the company behind the Merita POC only had revenues of 4 million usd last quarter." - If you think the revenues are small... think about why they might be small, what are the limitations that is stopping it from earning more? Perhaps it's not that the potential market is small, but that the market for the existing solution is small. There are a range of reasons.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the earliest mobile phones... but many companies could have easily said, "Well they've already invented the 'mobile' phone". No need for innovation there. Revenues are piddly, the supposed "market" for those 'mobile' phones are tiny."

I wonder why the market for these 'mobile' phones were tiny?

"Sorry, I've got to hang up and give my arm a rest 'cause I'm tired from using my 'mobile' phone for more than a minute."