Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
OCAST has nothing to do with OU.
Some say OU is and others say OU is not working with TDCP, Does anyone really have any proof one way or another?
What team at OU?
I agree regarding licensing. Some on the board seem to think Hakki currently has unrestricted use on the technology he worked to develop. TDCP would be foolish, IMO, to let it go. I wonder where he is doing his new research since the SRA and FUA was tied to TDCP.
I wonder what needs to happen for the rights to revert to OU.
I disagree about the patents. The university is the assignee of the 5 on CSPACE I have copies of in my file. I believe the latest (I do not have a copy) is 3DICON's not the individual inventors.
Although his company's website claims to have patents, I have not yet located any in the USPTO database; the search can be sensitive to use so they may be there just not locatable by the terms I am using.
What is the "next generation" that he is working on for his company? If he could not make this one work when employed at TDCP, it does not seem logical.
What contract with OK?
The SRA did not benefit OU. Unless this project succeeds the university has cost the OK taxpayer $$$s
Why do you think this is the case?
There is OCAST money left. Did TDCP overstate the budget requirements initially or can they just not meet the match? Hakki was the initial PI for the entire project; substitute PI has apparently been approved.
I disagree. I believe you are overstating the importance of OCAST grant. Researchers involved in the state are not all positive about the program and its selection process. I'd have more confidence with federal awards.
I believe that Schott's and other corporate interest is more significant than OCAST.
They are probably more deserving than many who are now receiving funds. At least they are not giving technology to foreign governments at this time.
Read the current OCAST OARS solicitation; it is not that different from past ones. It is important to read the federal solicitations to understand their limitations - and benefits - too. SOME, but NOT all, federal award grant indirect costs over and above direct costs based on the specifics of the award. (Based on what you'll learn, you'll likely be angry at researchers wasting our tax money.)
Not necessarily. It depends on the specifics of both awards. OK has rules about allowable expenses and the matching dollars. These depend on the type of organizations receiving the grant. All of the match cannot go to indirect costs due to the OCAST rules. The budget for the other grant must also be followed.
And the award was over 2 years so they would need to obtain approval if outside the original contract (I am not sure of the dates since often the first payment is often delayed and is not a good indicator of the start). I have seen notations that the extensions were granted but no way of knowing whether requests have been denied.
OCAST remaining as of 4/8/15 is $180,234. Last payment on 4/8/15 of $5,122. However, they must have funds for the match.
There are many ideas that have received OCAST funding that have gone nowhere. That award should not be the basis of your investment decisions. The committees and most of the board have vested interests in companies receiving past and current funding.
OCAST was $150K for each of 2 years. It can possibly extend the performance time as a no-cost extension. It requires proof of match to receive a payment. OpenbooksOK will allow you to track payments to TDCP.
Thanks for a great list. Do you have any idea of the specific solicitations?
Since a SRA is key to an STTR grant, I am puzzled why they would not leverage their supposed existing agreement to a greater extent. They may be planning on doing so or find that it conflicts with the other proposals. It is unclear how OU is involved in the other proposals.
If they previously considered it, that is a red flag for me. If they were successful, the foreign companies may have an ownership interest in the company from the older initiative.
Also, there is no reason why they could not apply for both STTR and SBIR.
There is not enough public information on the RFPs. There is also little info on OCAST which was a 2 year award; they have claimed less than 1/2 the award in about 80% of the time. There are apparently ways for it to be extended upon approval by OCAST.
OK ... TDCP is looking for Defense industry and DOD support and plans to have a relationship with China. The transfer of technology abroad is a serious issue. Management is touting the technology to be in the interest of national security; if so, why are they doing this?
This transfer is also contrary to the missions of OCAST and the STTR programs - economic development in OK and the US.
Entirely different ... I doubt the people making the recommendations know of the company's default on its SRA or have seen the latest 10-k and 10-q. They have funded other questionably imminently viable projects as well. They are making the decisions based on paper and not a demonstration of a product or invention.
I would put more trust in other corporate investments in a startup rather than government funded ones.
OCAST does not endorse companies.
There is always the next step, the next product, changes, ...
To lose the corporate memory in the technical development is significant going past this first release.
Actually, a little more than $180K is left of the original $300K. I wonder if they have been granted a change of PI since there was a recent payment although it may just be a delayed reimbursement request.
I wonder what the "real" story is about the departure. I cannot imagine that it was amicable; if so, why didn't HR continue as a "consultant". If there is a viable new technology, why would TDCP not be the one to pursue it? Inquiring minds ....
Hakki will not be doing it for the company even though it sponsored his research and paid him a generous salary for many years. How are the TDCP investors supposed to benefit?
Is this currently in effect? Who is now the PI?
Right to use and ownership of the patents themselves are different. It is misleading to those unfamiliar with the arrangement to use terminology interchangeably.
Some of the patents belong to OU.
The 2015 solicitation is available via the website link. Although it is not identical to earlier ones, the major points have not changed as far as I recall.
From the 2013 OCAST solicitation:
If a PI under an OARS contract becomes unable to perform the proposed research, the applicant organization must inform OCAST within 10 days. The contractor shall inform OCAST within 10 days of the occurrence of any of the following:
1. The official notification of resignation by the principal investigator or co-investigator as an employee of one of the parties to the contract.
2. The official decision to terminate the principal investigator or co-investigator as an employee of one of the parties to the contract.
3. Inability of the principal investigator or co-investigator to perform the research due to disability or other condition(s).
4. Any occurrence which the contractor or agent determines will affect the successful completion of the research project.
5. The majority of the research is not performed in Oklahoma.
6. Receipt of notification of award of concurrent funding by the principal investigator or co-investigator, which is not part of the approved matching monies requirement, to support any portion(s) of the research which is supported by OCAST funds.
Any of the conditions in Items 1-6 above may result in the termination of the contract at the discretion of OCAST. If the PI is subsequently employed by another eligible applicant organization in the state of Oklahoma that agrees to support the research project, OCAST may consider issuing a new contract negotiated between OCAST and the new organization. If a PI cannot perform on a contract, the applicant organization may request that OCAST consider continuing the contract with a new PI.
Again, the possibility is award specific. Keep an eye on the announcements and read the details of the solicitations.
Depending on the award specifics, the grant can be cancelled if the PI leaves the organization if the granting organization does not agree to the substitution. The employment agreement does not dictate terms to the funding agency. Obviously, TDCP can pursue whatever remedies they choose in the event of a breech of their contract.
Look at the OCAST OARS solicitation. Look at the terms of the DOD SBIRs; since it is not known which solicitation resulted in the proposal, this is just a typical one targeting small businesses. Look at the PI employment requirements on this one.
While it is hoped the departure would not adversely affect the pending proposals, remember Murphy was an optimist.
It isn't who signed the proposals on behalf of the organization but whose credentials were used as PI.
Do you all not understand the importance of the PI in a grant proposal? It depends on the specifics of the awards, but the PI may be able to take the award to his new organization. Some allow substitution for a new PI in the original organization. There is not enough public information on the outstanding proposals to know the potential effects of Refai's departure on existing or pending grants.
Actual provisions depend on contract. This is obscure provision the possible effects did not occur to me until last night. Typical for faculty changing universities to take current funding. Unlikely to be known except by person creating proposal.
Interesting points in linked post many of which are reasonable; however other organizations can be very significant to TDCP ...
From OARS solicitation:
If a PI under an OARS contract becomes unable to perform the proposed research, the applicant organization must inform OCAST within 10 days. The contractor shall inform OCAST within 10 days of the occurrence of any of the following:
1. The official notification of resignation by the principal investigator or co-investigator as an employee of one of the parties to the contract.
2. The official decision to terminate the principal investigator or co-investigator as an employee of one of the parties to the contract.
3. Inability of the principal investigator or co-investigator to perform the research due to disability or other condition(s).
4. Any occurrence which the contractor or agent determines will affect the successful completion of the research project.
5. The majority of the research is not performed in Oklahoma.
6. Receipt of notification of award of concurrent funding by the principal investigator or co-
investigator, which is not part of the approved matching monies requirement, to support any portion(s) of the research which is supported by OCAST funds.
Any of the conditions in Items 1-6 above may result in the termination of the contract at the discretion of OCAST. If the PI is subsequently employed by another eligible applicant organization in the state of Oklahoma that agrees to support the research project, OCAST may consider issuing a new contract negotiated between OCAST and the new organization. If a PI cannot perform on a contract, the applicant organization may request that OCAST consider continuing the contract with a new PI.
My agenda is to invest in OK economic development in the technology area. TDCP is a publicly traded company with an interesting technology with that potential. I have a small number of $$ to invest and was looking for an opportunity to benefit my state as well as myself. As a novice investor, I am going to research until I am comfortable. Since my experience with financial advisers has been generally bad, I am a cautious skeptic. I have learned more from you all than any of them.
Since there are so many issues with this company and its relationships that are outside my comfort zone and my experiences while employed in companies of various sizes, I am going elsewhere. I am sure that OCAST newletters, etc. can point me to companies willing to take my $$ - or I can just stick with local development bonds for less risk and lower rewards.
This has been a learning experience. I wish them well because last I saw, OU was a major shareholder and higher ed needs all the $$ it can get.